Wrong ordinance cited on my citation...

[pleasehelpmeout]

*Oregon*

I recented was given a citation for tailgating (which I didn't even know was against the law, but that's another matter). On the citation, the officer wrote "Follow too close" in the CHARGE box, and "811.285" in the VIOLATED (CITE ORS/ORD RULE) box.

I looked up what 811.285 was, and this is the exact text of the ordinance.

811.285. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a
merging driver to yield the right of way if the person is
operating a vehicle that is entering a freeway or other arterial
highway where an acceleration or merging lane is provided for the
operator's use and the operator does not look out for and give
right of way to vehicles on the freeway or other arterial
highway.
(2) The offense described in this section, failure of a merging
driver to yield the right of way, is a Class { - C - }
{ + B + } traffic infraction.

I don't see how failure to yield right of way had anything to do with why I was given a citation, but does this give me a reason to ask for the citation to be revoked? If so, who/when/where would I ask for it to be revoked?

 

[Happy Trails]

*Oregon*

I recented was given a citation for tailgating (which I didn't even know was against the law, but that's another matter). On the citation, the officer wrote "Follow too close" in the CHARGE box, and "811.285" in the VIOLATED (CITE ORS/ORD RULE) box.

I looked up what 811.285 was, and this is the exact text of the ordinance.

I don't see how failure to yield right of way had anything to do with why I was given a citation, but does this give me a reason to ask for the citation to be revoked? If so, who/when/where would I ask for it to be revoked?

Yes, it should have been 811.485. Whether or not it is grounds to have it dismissed? I have no idea. It's possible they may be able to amend the ticket with the right citation code.

811.485 Following too closely; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of following too closely if the person does any of the following:

(a) Drives a vehicle so as to follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon, and condition of, the highway.

(b) Drives a truck, commercial bus or motor vehicle drawing another vehicle when traveling upon a roadway outside of a business or residence district or upon a freeway within the corporate limits of a city and follows another truck, commercial bus or motor vehicle drawing another vehicle without, when conditions permit, leaving sufficient space so that an overtaking vehicle may enter and occupy the space without danger. This paragraph does not prevent a truck, commercial bus or motor vehicle drawing another vehicle from overtaking and passing a vehicle or combination of vehicles.

(c) Drives a vehicle when traveling upon a roadway outside of a business or residence district or upon a freeway within the corporate limits of a city in a caravan or motorcade whether or not towing another vehicle without operating the vehicle so as to leave sufficient space between vehicles to enable a vehicle to enter and occupy the space without danger.

(2) This section does not apply in the case of a funeral procession. Except for the funeral lead vehicle, vehicles participating in a funeral procession shall follow the preceding vehicle as closely as is reasonable and safe.

(3) The offense described in this section, following too closely, is a Class B traffic violation

 

[pleasehelpmeout]

Ah, I was wondering what ordinance it should have been, thanks!

Anyone else have any idea whether this would be grounds for the citation to be revoked?

 

[JIMinCA]

Of course it is a legitimate defense. Just don't say anything about it. Plead not guilty and at trial, you can have the officer read the code that you were charged with violating. Then, simply ask, "was I merging from an on-ramp"? I think your point will be obvious.

Contrary to what many may say, the cop cannot change the violation at the court. It would be the equivilant of you being charged for drug possession, then at your trial the prosecutions changes the charge to armed robbery. Even if you were committing armed robbery, you are not guilty of drug possession and that is what you are on trial for.

Good luck. Tell us how it works out.

 

[pleasehelpmeout]

He did write "follow too close" in the CHARGE box though, so that wouldn't count as charge enough? Just want to be sure before I go to court and it all backfires on me...

Also, could this be settled outside of the courtroom? I'd really rather not go to court if at all possible, as I'm not a good speaker under pressure. Do you think I'd have just as good a chance of getting it revoked if I wrote in and plead not guilty?

Thanks for the help!

 

[pleasehelpmeout]

I guess another question I have is this: If I plead not guilty, would that be pleading not guilty to what is written in the ORD/ORS box, or pleading not guilty to what is written in the CHARGE box, or both?

 

[pleasehelpmeout]

Anybody?

 

[Zigner]

The actual code is what is used against you - the written words are there to summarize the code section you are charged with.
I'll go out on a limb and say that, even if the written description of the code is not there (following too close), the code section cited would be sufficient to move forward on the ticket.

I have to agree with Jim in this case...you are probably in good shape when it comes "beating" this one...

PS: The excuse of "I didn't know tailgating was against the law" won't fly in court...you're just lucky that it shouldn't even come up in the first place

 

[pleasehelpmeout]

The actual code is what is used against you - the written words are there to summarize the code section you are charged with.
I'll go out on a limb and say that, even if the written description of the code is not there (following too close), the code section cited would be sufficient to move forward on the ticket.

I have to agree with Jim in this case...you are probably in good shape when it comes "beating" this one...

PS: The excuse of "I didn't know tailgating was against the law" won't fly in court...you're just lucky that it shouldn't even come up in the first place

Ok, that's very helpful too, thanks! I'm just shaking in my boots to appear in a courtroom, but oh well. Gotta face it.

Oh, and I definitely wasn't going to use "I didn't know it was illegal" in court regardless, don't worry. I'm using that as my personal justification for trying to get around this in the first place.