Tag: kettering traffic attorney

Kettering Municipal Court Traffic Safety Program (by DaytonDUI)

00Kettering DUI Attorney, Ohio Traffic Law, SpeedingTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kettering Municipal Court offers a Traffic Safety Program for eligible participants which allows you to attend a class instead of receiving points for your traffic citation(s). Classes are held monthly on a Tuesday evening from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. and are taught by police officers at either the Kettering Police Department, 3600 Shroyer Road, or the Centerville Police Department, 155 W. Spring Valley Road. Upon successful completion of the program, your citation will be dismissed and will not appear on your driving record, and you will receive no points on your driving record.

You may be eligible for the Traffic Safety Program if:

  • You can provide proof of automobile insurance
  • Your traffic violation does not have any accompanying criminal charges
  • You have not had a moving traffic violation within the last 24 months
  • You have not been through the Kettering Traffic Safety Program within the last 24 months
  • You plead guilty to the offense by signing the back of your ticket
  • You have not already paid the fine for your citation
  • You must register and pay for the class by the court date listed on your citation

In addition, if you were cited for any of the following violations, you will not be eligible for the program:

  • Driving under suspension
  • Driving under the influence (of alcohol or other drugs)
  • Drag Racing
  • Reckless operation/fleeing police
  • Passing a school bus and school zone violations 10 mph or more over the limit
  • Leaving the scene of an accident
  • Traffic accident violations and violations that may result in liability issues
  • Intentional damage to property or injury to persons

The Traffic Safety Program Director has the right to deny entry to anyone based on past history or inability to meet program criteria.

Sign Up for the Program

If you would like to sign up for the Traffic Safety Program, you must apply in person at Kettering Municipal Court Probation Department. Be sure to come in to apply on or before your court date.

Please be aware: failure to attend the class when assigned will result in a guilty plea being accepted by the Court and the fee for the program will be applied to court costs, fines and school costs. For questions about the program, please contact our Probation Department at 937-296-3328.

DUI attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in Fairborn, Dayton, Springfield, Kettering, Vandalia, Xenia, Miamisburg, Springboro, Huber Heights, Oakwood, Beavercreek, Centerville and throughout Ohio.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself the Miami Valley’s choice for DUI defense.  Contact Charles Rowland by phone at 937-318-1DUI (937-318-1384), 937-879-9542, or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263).  For after-hours help contact our 24/7 DUI HOTLINE at 937-776-2671.  For information about Dayton DUI sent directly to your mobile device, text DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Twitter @DaytonDUI or Get Twitter updates via SMS by texting DaytonDUI to 40404. DaytonDUI is also available on Facebook and on the DaytonDUI channel on YouTube.  You can also email Charles Rowland at: CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or write to us at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.

Speeding in Ohio – What is the Law?

00Ohio Traffic Law, SpeedingTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
A typical speed limit sign in the United State...

SPEEDING: What is the law?

  • The speed law is set forth at Ohio Revised Code 4511.21.  It states:(A) No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar at a speed greater or less than is reasonable or proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the street or highway and any other conditions, and no person shall drive any motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar in and upon any street or highway at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.

The law goes on to set forth the “speed limits” or presumed speed limits as follows:

  • (2) Twenty-five miles per hour in all other portions of a municipal corporation, except on state routes outside business districts, through highways outside business districts, and alleys;(3) Thirty-five miles per hour on all state routes or through highways within municipal corporations outside business districts, except as provided in divisions (B)(4) and (6) of this section;(4) Fifty miles per hour on controlled-access highways and expressways within municipal corporations;(5) Fifty-five miles per hour on highways outside of municipal corporations, other than freeways as provided in division (B)(12) of this section;(6) Fifty miles per hour on state routes within municipal corporations outside urban districts unless a lower prima-facie speed is established as further provided in this section;

    (7) Fifteen miles per hour on all alleys within the municipal corporation;

    (8) Fifty-five miles per hour at all times on freeways with paved shoulders inside municipal corporations, other than freeways as provided in division (B)(12) of this section;

    (9) Fifty-five miles per hour at all times on freeways outside municipal corporations, other than freeways as provided in division (B)(12) of this section;

    (10) Fifty-five miles per hour at all times on all portions of freeways that are part of the interstate system and on all portions of freeways that are not part of the interstate system, but are built to the standards and specifications that are applicable to freeways that are part of the interstate system for operators of any motor vehicle weighing in excess of eight thousand pounds empty weight and any noncommercial bus;

    (11) Fifty-five miles per hour for operators of any motor vehicle weighing eight thousand pounds or less empty weight and any commercial bus at all times on all portions of freeways that are part of the interstate system and that had such a speed limit established prior to October 1, 1995, and freeways that are not part of the interstate system, but are built to the standards and specifications that are applicable to freeways that are part of the interstate system and that had such a speed limit established prior to October 1, 1995, unless a higher speed limit is established under division (L) of this section;

    (12) Sixty-five miles per hour for operators of any motor vehicle weighing eight thousand pounds or less empty weight and any commercial bus at all times on all portions of the following:

    • (a) Freeways that are part of the interstate system and that had such a speed limit established prior to October 1, 1995, and freeways that are not part of the interstate system, but are built to the standards and specifications that are applicable to freeways that are part of the interstate system and that had such a speed limit established prior to October 1, 1995;(b) Freeways that are part of the interstate system and freeways that are not part of the interstate system but are built to the standards and specifications that are applicable to freeways that are part of the interstate system, and that had such a speed limit established under division (L) of this section(c) Rural, divided, multi-lane highways that are designated as part of the national highway system under the “National Highway System Designation Act of 1995,” 109 Stat. 568, 23 U.S.C.A. 103, and that had such a speed limit established under division (M) of this section.
  • (C) It is prima-facie unlawful for any person to exceed any of the speed limitations in divisions (B)(1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) of this section, or any declared pursuant to this section by the director or local authorities and it is unlawful for any person to exceed any of the speed limitations in division (D) of this section. No person shall be convicted of more than one violation of this section for the same conduct, although violations of more than one provision of this section may be charged in the alternative in a single affidavit.(D) No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar upon a street or highway as follows:
    • (1) At a speed exceeding fifty-five miles per hour, except upon a freeway as provided in division (B)(12) of this section;(2) At a speed exceeding sixty-five miles per hour upon a freeway as provided in division (B)(12) of this section except as otherwise provided in division (D)(3) of this section;(3) If a motor vehicle weighing in excess of eight thousand pounds empty weight or a noncommercial bus as prescribed in division (B)(10) of this section, at a speed exceeding fifty-five miles per hour upon a freeway as provided in that division;(4) At a speed exceeding the posted speed limit upon a freeway for which the director has determined and declared a speed limit of not more than sixty-five miles per hour pursuant to division (L)(2) or (M) of this section;(5) At a speed exceeding sixty-five miles per hour upon a freeway for which such a speed limit has been established through the operation of division (L)(3) of this section;

      (6) At a speed exceeding the posted speed limit upon a freeway for which the director has determined and declared a speed limit pursuant to division (I)(2) of this section.

  • (E) In every charge of violation of this section the affidavit and warrant shall specify the time, place, and speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven, and in charges made in reliance upon division (C) of this section also the speed which division (B)(1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7) of, or a limit declared pursuant to, this section declares is prima-facie lawful at the time and place of such alleged violation, except that in affidavits where a person is alleged to have driven at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead the affidavit and warrant need not specify the speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven.(F) When a speed in excess of both a prima-facie limitation and a limitation in division (D)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of this section is alleged, the defendant shall be charged in a single affidavit, alleging a single act, with a violation indicated of both division (B)(1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7) of this section, or of a limit declared pursuant to this section by the director or local authorities, and of the limitation in division (D)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of this section. If the court finds a violation of division (B)(1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7) of, or a limit declared pursuant to, this section has occurred, it shall enter a judgment of conviction under such division and dismiss the charge under division (D)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of this section. If it finds no violation of division (B)(1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (6), or (7) of, or a limit declared pursuant to, this section, it shall then consider whether the evidence supports a conviction under division (D)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of this section.(G) Points shall be assessed for violation of a limitation under division (D) of this section in accordance with section 4510.036 of the Revised Code.

Ohio Speeding Law Update: Laser Guns & Admissibility

00Ohio Traffic Law, SpeedingTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
A typical speed limit sign in the United State...

Great Speeding Decision from the 12th Appellate District

In State v. Starks, 2011-Ohio-2344 the Defendant was stopped for a speeding violation  in a construction zone and went to trial pro se. He objected to any testimony regarding a laser gun.  The trial court took judicial notice of the reliability of the laser gun and the defendant was convicted.  He appealed to the 12th District Court of Appeals and his conviction was reversed.  The Court ruled,

Although the underlying principles of laser technology may be the same from one device to another, generally judicial notice as to the reliability of a speed-measuring device is device specific. State v. Kincaid, 124 Ohio Misc.2d 92, 2003-Ohio-4632, ¶15.  Therefore, expert testimony is necessary, “whether it be a new device or an upgrade of an existing device, before the court may take judicial notice of that particular device in future
proceedings.” Id. at ¶20.

If you need an attorney to challenge your speeding case anywhere in the Miami Valley, or throughout Ohio,  contact Charles M. Rowland II at (937)318-1384 or 1-888-ROWLANDOhio traffic attorney Charles M. Rowland  is a former city prosecutor and has defended speeding cases for over fifteen year.  You can find the decision discussed above HERE.

Ohio’s 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Embraces Speed Cameras

00DUI in Federal Court, Ohio Traffic Law, SpeedingTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
A red-light camera in use in Beaverton, Oregon...

