Advice...Wife Cited for Hit and Run....

[horsepower]

I fully agree with JPM on all counts. The DA and even a Pdefender is the least course of time, cost and resistance. (Didn't mean to infer that wife couldn't get reduced to an infraction, just why she was charged with a misdemeanor in the first place).:thumbup

Reducing the "big deal sterility"of this into a more personal proactive setting is always good strategy when the incident is innocent or tame. Sure can't hurt if approached humbly. Otherwise, she becomes a file shuffled through a system. Doubt it would be dismissed without any intervention or due diligence.

If it continues past the DA,, (review any "deals" with an atty first, not here!),
I'd personally rather take my chances in misdemeanor court over the standard infraction traffic judge any day. As pointed out, misdemeanor court judges wheel and deal all the time with this type of charge. Ironically, a MD judge also follows the letter of the law for dismissals (errors, statutes, etc) while traffic court often makes it up as they go.:|. If you have an atty of course, that won't matter as much.

 

[Junkie]

I thought public defenders were only free for people who didn't have enough money to pay for them, and would charge for people with money? Or did I hear wrong?

 

[horsepower]

I thought public defenders were only free for people who didn't have enough money to pay for them, and would charge for people with money? Or did I hear wrong?

Criminal.findlaw.com: How to obtain a court-appointed Defense/ defense lawyer

It is based on income but varies by how it is adjudged.

 

[splat]

Everyone caught for a hit-and-run never "knew or thought" they made contact. Everyone.

The courts see this on a regular basis, so she will unfortunately be lost in the shuffle and filed with the rest of them.

 

[horsepower]

Everyone caught for a hit-and-run never "knew or thought" they made contact. Everyone.
.

:laughing great point.

 

[chief145]

Everyone caught for a hit-and-run never "knew or thought" they made contact. Everyone.

The courts see this on a regular basis, so she will unfortunately be lost in the shuffle and filed with the rest of them.

Everyone caught for a hit and run also tries to argue their point in their arraignment instead of at their trial. Just remember to lawyer up and you will be fine.

 

[MCSFTGUY]

Lawyer, Lawyer, Lawyer, Lawyer and quit posting on this forum about this. I have no doubt on your wife's character and I am sure that you don't have any doubts either. So, you don't need to convince anybody.

A single photo of your wife and her car, unless this photo shows you wife's car in actual contact with the other car then it is useless as evidence that she was involved in a hit and run. Rather, it was take by somebody who either saw the actual contact, eye witness account and the photo was used to "document" information, or thought they saw something happen.

I lean toward the documentation part due to time frames necessary to recognize what happen, get a phone out and then get a phone to take a photo.

This puts us into the witness aspect and now there is a whole bunch of different aspects about whether this witness could actually see if contact occurred. Simply because you have damage to the right front corner of your car that you were unaware of does not mean it came from a contact with another vehicle or the vehicle specifically involved in this matter. There has to be proof that your vehicle did in fact cause actual damage to the other vehicle.

Issuing the citation... back in the day we use to do this all of the time on hit and run investigations... but that was because our DA would not do misd hit and runs, they were handled as infractions and the court bought into this.

However I do see another problem that as far as I know was not addressed... I did not read the entire thread and there have been some law changes since my day in the trenches..... but the problem I see is the lack of a rights advisal. As I said we did issue citations, but if we interviewed anybody that we cited we always advised them of their rights before we interviewed them. As I recall, if you are going to ask a specific person, specific questions about a specific case they were being detained and you had to advise them of their rights before you could use any information they provided. (Edit added) And, as I recall there also related issues about responding to a person...in this case suspects, residence and questioning them. This could be a bad case in so many ways.... get a lawyer.

In the court system, good people who simply rely on the system for help usually get screwed. The DA is interested in conviction rates. If you make it easy for them, they will go after you, I have seen it before. So, get a lawyer and make the DA and PD work to proof the case. Also, you need a lawyer in order to get a copy of any reports in an efficient manner. Until you read a report, it is all speculation.

Did I mention... get a lawyer and protect yourself?????

 

[ST Guy]

After talking with my wife, we'll be hiring the services of a lawyer. The goal, at a minimum, would be a reduction from a misdemeanor to an infraction. A dismissal or not guilty would be icing but is less likely.

The photo of the damage to our vehicle (I've tried posting it a couple times and it keeps showing up as low res) is relevant as it shows how little damage there was to our vehicle and that the damage is almost entirely on the soft plastic part of the bumper. This speaks to why my wife never noticed the scraping with the other vehicle.

FYI, my wife's Murano weighs more than 1,100 lbs more than the other vehicle.

 

[NorCalBusa]

^ see post #2.

 

[bojangle]

Lawyer, Lawyer, Lawyer, Lawyer and quit posting on this forum about this. I have no doubt on your wife's character and I am sure that you don't have any doubts either. So, you don't need to convince anybody.

A single photo of your wife and her car, unless this photo shows you wife's car in actual contact with the other car then it is useless as evidence that she was involved in a hit and run. Rather, it was take by somebody who either saw the actual contact, eye witness account and the photo was used to "document" information, or thought they saw something happen.

I lean toward the documentation part due to time frames necessary to recognize what happen, get a phone out and then get a phone to take a photo.

