Hi i am a 17 year old driver and i just got a reckless driving ticket on 7100/fairfax county parkway. The cop never clocked my speed, but he said i was driving fast to try to evade him so he gave me a reckless charge. Since he didn't clock me i think i have a good chance of beating the case. Unfortunately, my family and i don't have the money for an expensive lawyer, so i was wondering if anyone knew of a good lawyer at a good value that could help me. I can't afford to have my license taken away because i need to drive to work, school, etc. so any help would be greatly appreciated.

Go fuck yourself.

Well, it's been my experience in a Fairfax County Traffic Courtroom that you'll probably lose your license for a good 30 days, because I've witness judges simply take the cop's word for the scene.

But it kind of helps to have a little more information, like what he exactly charged you with

sanghoon93 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The cop never clocked my speed, but he
> said i was driving fast to try to evade him so he
> gave me a reckless charge.





If this was the case you would have been charged with attempted eluding, not reckless driving.

BoxCutter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go fuck yourself.

lmao

You can get a public defender for free, (if you and/or parents qualify financially) for reckless driving since it is a misdemeanor with the possibility of jail time.

Under what section were you charged? If it's 46.2-852, which is the "Catch All" of Reckless Driving, than your chances may not be so good.

I doubt that you will have your licesnse taken away, but there may be some stiff fines if you are convicted.

I doubt you need a good lawyer to defend you in this type of case, and if you shop around, you may find someone who can do this for less than a grand. If were to attempt to argue this case Pro Se, I would get him to admit that the charge was based of your speedm and then I would request to see the officers calibration records for his spedometer, or what ever instrument he used to verify your speed.

I know in the case of RADAR they must prove that the instrument was calibrated, and if it has not been over a certain duration of time, I have seen the charges dismissed.

Sorry for the poor grammar in my previous post. Its late and I am a little tired.

Here is a copy of 46.2-852:

§ 46.2-852. Reckless driving; general rule - Irrespective of the maximum speeds permitted by law, any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving.

You don't need a lawyer. Dress really nicely, make sure BOTH of your parents are there (for support; judges like to see an interest from the family). Plead guilty and apologize for speeding and plead your case(how you were knowingly speeding but speed was unknown because no radar gun) for why you made a mistake and need your license for school, extracirricular activities, church, whatever. If you get a nice judge you'll receive a suspended sentence (meaning it will go away if you do not receive another ticket within the year). Hopefully you didn't argue when you were pulled over or made a huge fuss, because the officer will be certain to remember. Good luck, and sloooow down! Fines are about to go waaaay up!

For reckless driving, speed is not always a factor.

You're lucky you're still a juvenile.

Chances are you're going to have to take a driver's ed course and be ticket free for 6 months and they'll end up dismissing the ticket.

TrickDick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under what section were you charged? If it's
> 46.2-852, which is the "Catch All" of Reckless
> Driving, than your chances may not be so good.
>
> I doubt that you will have your licesnse taken
> away, but there may be some stiff fines if you are
> convicted.
>
> I doubt you need a good lawyer to defend you in
> this type of case, and if you shop around, you may
> find someone who can do this for less than a
> grand. If were to attempt to argue this case Pro
> Se, I would get him to admit that the charge was
> based of your speedm and then I would request to
> see the officers calibration records for his
> spedometer, or what ever instrument he used to
> verify your speed.
>
> I know in the case of RADAR they must prove that
> the instrument was calibrated, and if it has not
> been over a certain duration of time, I have seen
> the charges dismissed.


My charge was the 462-852. I've looked around and a lot of people actually beat these kinds of charges because of the lack of proof. How exactly do i go about getting a public defender?

Call Kevin Wright

Does a good job on traffic

703-267-2600

You're lucky you're still a juvenile.

Chances are you're going to have to take a driver's ed course and be ticket free for 6 months and they'll end up dismissing the ticket.