Image via Wikipedia

From www.TheNewspaper.com:  A divided three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit yesterday upheld the imposition of automated tickets on individuals who may or may not have committed any crime. The judges ruled on a case that began when Kelly Mendenhall received a ticket in the mail for allegedly speeding in Akron, Ohio in December 2005. Although the ticket against her was dismissed, her husband, Warner, fought the legitimacy of the Akron ordinance all the way to the state supreme court which, unlike the high courts in Minnesota and Missouri, approved of speed camera use (view decision).

The Sixth Circuit panel briefly decided that the automated enforcement fine was civil in nature and therefore that full due process protections did not apply. The judges decided to keep the decision unpublished because it agreed with the lower court opinion on the subject and was not interested in rehashing the same argument.

“We find that the district court properly applied the law and ably articulated the reasons supporting the conclusion that this enforcement scheme is civil in nature,” Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr wrote. “We… reject plaintiff’s assertion that it violates due process to impose civil penalties for speeding violations irrespective of whether the owner was, in fact, driving the vehicle when the violation was recorded.”

Judge Eric L. Clay disagreed, writing that he would have invalidated the speed camera ordinance in Akron because it does not present the opportunity for a fair hearing to the innocent.

“Akron’s civil speed enforcement scheme violates due process by failing to provide vehicle owners with an opportunity to avoid liability by proving that they did not commit the infraction,” Clay wrote. “While the owner may request an administrative hearing at which she can present witnesses, documents, or other evidence relating to the issue of liability, the ordinance does not indicate that proof that the owner was not in fact driving the vehicle at the time of the violation can provide a basis for avoiding liability at the administrative hearing.”

Clay pointed out that the city could easily have included a provision to allow an owner to offer evidence that would show someone else had been driving. The city, however, only cares that someone pays the ticket, not whether the recipient is guilty or not.

“Akron does not provide an owner with a mechanism to avoid an erroneous deprivation of her property interest by proving that she was not driving at the time the violation occurred,” Clay wrote. “Rather, Akron holds a driver liable regardless of whether she was the person who committed the act in question.”

A copy of the decision is available in an 80k PDF file at the source link below. Source

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Due Process for Traffic Offenders (from the National Motorists Association)

00Ohio Traffic Law, SpeedingTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

due-process-traffic-tickets

By James Baxter, NMA President

There’s a random pattern around the country where state and local courts are systematically making it harder and more expensive for ticket recipients to fight traffic tickets.

This is an admission by the judiciary and state and local governments that there is growing public resistance to being ripped off via bad laws, unethical enforcement, and revenue hungry courts.

Defendants are growing in numbers, they are coming to court better prepared to defend themselves, the police are being found lacking in knowledge and compliance with mandated procedures, ignorant arbitrary judges are being exposed, and pro-se defendants are mucking up the good “ole” boy plea bargaining system and demanding trials.

This could lead to the collapse of the whole money grubbing system that has evolved around the traffic ticket industry.

To protect itself, the “system” is fighting back. Here are a few of its strategies being implemented around the country:

1) The State of Massachusetts passed a law requiring traffic ticket defendants to pay $25 to contest a ticket; non-refundable.
To appeal a case to a more legitimate court requires payment of $50, again; non-refundable. Win, lose, or draw the court gets $75 — regardless of the merit of the ticket. What an incredible incentive for the police to write bogus tickets by the thousands! Why not, every ticket will generate at least $25 to $75, regardless of the outcome.

2) Some of the ticket camera operations run their own court systems.
There is no thought given to the obvious conflict of interest, plus requiring pre-payment of the fine and additional fees to get a one sided hearing. Even when solid evidence is provided that shows the defendant is innocent, the evidence is ignored and the victim’s money is kept.

3) If defendants learn of a law that requires certain procedures be implemented before enforcement activities can commence, the law is changed or eliminated.
For example, in California, the speed trap law required traffic engineering studies be done every five years, and the speed limit was to be set according to the results of the study. Many communities sloughed off on the engineering studies and as a result speeding tickets had to be dismissed. The State Legislature addressed this by extending the time period between studies from once every five years to once every ten years.

4) In Marion County, Indiana the local court is telling defendants that if they challenge their ticket in court they will be assessed additional fines up to $2500!
Let’s see, I can pay my $150 bogus ticket or I can challenge it in court and be on the hook for ten times, or more, than the cost of the original ticket. What’s the wisest thing to do? That would be a rhetorical question.

5) Under the guise of classifying traffic tickets as civil violations, state and local units of government strip defendants of the right to discovery, jury trials, public defenders and the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The testimony of police officers is openly given more credibility than that of defendants, supposedly because they have no direct or financial interest in the outcome—other than bonuses, retirement benefits, preferential work schedules, promotions, and income-pumping overtime; all rewards for being a “producer.”

The catch-22 is that to challenge this cascade of lost due process rights takes us right back to the same court system that is bent on protecting its prerogatives and its cash flow, along with reducing its work load. Here’s an idea; lets eliminate all the arbitrary, irrational, pre-emptive, and just plain stupid traffic laws seemingly intended to make every driver in America a criminal. That will kill the cash flow, but it will also cut back on the courts’ work load. The trade-off is less money, but more time on the golf course. That can’t be too bad a deal.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]