I was pulled over for driving under suspension and expired tags. I was given a court date but requested in writing a new date at night so I would not have to miss work. The court granted my request and sent me a letter telling me to appear on 5/21/2012 which I did but when I showed up I was told that there is no night court on that date and that the next scheduled date would not be until 5/31/2012. Turns out that this was also innacurate and that my court date is really 6/21/2012. Do I even have to go since I was never notified in writing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donny2099

I was pulled over for driving under suspension and expired tags. I was given a court date but requested in writing a new date at night so I would not have to miss work. The court granted my request and sent me a letter telling me to appear on 5/21/2012 which I did but when I showed up I was told that there is no night court on that date and that the next scheduled date would not be until 5/31/2012. Turns out that this was also innacurate and that my court date is really 6/21/2012. Do I even have to go since I was never notified in writing?

---

Um... YEAH. Unless you want a warrant issued for your arrest.

Yes, if you don't show up, they will issue a warrant for non appearance.

Yes it was a error, and you can call them and ask for a new letter.

I notice you mention nothing about the fact that you were breaking the law by driving illegally.

You can complain to the court that you were given wrong dates. But if you don't show up for your hearing you can be convicted in abstentia and a warrant issued.

Just an FYI... I've seen more than a few people in MD and VA both taken out of the courtroom in Handcuffs to serve a year in jail for driving on suspended licenses... its not a minor offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I notice you mention nothing about the fact that you were breaking the law by driving illegally.

---

Um, Scott? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LisaB4657

Um, Scott? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

---

Valid point, but if one is ticketed for such things, its usually because they are true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Valid point, but if one is ticketed for such things, its usually because they are true.

---

That's a very dangerous assumption to make, particularly for someone who gives legal advice. Ticketing is an allegation; a trial in court is intended to determine the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LisaB4657

That's a very dangerous assumption to make, particularly for someone who gives legal advice. Ticketing is an allegation; a trial in court is intended to determine the truth.

---

Tickets are NOT the same as criminal cases...

He was stopped and when the cop ran him for warrants as they always do... it showed the state had it had revoked his license... there is no room for argument on that... those are proven facts.

Its already been decided in court cases... driving is a privilege... not a right. That's the key to this.

Get pulled over on a DUI... your license is suspended on the spot... until you can prove otherwise in court... I.E. there was an error.. you don't get it back until after you do.

Lots of people make that argument about innocent until proven guilty on traffic cases... any judge will laugh at you and quote case law that proves you wrong.

I've personally seen it happen more times than I can remember the last 33+ years I've fought tickets. Not one person that tried that argument got anywhere with it.

Also... try and fight ANY moving violation... any. If you was innocent until proven guilty the state would have to prove everything... and you nothing... thats not the case... the cop is assumed right unless you can definatively prove the cop was wrong... or highly likely to be wrong.

Trust me... I've done that more than a few times... and its not an easy thing to do... and if I didn't have an electronic engineering degree to back up my arguments of how he got a wrong result.. and why... and the fact he wouldn't have been aware of it... I'd have been laughed out of court and lost every one.

I've beaten both LIDAR and RADAR in court... used not just by local and county cops.. but by state cops too months of the times I've tried... and usually the worst I got was a reduction to a lesser offense if I didn't get it tossed out completely.

However in this case... he won't end up in jail until after he loses the court case... if he actually does. I've seen a lot end up in jail for a year... but most of them had other issues as well...

If the state revoked his license... he's not allowed to drive AT ALL until he gets it reinstated (by whatever means that takes)... or at least gets a restricted to get to work and back and nothing else they sometimes grant.

Yeah the IRS works in similar ways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Tickets are NOT the same as criminal cases...

He was stopped when the cop ran him for warrants... its also showed the state had revoked his license... there is no room for argument on that... those are proven facts.

---

The OP said he was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. Not revoked. Big difference.

Quote:

---

Its already been decided in court cases... driving is a privilege... not a right.

---

But defending yourself in court to unproven allegations is a right.

Quote:

---

Get pulled over on a DUI... your license is suspended on the spot... until you can prove otherwise in court... I.E. there was an error.. you don't get it back.

Lots of people make that argument about innocent until proven guilty on traffic cases... any judge will laugh at you and quote case law that proves you wrong.

I've personally seen it happen more times than I can remember the last 33+ years I've fought tickets. Not one person that tried that argument got anywhere with it.

