Exhibition ticket for 13 mph

[exdeath]

Now you've gone and done it, you are arguing logic and fact. :banana:

Yeah like I said he's screwed now for admission *after* the fact.

Prior to any admission, before and during the stop, there was absolutely zero violation of any typical statute. No speeding, no WOT, taking off slightly above idle, no loss of traction or control, or any other action associated with racing or exhibition. In the absence of another car taking off hard and instigating a race, and in absence of the fact that the car was a Cobra, a casual observer would have no cause to reasonably believe a car behaving as the OP described was racing or about to race.

If he'd kept his mouth shut and not posted on the internet about it, it would have been a clear case that even an inexperienced lawyer could have gotten thrown out on the simple fact that no statutes were violated. Somebody instigating a race is not probable cause to automatically assume the other person is going to respond. If the officer waited just 2 more seconds longer to flip the lights, it would have been a sealed case against the OP.

But it doesn't even take that when you can print an admission off the internet.

 

[tistan]

^ Racing on Highway, does have penalties for both misdemeanors and felonies. Just depends on the situation at hand. But none the less, still go to jail offenses.

Is that in all states? Where is the line drawn between misdemeanor and felony street racing? If it is to dependent on the situation that you can't give me a real answer to that, what actions will definitely get you a felony street racing ticket?

 

[FordSVTFan]

Is that in all states? Where is the line drawn between misdemeanor and felony street racing? If it is to dependent on the situation that you can't give me a real answer to that, what actions will definitely get you a felony street racing ticket?

You wont get a felony ticket. Tickets are not issued for felonies.

 

[03machme]

i dont know about yall but i can tell when someone leaves hard and floors it even before he gets above 15mph it is obvious to tell that he was intending to race the other guy. let me guess there was prolly some revving back and forth at the red light and such and the officer prolly has it all on tape so if i was you i would thank my lucky stars and just go on with my life you lucky you got what you did. i would have waited and got your ass for the felony.

 

[WTF]

i dont know about yall but i can tell when someone leaves hard and floors it even before he gets above 15mph it is obvious to tell that he was intending to race the other guy. let me guess there was prolly some revving back and forth at the red light and such and the officer prolly has it all on tape so if i was you i would thank my lucky stars and just go on with my life you lucky you got what you did. i would have waited and got your ass for the felony.

I'm noticing an on-going theme here with some of these LEO response. The use of the word Felony is thrown around left and right. Did the laws change recently? How can racing be a felony level offense, especially with all the descretional power an officer has on it's interpretation of the situation? I would think it would only escalate to a felony if an accident occurred from such an event and someone got hurt. In any case, the current fines and lawyer fees are drastic enough to make the first offense a memorable one.

 

[gettingoff]

Dude DONT admit to guilt and "take your slap". That would be the stupidest thing in the ENTIRE world. I've gotten around 10 or more tickets, all beat. I've never had a racing ticket, but your case is SOOOO easy to get thrown out. Get a lawyer if you got $$, or if your super poor just go to court and ask for PROOF that you were gonna race. If its true you didn't break the tires loose, WOT, go faster than 13mph, or any other law breaker.... you got it in the bag!!

If you got a lawyer, that shit would get thrown out before the judge even knew about it. Your just killin me here by saying your gonna get hit up for this. *Edited by moderator - read the rules before posting again*

 

[mav_tu]

Alright, let me break it down for you. I'm seeing some crazy opinions thrown out here, most of which don't make any sense... Please keep in mind that I am basing this off of you being 100% COMPLETELY honest about EVERY aspect of your story.

INTENT - Intent to commit a traffic violation is NOT a crime. You can think all day long about racing someone, running a red light, changing lanes through a safety zone, etc. Even if you did tell the officer that stopped you that you WERE GOING TO RACE, the crime had not yet been committed. In fact, unless Utah has some bass ackwards laws, the officer violated your rights in stopping you. The officer must be able to articulate "reasonable suspicion" that a violation occurred (<---Notice the past tense there).

For all of these people saying that you can't dispute this because you admitted it online: consider this. One can type on here that they considered committing an act of criminal mischief, e.g., breaking windows or spray paining a wall; however, the crime was not committed. The violation NEVER OCCURED. This would be like charging someone with burglary because they are walking down the road with a bag of screw drivers and other tools. THEY CAN'T BE! Sure, they could be charged with the possession of burglary tools (based on meeting some other criteria), but they did not commit burglary. There are very few crimes that you can be charged with based SOLELY on intent. Online solicitation of a minor is one of them. Intent is an extremely important aspect of charging someone, but that can't be all of it.

Also, WOT is not a requirement for racing or exhibition of speed. It is the discretion of the LEO to determine if you were racing. Case in point: racing a Pinto wouldn't require WOT, but you COULD be racing (as a waste of gas as it would be).

This is getting long winded, and I'm sorry if I stepped on any other LEOs toes who posted so far... You are very luck the officer did not wait a few more seconds for you to commit the violation.