This puts us into the witness aspect and now there is a whole bunch of different aspects about whether this witness could actually see if contact occurred. Simply because you have damage to the right front corner of your car that you were unaware of does not mean it came from a contact with another vehicle or the vehicle specifically involved in this matter. There has to be proof that your vehicle did in fact cause actual damage to the other vehicle.

Issuing the citation... back in the day we use to do this all of the time on hit and run investigations... but that was because our DA would not do misd hit and runs, they were handled as infractions and the court bought into this.

However I do see another problem that as far as I know was not addressed... I did not read the entire thread and there have been some law changes since my day in the trenches..... but the problem I see is the lack of a rights advisal. As I said we did issue citations, but if we interviewed anybody that we cited we always advised them of their rights before we interviewed them. As I recall, if you are going to ask a specific person, specific questions about a specific case they were being detained and you had to advise them of their rights before you could use any information they provided. (Edit added) And, as I recall there also related issues about responding to a person...in this case suspects, residence and questioning them. This could be a bad case in so many ways.... get a lawyer.

In the court system, good people who simply rely on the system for help usually get screwed. The DA is interested in conviction rates. If you make it easy for them, they will go after you, I have seen it before. So, get a lawyer and make the DA and PD work to proof the case. Also, you need a lawyer in order to get a copy of any reports in an efficient manner. Until you read a report, it is all speculation.

Did I mention... get a lawyer and protect yourself?????

I disagree about this being a Miranda issue, unless, of course, the officer's had put her in handcuffs or something like that. Simply going to one's house to speak to them about an incident does not make the situation an in custody interrogation. Quite the opposite, the officer is in the suspect's territory.

Even if I was planning to make a physical arrest at someone's house, if I felt it was safe enough to do so, I might question them first, before the arrest, to avoid having to read Miranda. Case law has supported this approach. There is even case law ruling that a vehicle stop is not a custody situation for purposes of Miranda, even though the driver isn't free to leave.

Once the person has been placed in handscuffs, placed in the back of a patrol car, or the officer otherwise creates a similar situation where the suspect would feel like they can't leave, only then does the Miranda requirement attach, and only upon interrogation during those circumstances.

 

[horsepower]

I agree. Not a Miranda issue but rather a citizen who should have exercised their legal rights during questioning.
Example, do you mind if I look in your car?
A leo doesn't have to Mirandize someone at this point, but the citizen has the right to decline based on basic legal right.

She COULD have declined to answer and exercised the 5th, but who does that but a criminal?:laughing

Had a private person witnessed the accident and asked to have her arrested, then Penal code 836a to 841 would have come into play and she would have and should have been advised of the reason for her detainment.
But there was no detainment and no arrest, just a citation.
MiPcsftgy is right about something here.....and jdm hit it on the head. A lawyer will get the report and see whether a private citizen made the request to pursue this or if it was the police from a police tip. If the latter, then the whole report based on CVC 20013 to 20015 is non admissible evidence and everything that mcsftguy noted above will be noted by a decent atty as well. The 3 officers would have to be subpoenaed to court first hand, the report is not something they can utilize.
You actually have a 95%+ chance of a dismissal with a good atty on this. I wouldn't fret about it too much.

 

[Shaggy]

OP has nothing to prove to anyone on BARF guys. He came her for advice, not to prove his wife's case to the jury of BARF peers. Relax on the demanding photographic proof, crap.

You guys wanna play detective? Go watch First 48....

 

[ST Guy]

horsepower: My wife already has the report. She got it when she was at the SF police station to be fingerprinted. Where on the report would it say if a private citizen made a request to have my wife arrested? I can't seem to find any place where that would be noted.

Thanks!

 

[ST Guy]

So here's the damage on my wife's car. Note nothing permanently deformed or dented. With the exception of a tiny bit of paint flaked off of the steel part of the fender where it meets the bumper, all damage is on an easily deformed plastic bumper. FYI, this photo is after I spent 5 minutes with a clean rag and some rubbing alcohol to remove the paint transfers. There was some but not a lot.

 

[ST Guy]

Another tidbit....

At the end of the report, the officer states:

"I determined Party 1 to be at fault for the collision due to violation of CVC 22106. Party 1 is outstanding (20002 CVC Misdemeanor Hit & Run)."

Apparently they stopped by the house after taking care of business at the parking lot and my wife was still gone on her errands. And the officer was tied up with other business the remainder of the day. My wife was cited only for 20002. She was not cited for 22106.

I wonder if she had been home when they first stopped by whether or not they might have simply facilitated an exchange of information. But that's just conjecture anyway and water under the bridge.

 

[Shaggy]

The officer cannot cite for an infraction not committed in his presence. Also, it sounds like a private party parking lot, in which infraction Vehicle Codes are typically not enforceable.

 

[ST Guy]

Thanks for that. Sounds like they only options available to them were to facilitate an exchange of information or cite for misdemeanor hit and run.

I have heard, though, that one can be cited for an infraction of "failure to exchange information". Not sure if that's accurate.

 

[ABC]

Hid lights would have saved her here

 

[ST Guy]

?

 

[tgrrdr]

Hid lights would have saved her here

?

I think he was trying to be funny. Ignore him and he'll go away.

Hope everything works out for your wife :thumbup