I would have to disagree with this...The fact that you are a juvenile with limited driving experience means the judge is more likely to go hard on you...of course it depends on the circumstances...if you were doing straight speed that is one thing...but something tells me you were doing more than that ie. cutting in and out of traffic maybe...i am only assuming this since you were charged with reckless general and not reckless by speed...bottom line is you need to slow down and have respect for others on the road...your actions were obviously out of line and im sure the judge will see it as such...get a lawyer and be prepared to take a nice and long driver improvement course...be safe on the road!

sanghoon93 Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
>How exactly
> do i go about getting a public defender?



If you try to defend yourself in this case you will lose and you will pay a big fine and you will loose your license. I am not a lawyer, but I can almost tell you for sure that is what is going to happen. The cops have all their calibration records in order or whatever defense you could possibly think of using. The police spend alot more time in court rooms then you do, they dont nessicarily know what they are doing. But they know alot more than you and they are prepared.

As for a public defender. If you / your parents truly cannot afford an attorney. which would probably cost about $500-1,000 for something like this than you could possibly qualify for a public defender since jail time is in the picture, but rarely used in misdemeanor reckless driving. Qualifying for a public defender is based on you / your parents income.

You have a court date on your ticket. When you go in for that first court date your name will be called by the judge. The judge will most likely explain the severity of a reckless driving offense and ask if you will be getting an attorney or if you need a public defender. Ask for the public defender and judge will go on to explain more.

If judge does not explain that you may go to jail for this charge and does not ask you about an attorney (I highly doubt he/she wont ask) and goes straight to "how do you plead?" Say that you need an attorney and that you would like your case to be continued. Ask how to get a public defender.

Like I said. I'm no lawyer. Just been there several times.
I can almost guarantee you may lose without legal help.

GOOD LUCK TO YOU

I just went to the licencing ceremony in Loudoun, the judge that does the traffic docket for minors said she just had a kid who was going 92 on the toll road, she gave him a fine, community service, and 3 day suspended in juvenile hall. She said the parents didn't punish the driver, so tell the judge your parents took your licence, and i'd get a lawyer as well/

somepeople Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sanghoon93 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> If you try to defend yourself in this case you
> will lose and you will pay a big fine and you will
> loose your license. I am not a lawyer, but I can
> almost tell you for sure that is what is going to
> happen. The cops have all their calibration
> records in order or whatever defense you could
> possibly think of using.

If what you have described about the case is true, and the FCPD claimed they were unable to exactly determine you speed, then I don't think they will have valid calibration records on the device used to determine your speed. The way you made it sound, it seems to me the police officer was basing your speed by utilizing his speedometer, and not RADAR. If this is indeed the case, then he would have NO valid calibration records for his speedometer (or at least nothing a judge would except if speed were to be challenged).

Now, if this officer observed you driving "erratically" and speeding, then he probably has a pretty good case for § 46.2-852. I am not sure what the officer told you when he pulled you over, but if he mentioned other infractions besides speed then this is what I would recommend, considering your age.

I would go to court, and see if you cannot talk to the prosecutor. Tell him you made an honest mistake, and would like the charges dropped to simple speeding. If the prosecutor is unwilling to broker a deal, then I would appear before the judge, and advise him that you need more time to hire legal counsel.

Considering the gravity of the charge, I sincerely doubt the judge would attempt to try the case without legal counsel present in this event, unless you waive this right.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sanghoon93 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The cop never clocked my speed, but he
> > said i was driving fast to try to evade him so
> he
> > gave me a reckless charge.
>
>
>
>
>
> If this was the case you would have been charged
> with attempted eluding, not reckless driving.


He's also very lucky if that's the case, because the former would be a massive fail in court. I'd say the cop was being fairly nice if he actually downgraded the charge, especially from something like that.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd
> say the cop was being fairly nice if he actually
> downgraded the charge, especially from something
> like that.