What I'm trying to say is - as long as you did not rev your engine, make any gestures to the other car, break traction, "aggressively" leave the light or the like - you should be ok. I'm not one for getting someone off, but I needed to clear the air of some misconceptions.

And my legal disclaimer is - please leave the racing to on the track or to the pros!

 

[Relaxed Chaos]

Take this to court. You didn't violate any statutes. Even revving your engine does not violate any statutes. Acclerating at WOT to the speed limit does not violate any statutes. This officer jumped the gun and is trying to give you a ticket for a violation you had not yet commited.

I know it's a hassle but that is the law's job: Hassle the innocent in hopes of finding the guilty.

 

[WTF]

Take this to court. You didn't violate any statutes. Even revving your engine does not violate any statutes. Acclerating at WOT to the speed limit does not violate any statutes. This officer jumped the gun and is trying to give you a ticket for a violation you had not yet commited.

I know it's a hassle but that is the law's job: Hassle the innocent in hopes of finding the guilty.

Revving your engine unfortunately does violate statutes in some states. Infact it can be used as proof that you're initiating a race. This is one of those laws I particularly love because revving an engine can be used as part of the LEO's "discretion". When I had on-going issue with my car a couple years back, I would occasionally rev my engine when idle at a light to listen for abnormalities. Little did I know, had a LEO been nearby, I could be arrested or ticketed for exhibition of speed or even racing.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

INTENT - Intent to commit a traffic violation is NOT a crime. You can think all day long about racing someone, running a red light, changing lanes through a safety zone, etc. Even if you did tell the officer that stopped you that you WERE GOING TO RACE, the crime had not yet been committed. In fact, unless Utah has some bass ackwards laws, the officer violated your rights in stopping you. The officer must be able to articulate "reasonable suspicion" that a violation occurred (<---Notice the past tense there).

The OP indicated that very shortly after the other vehicle took off, he planted his vehicle and started to take off.

We can play sea lawyers here all day long, however, anyone with any racing experience knows what it means to plant a vehicle on launch...

Intent: Check
Capability: Check
Opportunity: Check

By the way, what rights of the OP were violated by the officer? And your thoughts on reasonable suspicion are incorrect. An officer can detain a person on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or about to be committed. There is no requirement for the crime to be past tense, as you indicated.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Too all those that are saying the OP is not guilty because he didnt do certain thing, such as "breaking the tires loose," should read the Utah Statute.

Here it is

(1) A person may not engage in any motor vehicle speed contest or exhibition of speed on a highway.
(2) A person may not, in any manner, obstruct or place any barricade or obstruction or assist or participate in placing any barricade or obstruction upon any highway for any purpose prohibited under Subsection (1).
(3) A person who violates Subsection (1) is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
(4) (a) In addition to the penalty provided under this section or any other section, a person who violates Subsection (1) shall have the person's driver license suspended under Subsection 53-3-220(1)(a)(xvi) for a period of:
(i) 60 days for a first offense; and
(ii) 90 days for a second offense within three years of a prior offense.
(b) The court shall forward the report of the conviction to the Driver License Division in accordance with Section 53-3-218.

Sub (1) defines the crime. It is broad which would indicate the judge has quite a bit of discretion. Also, the judge will be bound to stare decisis.

The point is the statute does NOT give any of the specific terms that have been thrown out as having to have occurred.

OP should consult a qualified Utah traffic attorney.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

Take this to court. You didn't violate any statutes. Even revving your engine does not violate any statutes. Acclerating at WOT to the speed limit does not violate any statutes. This officer jumped the gun and is trying to give you a ticket for a violation you had not yet commited.

I know it's a hassle but that is the law's job: Hassle the innocent in hopes of finding the guilty.

Are you familiar with your own state's laws?

 

[mav_tu]

The OP indicated that very shortly after the other vehicle took off, he planted his vehicle and started to take off.

We can play sea lawyers here all day long, however, anyone with any racing experience knows what it means to plant a vehicle on launch...

Intent: Check
Capability: Check
Opportunity: Check

By the way, what rights of the OP were violated by the officer? And your thoughts on reasonable suspicion are incorrect. An officer can detain a person on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or about to be committed. There is no requirement for the crime to be past tense, as you indicated.

Please remember that I am baseing all of this on the poster's story being gospel.

The poster stated that he never exceeded 1800 RPMs, which isn't even worth shifting to second for. I had no idea what "planting" was. If that means he took the "slack" out of his transmission, that is not a race. By what was posted in 41-6a-606, the poster had not yet participated. The officer was clearly excited and ready to make the stop, but she got ahead of herself. Maybe with more "planting" experience, I'd have more insight to the circumstance.

Ok, I'll give you that the officer may have made a "legal" stop, but having a "hunch" that there was an impending race is a pretty shaky leg to stand on. They weren't lined up, edging forward, revving their engines. No traffic supervisor in my department would say that was a good stop. If the officer wanted to stop the other vehicle, fine, but that's like stopping someone because you THINK they are going to roll through a stop sign. If I pulled over everyone I thought was going to commit a traffic infraction, I wouldn't make it a city block all shift.

