I was pulled over for racing, "Speed Contest: 23109(a)" in the beginning of august. The officer told me i was going to get a letter in the mail about what my penalties are going to be. So i got the letter around a week ago and the DMV says they are going to "revoke" my license sometime this week. There are two things wrong with this:
1) PLEASE correct me if i am wrong but shouldnt I only get my license suspened (not revoked)
2) I havent even gone to trial for this (its on 10/16)...meaning no conviction...can they do that?
2006-09-23 21:02:19 · 11 answers · asked by Jm 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
A) I was pulled over in San Diego
B) Of course i signed the ticket...Ii have it in front of me. It says: "Without admitting guilt, I Promise to appear at the time and place indicated below"
When: 10/16/06
Time: 8:00 am
So if you do the math....i have 22 days left to appear.
2006-09-23 21:12:50 · update #1
Who gets to decide if i am fit to drive or not? Is it the officer? What do they base it off of? The conditions i was driving in...? Ok here they are
first off I was driving a MINI VAN!
Weather: Clear
Road: Dry
Traffic: Light
2006-09-23 21:27:26 · update #2
Did you make an admission by signing the ticket or by forfeiting bail or did you fail to appear for trial? You say that there is a trial set for 10/16.
You didn't say what state this is, but it must be California: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23109.htm
The DMV could revoke or suspend a license administratively if it deems you are unfit to drive. But you are entitled to a hearing. Ask for one.
You may need to hire a specialist lawyer who knows how to fight DMV cases. If your license is important to you this is not a Do It Yourself project.
2006-09-23 21:05:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
First off people, no one has the RIGHT to drive in this country. Driving is a privilige that you have to earn (You took a test to get your license), that is regulated, and that can be taken away without anywhere near as much "Due Process" involved as when a RIGHT is removed. I have never seen anything in any Constituation (U.S. or state) that mentions anything about a RIGHT to drive.
You don't have a court date yet. When you signed that ticket, you promised to appear, on or before the 16th, and answer the charges (plead guilty or not guilty). If you plead not guilty, THEN a court date will be set. That's when you can give the Judge one of those looks and beg the question: "A Speed Contest in a MINI VAN?!" In order for there to be a speed contest, there has to be someone else involved. What was this person driving? Were they cited as well? This could all work in your favor.
The DMV is erring on the side of public safety. You got accused of racing so they take away your privilege. That is an administrative ruling and you should have the RIGHT to appeal it and have an administrative hearing to have your privilege restored until the case is ajudicated. Revocation sounds a little severe to me at this point. Is there anything else on your drivng record that when added to this latest accusation would warrant this action?
2006-09-24 01:12:45 · answer #2 · answered by APRock 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If we are talking about a first offense charge, then I am absolutely against the idea. The reason is that anybody can get arrested for DUI. Here is a scenario for you: You go out to dinner with your friends or family and at dinner you decide to have two or three beers or drinks with dinner. You feel fine and decide to drive home. On your way home you make an illegal lane change or something to that affect. An officer was following you and initiates a stop. The officer smells alcohol on your breath. He asks you if you have been drinking tonight and you of course say I had a couple of drinks at dinner. This now starts the DUI ball rolling. By the time it is all said and done you end up being arrested on a first offense DUI charge. As you see a first offense DUI charge can happen to anyone. And believe it or not, 65% of the DUI arrests in this country each year are for first offense DUI. As far as the fine amounts, I am in favor of raising the fine amounts for first offenders. I feel that if you make the penalties stiff enough they are less likely to repeat the offense. As far as the permanent license revocation, I believe it is a valid option for repeat or habitual offenders. When you think about it a permanent revocation doesn't actually prevent someone from driving. It only prevents them from driving legally. Think about it.
2016-03-27 06:05:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm no lawyer but I believe that your right to drive could be considered a property right under the due process clause of the Constitution (as are government jobs) and if that were the case they couldn't take away your right to drive without some sort of process, e.g. administrative hearing/trial, in any case, you are certainly entitled to appeal the decision in court. Usually signing the ticket only indicates that you will appear before a court, and is certainly not an admission of guilt.
2006-09-24 09:33:53 · answer #4 · answered by Jamie 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you mean for example. You get a wreckless driving and are going to court fighting it, no. The DMV can revoke or suspend your license for a number of reasons, but they can't legally do these suspensions or revocations until you have been convicted.
2006-09-23 21:08:54 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Know 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes , they can, according to the constitution you are supposed to be able to have legal representation before you can be interrogated, however the supreme courts of most states have ruled that electronic interrogation is not interrogation and you can have your license suspended for not taking an alcohol or drug test without an attorney present , as well as many other rights that have been stepped on by our USA dictatorship
2006-09-23 21:38:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Get 3 speeding tickets and see what happens!
2006-09-23 21:07:38 · answer #7 · answered by mrcricket1932 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
your ticket will have on it what the over speed was, and it is this % that they look at, I think it was 37mph over the speed limit that the charge change to really bad stuff like reckless driving and you could have a speed classification that is leveraging out of your privileges for endangerment
2006-09-23 22:40:12 · answer #8 · answered by bev 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Someone else said it, But please someone show me where it says you have the right to drive, what part of the Constitution is it in?? Its a privilege
2006-09-24 01:28:50 · answer #9 · answered by Duhh 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
how old are you ? how many other tickets and/or points have you gotten ?
2006-09-23 21:41:04 · answer #10 · answered by andy3191 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