Actually, reckless driving is a Class 1 misdemeanor while attempted eluding is a Class 3. You can get worse punishment for the reckless. Go figure.

Blessed are the murderous.

well trickydick...you happen to be wrong on a couple things...if the cop got him from his speedometer he can prove the speed...it is called a ''pace''...i had seen in court, officers show calibrations to their speedometers which apparently are updated every 6 months...and it is allowed by the judge...second there will not be a prosecutor for juvenilde court UNLESS the defendant has an attorney...if he shows up with just himself and maybe his parents the commonwealth will be represented by the cop...dont post shit you know nothing about

UMM - Did you read his post??? He was unable to determine the speed, thus this is why the original poster was confused. Clocking does not always mean RADAR,or LIDAR. It appears he did not "pace" either, or he would have had an exact speed to report.

Oh and by the way, he is going to Traffic Court at the general district, maybe you should visit down there and learn how it really works.

I just spoke to a Fairfax County detective with regard to speedometer calibration. He claims they used calibrate the speedometer every six months, but that stopped after Commonwealth V. Taylor

It was ruled in Commonwealth V. Taylor, that code section § 46.2-882 did not pertain to speedometer, thus they simply stopped doing it. Now, I have seen RADAR calibration certificates in court, and I have seen some which were successfully challenged, but I have never seen speedometer calibration certificates.

Can someone else please verify?

I was stopped at a green light in the Bronx, NY. There were lots of people crossing the intersection (coming out from Yankee Stadium). When the green light came on, I drove slowly, crossing the intersection at about 10-15 miles or perhaps less. Out of the blue, this police car went behind me and made me stop. He said if I had not seen the sign he made me with his hand to stop. I didnt see him anywhere. I asked him what offense had I commited. He said not having seen his sign stop with his hand. He gave me a ticket for "reckless driving" and all I had to do was pay the fine, no points in my license. He told me that I had not committed any other violation but failing to obey his hand made stop sign. I found that fishy. How can I see a stop sign made with the hand if the officer was not directing traffic in the middle of the intersection where so many people were crossing? He was not on my sight field at all. Am I supposed to look for a police officer's signs if he is not in front of me, maybe far away from me? Even to this day, I have not been able to know where that police officer was standing, but for certain not in front of me. I pleaded not guilty in Court. Now I have to go to trial on September 4, 2012. Could you help me to defend myself in Court? Thank you.

Miguel and the OP, BoxCutter had it right from the start:

Go fuck yourself.

For a more detailed explanation of what you need to do, Juxtaposition and slowdown above have given the most solid advice.

The OP seems to know he was a fucknut for the way he was driving, Miguel has no clue he is a fucknut.

Most traffic courts are kangaroo courts that rubber stamp the initial citation. This is a major form of revenue for the community-- collecting fines from idiots who recklessly endanger the public on the roads. If you have ever been to a traffic court proceeding you will see the assembly line approach to how business is done. The judge has heard all the asinine arguments before and is deaf to them. As others have said, he or she is most likely to side with the officer.

If this is your first offense, you might get a lighter sentence if you plead guilty and apologize to the court. If you can afford it, get a lawyer who will usually negotiate and do this for you. If there is potential for getting jail time or losing your license, you really need to get a lawyer. Chances are you will not get the charges dropped or dismissed, but you might get them reduced or at least get the minimum.

If you know that what you have done was wrong, the cop knows it too and you will get nowhere trying to fight the charge. In fact, if you get a shitty lawyer or try to make the arguments yourself, you are likely to piss off the judge and get the maximum.

Miguel, this is a Fairfax County, Virginia message board. I doubt anyone here would be able to help you with your Bronx, NY ticket, or want to. Get a lawyer.

First, take a state approved driver improvement class BEFORE your court date, and bring the certificate to court with you. If you do this voluntarily, you get 5 bonus points added to your record. If the court makes you do it, you get none. It also shows that you take your offense seriously. Second, have your parents restrict your non-essential driving until court. Again, shows you/they take this seriously. Third, as others have said, dress nicely, take your parents with you, be remorseful, shake the officer's hand before you enter the courtroom etc.

If you can possibly afford a lawyer, it is a good invesment. My son used Alex Gordon, charge was about $800. Got his reckless in a parking lot reduced to failure to pay time and attention, no points, $250; then the judge suspended for 6 months. Was completely erased from his record. You do not want to have this hanging over your head for the next 11 years! I beleive this is a huge racket in VA, but it is what it is, so deal with it the best way you can. Good luck.

@trickydicky, im a cop in nova, and im not sure where you really got your information from, but its wrong. here is the case law, and i will explain it in more simple terms.

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA







Present: Judges Clements, Agee[1] and Felton



Argued at Richmond, Virginia
Record No. 1511-02-2



CHRISTOPHER T. TAYLOR







v.







COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA



MEMORANDUM OPINION[2] BY JUDGE G. STEVEN AGEE
MARCH 25, 2003





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEW KENT COUNTY

Thomas B. Hoover, Judge




J. Terry Osborne for appellant.

Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.




Christopher T. Taylor (“Taylor”) was convicted in a bench trial of reckless driving in the Circuit Court of New Kent County. He was sentenced to sixty days in jail and a $1,000 fine. On appeal, Taylor asserts that (1) the certificate of calibration was improperly admitted into evidence, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that the offense occurred in New Kent County or that he was speeding. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the trial court.[3]


I. ANALYSIS

A. Admissibility of the Calibration Certificate

Taylor argues on appeal that the trial court erred by admitting the calibration certificate of Alcohol Beverage Control Agent Bellows’ vehicle into evidence. He asserts that Code ??46.2-882 and our decision in Gray v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 663, 446 S.E.2d 480 (1994), establish a requirement that calibration of a police vehicle’s speedometer be within six months prior to the offense date. We disagree.

Code ??46.2-942 provides that “the court shall receive as evidence a sworn report of the results of a calibration test of the accuracy of the speedometer in the motor vehicle operated by the defendant or the arresting officer at the time of the alleged offense.”


Under basic rules of statutory construction, we examine a statute in its entirety, rather than by isolating particular words or phrases. When the language in a statute is clear and unambiguous, we are bound by the plain meaning of that language. We must determine the General Assembly’s intent from the words appearing in the statute, unless a literal construction of the statute would yield an absurd result.


Cummings v. Fulghum, 261 Va. 73, 77, 540 S.E.2d 494, 496 (2001) (internal citations omitted); Peacock v. Browning Ferris, Inc., 38 Va. App. 241, 249, 563 S.E.2d 368, 372 (2002).

The plain language of the statute requires admission into evidence of the certificate of calibration. Nothing in the statute requires that the calibration be on the date of the offense, only that it be of the car used on the offense date. The phrase “at the time of the alleged offense” modifies “motor vehicle” so as to specify the car to be calibrated. There is no language in the statute requiring that a calibration be performed within a specified time period or whether the calibration be before or after the offense date.

Taylor asserts that the time limit for calibrations in Code ??46.2-882 also applies to speedometers under Code ??46.2-942. He points to that part of Code ??46.2-882 that provides “[n]o calibration or testing of such device shall be valid for longer than six months.” (Emphasis added). However, it is clear by the plain language of the statute that the term “such device” refers only to any “laser speed determination device, radar, or microcomputer device as described in this section,” not vehicle speedometers. Code ??46.2-882. The General Assembly, as Code ??46.2-882 illustrates, can place an evidentiary limit on specific speed testing devices, but has clearly chosen not to do so with regard to speedometer calibrations.