And what does opportunity or capability have to do with enforcing traffic laws? My vehicle has the capability and I have the opportunity to do a lot of illegal things with my vehicle. Because the officer can't prove what the poster was actually thinking at the time she activated her lights, this was clearly a bad stop. Another example is that someone could be standing with a knife in their pocket, next to a guy on the street, and be planning on killing him. There you have capability, opportunity, and intent. BUT, if you go running up and detain the guy with the knife still in their pocket and without some prior evidence, you just lost a case. It is all circumstantial and based on a guess, which doesn't hold water in court.

I guess what I was meaning was because an officer thought a race was going to happen, without it ACTUALLY happening, this was a pretty weak stop, and she had no cause to stop the driver. Even by admission after the fact, intent was not known at the time of the stop. It was an inference by the officer.

 

[mav_tu]

OP should consult a qualified Utah traffic attorney.

I agree completely. The law regarding this is vague at best. I'm sure there is some case law that will prove helpful!

 

[Relaxed Chaos]

Are you familiar with your own state's laws?

Nope, but I do know that these sorts of arbitrary laws are meant to be challenged. It is a citizens responsibility to do so. What other process do we have to remove such silly and unreasobale laws from the books?

 

[Lt. ZO6]

What other process do we have to remove such silly and unreasobale laws from the books?

I did not know you felt so strongly about the street racing statutes.

 

[Relaxed Chaos]

I did not know you felt so strongly about the street racing statutes.

My original post did not make any reference to street racing. Please re-read my original post.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

My original post did not make any reference to street racing. Please re-read my original post.

This entire thread is in regards to a particular statute which deals with street racing.

 

[Relaxed Chaos]

This entire thread is in regards to a particular statute which deals with street racing.

Incorrect. He was not street racing. This poor guy was cited preemptively for a violation because a police officer assumed he was going to do something based on some actions that may or may not have resulted in a dangerous act. The OP could have easily decided at any point prior to breaking a statute that this was a bad idea and backed off prior to endangering others around him. It is not right to give out citations based on what one thinks someone else might do. The act must occur and then the citation can be given out.

For aurguments sake, I race everybody on the road that I can, including state troopers and local police officers. Unfortunately nobody ever knows becasue my DD is a Tercel. The fact is though that every stop light is a speed contest for me in my DD and I always lose. I have the intention but not the ability to go fast. Can I get a citation for this? How would you prove my intention other than my admission?

Is it illegal to accelerate at WOT? Is it illegal to use your brakes for maxiimum deceleration? Is it illegal to take a corner at the limits of your cars traction? Under certain circumstances in which it creates a dangerous situation for others, sure these are all illegal. However there are also certain situations in which these acts do not endanger anybody, and in some cases they may save somebody's life. It is at the drivers discretion to use his car as s/he sees fit and the officers discretion to evaluate whether the driver is endangering those around him and, if so, issue citations appropriatly.

Just because someone has the ability or intention to to do something stupid does not mean that person is going to use it, even if it appears they might. It is at the officers discretion to hand out citations to the innocent and then it is his repsonsibility to prove that they are guilty in court. It is a citizens repsonsibility to stand up for themselves and take responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately many are too lazy to represent their innocents. Some can not take responsibility for irresponsible behavior.

To all the officers in this forum, I sincerely hope you evaluate the safety of the situation and only hand out citations to those that are truly creating unsafe situations for others on or near the road. Enforcing safety is of the utmost importance; using traffic violations for tax generation is an abomination and a misrepresentation of your duty as police officers.

 

[FordSVTFan]

Incorrect. He was not street racing. This poor guy was cited preemptively for a violation because a police officer assumed he was going to do something based on some actions that may or may not have resulted in a dangerous act. The OP could have easily decided at any point prior to breaking a statute that this was a bad idea and backed off prior to endangering others around him. It is not right to give out citations based on what one thinks someone else might do. The act must occur and then the citation can be given out.

Did you even bother to read the statute I posted? If you had, you would see nothing you are saying is part of the prima facie case for exhibition. Additionally, you stated the OP did nothing and was citing preemptively but you are not correct.

I was at a light ready to run against a z28 in my 03 cobra, I let the z28 leave first for a split second, planted the cobra and started to take off when a Toyato Avalon right behind me with lights only in the grill flipped on the blue and reds.

That is the infraction as he was next to another car who took off in a similar manner.

To all the officers in this forum, I sincerely hope you evaluate the safety of the situation and only hand out citations to those that are truly creating unsafe situations for others on or near the road. Enforcing safety is of the utmost importance; using traffic violations for tax generation is an abomination and a misrepresentation of your duty as police officers.

Police officers enforce the law. If the legislature enacts statutes that have the effect of generating revenue that is not the concern of the officer doing his job.

BTW, what is it that you do for a living?