---

Several years ago I found out that my license had been suspended for failure to carry required insurance, even though I had insurance. The reason? I had moved and the license renewal notice had not been forwarded. Since the state had not received my insurance info they automatically suspended my license. I found out when I went to the DMV to renew my license and change my address. If I had been pulled over I would have received a ticket for driving on a suspended license and failure to carry insurance, even if I showed the officer a valid insurance card during the stop. While the suspended license allegation would be true, the failure to carry insurance would not be true.

ScottGem made a very sweeping statement about guilt in a forum where we are attempting to provide good legal advice. That purpose is not served if we make assumptions without basis.

Furthermore, I find it very offensive that he said "I notice you mention nothing about the fact that you were breaking the law by driving illegally." That comment had no purpose other than to chastise a person who came here with a simple question about court dates. I don't care how long he's been here and how many answers he has given to people. He has no right to chastise a person who is trying to find out how to exercise his rights. The reason the OP received a ticket is none of ScottGem's business and his assumption that the OP is guilty because people who receive tickets usually are is an attitude that is dangerous for someone who should be trying to give impartial legal advice.

Ok, As Smoothy said, If a person is ticketed for driving with a suspended license and expired tags, its because the officer checked with the DMV and determined those facts. Is there a possibility the DMV was wrong, or that the driver was unaware of the status of either the license or the registration? Yes, there is, but I found it curious that the OP neither denied the charges nor offered an explanation. Instead the OP was looking to get out of the charge by using a mistake about the hearing dates. Maybe the way I worded it assumed too much. But we have a tradition here where we deal not only with the specific question being asked, but with the whole situation.

Also, I don't believe we give "impartial" legal advice here, rather we give accurate legal advice. I believe the legal advice I gave, that ignoring the court date because of previous erroneous dates could result in being convicted without him being there and a warrant issued was accurate. My point in mentioning the other part was that he needs to deal with charges against him. Not ignore them.

And on that note I think we have hijacked this thread sufficiently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Ok, As Smoothy said, If a person is ticketed for driving with a suspended license and expired tags, its because the officer checked with the DMV and determined those facts. Is there a possibility the DMV was wrong, or that the driver was unaware of the status of either the license or the registration? Yes, there is, but I found it curious that the OP neither denied the charges nor offered an explanation. Instead the OP was looking to get out of the charge by using a mistake about the hearing dates. Maybe the way I worded it assumed too much. But we have a tradition here where we deal not only with the specific question being asked, but with the whole situation.

Also, I don't believe we give "impartial" legal advice here, rather we give accurate legal advice. I believe the legal advice I gave, that ignoring the court date because of previous erroneous dates could result in being convicted without him being there and a warrant issued was accurate. My point in mentioning the other part was that he needs to deal with charges against him. not ignore them.

And on that note I think we have hijacked this thread sufficiently.

---

Accurate legal advice IS impartial. You are supposed to be advising a poster on what you think they may or may not be permitted to do from a legal standpoint. You are NOT supposed to be passing personal judgment on them while doing so. If you're going to continue to attempt to practice law without a license then at least try to act professionally.

Suspended and revoked in this case are the same thing in a practical sense (meaning from the perspective of the individual affected)... their rights to operate a vehicle on the highway were taken away by the state... the only practical differences are clerical in what it takes to get them reinstated. Or on details and semantics.

In both cases you are NOT permitted to be operating a motor vehicle... period. Until you correct whatever the situation that created the condition. It might be easy.. as in your case... or impossible in the short term such as a DWI... or a number of other serious offenses.

Maybe in your state you would have gotten a ticket... in any of the ones I have lived in (MD, PA, DC or VA) your car would be impounded and you would be taken in. You may or may not be released pending trial (depending on the situation) you usually would... but you would be arrested at that time of the stop. Because I personally have had friends that happened to.. besides the numerous cases I've seen in court over the last 3+ decades. No mine has never been suspended or revoked.

You can sometimes get a limited permission to drive between your house and work at specific times... but that's at the discretion of the court. I've seen many get that.

Driving without insurance in some states is also a very serious offense. As it should be. They have usually seen high profile cases of uninsured and or unlicensed drivers kill or seriously injure individuals or multiple people prompting the legislation.

The tag thing is also cut and dry... the sate says they were not renewed.. and they lacked stickers or registration to prove otherwise. (I've personally been through that one in the past.) And they have really cracked down on that since the mid 80's. Again... in the areas I've lived.

But back on topic... the OP... should move heaven and earth to be at that court date... even if it means a vacation day, sick day... or day without pay. The court is very unsympathetic to any excuses. Unless you can prove you was in an intensive care unit during that period.. (Yes I've seen that one used before... and they had papers to prove it)