Check out some similar questions!

KISS · Feb 18, 2009, 07:20 PM

Suppose, for a moment:

1. You drove your mother's car with permission.

2. You got stopped for whatever reason and the "proof of insurance" wasn't up to date in the vehicle, but did exist at your mother's home.

Who should appear in court because of "lack of insurance"?

Why?

Fr_Chuck · Feb 18, 2009, 07:31 PM

Based on US law

If you are a minor child both people appear in court.

If you are a adult, you appear and just bring proof that the car was insurnaced at the time of the stop. The proof has to show the that at the time of the stop it was insured.

The ticket is for the driver, but the insurance is for the car

KISS · Feb 18, 2009, 07:50 PM

You got it right. I guess the coralary is if you borrow someone else's car make sure the registration and insurance is in order.

Just seems odd. And the record doesn't go away.

Fr_Chuck · Feb 18, 2009, 07:57 PM

But every court I have been in, if you show the judge that it was insured, they just drop the charge and dismiss it.
In many courts, if you take it and show the clerk before the court date they just dismiss the charge

KISS · Feb 18, 2009, 08:23 PM

Yea, but it's still on a criminal background check.

I had a mandatory court appearance for the charge. It may have been 10+ years ago. I'd have to look at it. Don't have it handy.

Fr_Chuck · Feb 18, 2009, 08:26 PM

Guess it is the state, in all of mine, it is only shown on the traffic check, not criminal, It would not show up on the NCIC report, they don't list traffic offenses.
In my state, driving without a license is criminal but merely driving without proof is not criminal it is not even a moving violation