“‘Courts are not permitted to rewrite statutes. This is a legislative function.’” Barr v. Town & Country Properties, Inc., 240 Va. 292, 295, 396 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1990) (quoting Anderson v. Commonwealth, 182 Va. 560, 566, 29 S.E.2d 838, 841 (1944)). If the General Assembly wishes to impose a six-month requirement on the calibration of speedometers, it could do so, but clearly has not. Furthermore, as Gray involved the accuracy of a radar device specified in Code ??46.2-882, that case has no application to the case at bar. The time span between the offense date and the calibration date goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Williams v. Commonwealth, 5 Va. App. 514, 519, 365 S.E.2d 340, 343 (1988).

Accordingly, we find no error in the admission into evidence of the speedometer calibration of Agent Bellows’ car.

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Taylor asserts that the evidence was insufficient for the trial court to find that the offense was committed in New Kent County and, thus, venue was improper. We disagree.

When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal in a criminal case, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Higginbotham v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). On review, this Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact. See Cable v. Commonwealth, 243 Va. 236, 239, 415 S.E.2d 218, 220 (1992). The trial court’s judgment will not be set aside unless it appears that the judgment is plainly wrong or without supporting evidence. See Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987).

The trial court found that the offense occurred in New Kent County. Agent Bellows testified that he paced Taylor’s vehicle “at a speed of 105 m.p.h. in a posted 65 m.p.h. zone for approximately one mile within New Kent County .?.?.?.” There is evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that the offense occurred in New Kent County and that venue was therefore proper.

Taylor also alleges that the evidence was insufficient to show how fast he was travelling. The speed of Taylor’s car was a determination for the trier of fact. As we previously resolved, the trial court properly admitted the calibration certificate into evidence. The results of the calibration, combined with Agent Bellows’ testimony, were sufficient to prove Taylor’s speed. Furthermore, the trial court clearly considered the 2 m.p.h. variance in the calibration results by finding Taylor guilty of driving 103 m.p.h. in a 65 m.p.h. zone.

II. CONCLUSION

The trial court properly admitted the calibration certificate pursuant to Code ??46.2-942, and the evidence was sufficient to support Taylor’s conviction. Finding no error in the decision of the trial court, its judgment and Taylor’s conviction are affirmed.

Affirmed.


Is what this whole lawyer talk means, is that the cruiser calibrations must be filed with the court and must be calibrated every six months. when a cruiser calibration in done, a copy is put on file with the courthouse of that officers jurisdiction, and the agency keeps a copy for officers to bring to court. all patrol cruisers in my agency are calibrated prior to the 6 month expiration, so there is no lapse or question wether is was done or not.

SIMPLETON PUNK ASS! SIMPLY GROW UP AND LEARN HOW TO DRIVE.

WITH THE FACTS GIVEN, SOUNDS LIKE THE POLICEMAN GAVE YOU A HUGE, VERY COMPASSIONATE BREAK.

SHOULD HAVE FULLY CHARGED YOU WITH RUNNING AWAY FROM/EVADING A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND LOCKED YOU UP UNTIL THE COURT DATE.

SO SHUT THE FUCK UP, TAKE YOUR WELL DESERVED PUNISHMENT.

AND TAKE THE BUS OR WALK, PUNK.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE AN AUTO OR LICENSE TO WORK. PUNK.

THE ONLY SOLUTION HERE TO YOUR PROBLEM IS YOU REALLY NEED TO GET A BRAIN, GROW UP, SHUT UP AND LEARN HOW TO DRIVE.

END OF REDUNDANT PROBLEM PRESENTED HERE ON THIS THREAD. PUNK ASS.

YEAH! PUNK!

ofc some hispanic from NY would bump a 2 year old post.

In my experience with them they are loud and obnoxious. The judge has probably seen many of your type, have fun, hope you go to jail.

Its 286 not 7100.

Well Andrew, this post is 2 years old. If you didn't know, it was 7100 2 years ago when OP made this thread.


You're a bright one, aren't you?

Wear your "OCCCUPY" t-shirt to court. Then stand silent with a raised fist and head bowed as "the man" attempts to stick it to you. Power brother.