On Dec 4, 7:42 am, tobe <ybotka...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> A friend of mine ...
> is an upstanding citizen, who never even speeds, much less anything else
> illegal.
Wanna bet? Not getting caught isn't the same thing as never doing it. As someone once said, we're ALL guilty of something. Fortunately, our adversary system, unlike the inquisitorial system popular in some other countries, requires the government to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before they can convict and punish you; it doesn't make the suspect prove his innocence. Otherwise, we'd all be at risk of being behind bars.
If you honestly believe you can find me a driver who NEVER speeds, not even 1 or 2 mph over the limit, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you. I've never met one. Or one who never tailgates, even inadvertently and for just a few seconds when someone cuts in front of him. Or who has never made a lane change and then noticed, "Hey, how did that other car get there? He almost hit me!" when in reality, the person changing lanes is the one who almost hit the guy who was already there. Etcetera ad nauseam; we all make mistakes. That doesn't mean we don't, most of us, TRY to stay within the traffic laws most of the time. And some of us succeed in not getting noticed by the police to the point of never getting a ticket from a live cop, which says as much for their ability to blend in with the crowd as it does for their strict compliance with the law.
But I digress; what we appear to be dealing with here is some form of AUTOMATED traffic enforcement, probably a speed radar camera installed alongside one of the highways your friend travels, which need not pick your friend out from the crowd around him; such tools are wonderful revenue enhancement devices that can catch hundreds of small-time offenders going just a few mph over the limit in the same amount of time a live cop would waste tracking down just 1 or 2 truly dangerous drivers going significantly faster than the flow of traffic. Lest I repeat myself, let me emphasize that AUTOMATED CAMERAS ARE DESIGNED AND INTENDED TO CATCH EXACTLY THE KIND OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD NEVER GET AN ORDINARY, LIVE TICKET for doing whatever they were doing.
Most people consider themselves "good drivers." In point of fact, probably most of them are, if by "good driver" one means "person who pretty much follows the rules". Whether most drivers are "good drivers" in the sense of actual driving skill, ability to control their car in extreme situations, etc., is a different kettle of fish. IMHO by that criterion most people are lousy drivers, because actual driving skill is not something that was ever taught to them when they were learning to drive, either by formal schooling (driver ed requires only a bare minimum skill level of actual car handling, and focuses on safety rule compliance), or by the less-than-stellar-driver relatives who taught them most of what they know, or by the hot-rod hoodlum friends who taught them the rest of what they think they know (usually the "go fast" part without the "how to keep the damn thing under safe control" part). There are schools that teach advanced driving techniques, such as how to safely handle a skid, how to safely maximize your cornering traction and recognize the signs of your limits of tire adhesion, and so on, but they are geared toward experienced adult car nuts and driving professionals. Only a tiny fraction of licensed drivers take such courses.
Anyway, I digress again. Even the rule-following kind of "good drivers" do go a LITTLE bit over the limit sometimes, and sometimes it is unsafe NOT to do so, if say, the rest of the vehicles on a crowded interstate highway with an unnaturally low 55 posted limit are doing 70 to 75 or more and you are the lone holdout trying to keep your speedometer below the magic "55", you are holding up traffic and creating a bunching hazard. Someone who is truly trying to be a "safe" good driver and not just being anal retentive will not do that, but will adjust his speed to the flow of traffic -- granted, perhaps at the slower end of that range so everybody else on the road will be passing him, but he will keep his speed in the range that minimizes the actual risk which typically _begins_ (on a modern, gently curved multilane interstate highway with a mix of modern vehicles) at maybe 5-10 mph over the nominal 55 limit. On roads with higher posted limits, he could probably safely do the limit, but would be creating a danger if he proceeded at anything below the limit, anywhere but the far right lane.
And that doesn't include the possibility that your friend's speedometer is off calibration just a little bit in the wrong direction, so that when it says he is doing 54, he is really doing 59 or even more. Plenty enough to be caught by a speed camera even if he THINKS he is being strictly compliant with the law.
> Twice now, he has gotten letters sent to his home address in Ohio, from
> the Indiana State Police, stating that they recorded his car (license
> plate) in Indiana, and wanting to know both his point of origin and his
> destination.
Yep, it sounds like this may be a speed radar camera setup. Otherwise, if there was a live cop on the scene they would just write him a ticket on the spot. Maybe they couldn't clearly read the state name on his license plate in the photo, just the big numbers, and they wanted to confirm that it was in fact an OH plate and was his car, so they could send him a ticket.
OTOH this may have nothing to do with speed. Maybe they're monitoring parked cars by means of meter maids, and making sure that folks who live in IN get IN plates and don't keep using their OH plates. Or something like that. But I doubt the state police would be involved in such an effort, since they mainly patrol the open highways of the state, not the cities or other places where groups of people live and cars get parked.
> Rather than following his first impulse of sending them a letter
> indicating that it is none of their damn business, he has quietly thrown
> these two letters in the trash.
That was probably his best response, especially if he didn't know what they were fishing for. Often, the cops have several isolated bits of evidence that might incriminate you, and want you to supply just the one missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle that, by itself, is harmless and meaningless, but if taken together with the other facts the cops know, could put you at the scene of a crime, or otherwise implicate you in criminal activity or a traffic violation. Even for a minor traffic ticket, you have the Constitutional right not to be compelled to testify against yourself.
> 1. Can the State Police ask these questions
Yes. As a wise person once said, "there's no harm in asking."
> and require a response?
No. The Constitution forbids the cops to compel statements from a criminal suspect or even from a person who is not yet a suspect but who wants to prevent his words from somehow being used against him to bring charges.
> 2. Should he do anything besides trashing these letters?
Not in my book. However, if your friend is too dull to note the difference between a "fishing expedition" letter like this from the cops, and a formal summons requiring him to appear in court and/or file a written answer on pain of being held in default, he should ask a local lawyer if he is ever in doubt about what a particular piece of paper requires him to do. In this case, though, silence is probably his best policy.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment