Based upon what has been posted, it is possible that the original poster has a "sudden emergency" defense. Typically this doctrine is used in civil cases with regards to negligence but some lawyers insist that it can be applied to the criminal liability of speeding violations as well. I don't know too much about this defense in particular however here is some info:
Legal Justification
"Legal justification" defenses generally available when the driver is charged with speeding include: (1) when a driver's speeding was caused by the actions of the police or other law enforcement officers, (2) self-defense and the defense of others, (3) coercion, (4) necessity and (5) entrapment.
For example, a motorist's claim that he exceeded the speed limit to get away from a police car that was being driven in a wild and erratic manner, causing him to fear a physical confrontation with the officer-driver, can be sufficient to avoid a conviction for speeding.
Speeding in response to an emergency that was caused by the actions of someone or something other than the police can be a valid defense to a speeding charge.
A motorist can raise this "sudden emergency doctrine" only when the alleged emergency made it impossible to comply with the speeding statute or ordinance. But, if the emergency could have been avoided by the driver slowing his or her vehicle, there is no excuse or justification for the speeding.
Examples:
When a driver accelerates quickly and exceeds the speed limit as the only way to avoid a rear-end collision with a car that suddenly slows down in front of him, the excessive speed might be justifiable.
However, in the same situation, the speeding will not be justified if it can be shown that the driver could have avoided the collision by slowing his car.
The OP said he was worried about getting run over by the car behind him.
The events as described leave no room for an imaginary sudden emergency situation.
Maybe the car behind him was threatening him in some way. Maybe he was driving erratically, dangerously and the OP had valid reason to believe the driver was intocxiacted with impaired judgement. Maybe his brakes were making an extremely loud screeching noise. Maybe he had his head out of the car screaming "My brakes are out!" Maybe he was honking his horn repeatedly in distress. Maybe the OP saw some thing or some indication that the driver of the vehicle behind him was in panic and or distressed. All of these fit within and coincide with what has been written. There's definitely room for them.
If the OP fails to show that slowing down was not an option, I agree, this defense will likely fall apart. However if the circumstances (which we only know what has been posted) were such that slowing down was not an option, and the OP proves this to the court, a sudden emergency defense could apply.
There's also the other issue of using radar on a crowded interstate. Radar technology is unable to pin point what object it is measuring the speed of, it is just able to measure the speed of a object. You may be able to challenge the reliability that the officer did in fact measure your speed and not another vehcile's. David Brown's book as info on this. That being said, if you admitted that you were speeding to the officer this defense will likely not work.
Quote:
Legal Justification
"Legal justification" defenses generally available when the driver is charged with speeding include: (1) when a driver's speeding was caused by the actions of the police or other law enforcement officers, (2) self-defense and the defense of others, (3) coercion, (4) necessity and (5) entrapment.
For example, a motorist's claim that he exceeded the speed limit to get away from a police car that was being driven in a wild and erratic manner, causing him to fear a physical confrontation with the officer-driver, can be sufficient to avoid a conviction for speeding.
Speeding in response to an emergency that was caused by the actions of someone or something other than the police can be a valid defense to a speeding charge.
A motorist can raise this "sudden emergency doctrine" only when the alleged emergency made it impossible to comply with the speeding statute or ordinance. But, if the emergency could have been avoided by the driver slowing his or her vehicle, there is no excuse or justification for the speeding.
Examples:
When a driver accelerates quickly and exceeds the speed limit as the only way to avoid a rear-end collision with a car that suddenly slows down in front of him, the excessive speed might be justifiable.
However, in the same situation, the speeding will not be justified if it can be shown that the driver could have avoided the collision by slowing his car.
Quote:
The events as described leave no room for an imaginary sudden emergency situation.
If the OP fails to show that slowing down was not an option, I agree, this defense will likely fall apart. However if the circumstances (which we only know what has been posted) were such that slowing down was not an option, and the OP proves this to the court, a sudden emergency defense could apply.
There's also the other issue of using radar on a crowded interstate. Radar technology is unable to pin point what object it is measuring the speed of, it is just able to measure the speed of a object. You may be able to challenge the reliability that the officer did in fact measure your speed and not another vehcile's. David Brown's book as info on this. That being said, if you admitted that you were speeding to the officer this defense will likely not work.
Is Worrying About Being Hit From Behind a Sudden Emergency
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire