<p>OK, I wasn’t going to post here again, but I couldn’t pass this one up without comment:
*
If he were a lowlife, non-working loser he’d get a free public defender then he wouldn’t need anybody’s help to find a lawyer or figure out what to do.*</p>
<p>Lots of good people out there today without work in this economy who may run into trouble, just like the subject of this thread did, but who don’t have the family resources to help out. Just sayin.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that the OP appears to be the mother of the “someone” who is age 22, and also appears to be working against his interests. </p>
<p>The gist of the OP was: the mom, reading the statute, has decided that the law doesn’t apply, based on what the son told her about what happened, and that therefore no lawyer is needed. I suppose she assumes that people just walk into court, point out the error to a judge, and everything fixes itself.</p>
<p>The problem is, (1) the OP doesn’t have the full story, only a 2nd hand account, so she doesn’t even know what questions to ask. 22 year old may have omitted or hedged on important details, either deliberately or because he didn’t know they were important. </p>
<p>(2) There is no question that the 22-year-old would be much better off getting in-person advice from an attorney. He could arrange a consultation and decide from there what to do next. There is a cost/benefit analysis: that is, are the potential consequences of this traffic citation serious enough to warrant the cost of an attorney? The OP made it obvious that she wanted to be told that an attorney was unnecessary – she argued with anyone who did not embrace her interpretation of the law and the facts, and bowed out of the thread when she wasn’t getting the answers she wanted. </p>
<p>So this particular 22-year-old does not appear to be getting useful help from mom. The parent is under no obligation whatsoever to pay his legal fees – and his own cost-benefit analysis may end up reaching the same result – but he really would be better off pursuing this on his own, rather than relying on his parents to tell him that a lawyer is not needed. </p>
<p>In other words, “mom says I don’t need a lawyer” is not a good reason for a 22-year-old to refrain from seeking legal advice. </p>
<p>The young driver can make a phone call. There are plenty of lawyers around who offer free or low cost initial consultations – and that would be the logical first step to get a sense of where he stands when he goes to court.</p>
<p>It takes at most a few minutes to exchange insurance info. If you don’t have plans to report the accident to the police, what possible reason could the passenger have to leave the driver there?</p>
<p>Was he/she in such a rush that they couldn’t wait 30 seconds?</p>
<p>Also, as a mother, do you really want your child driving after “having a few drinks,” even if they are technically under the legal limit?</p>
<p>As another poster wrote, if the person pleads not guilty (which it sounds like he plans to do), it will be reset for a trial where he will have to show up again & hear the testimony and witnesses presented against him & he can present any witnesses he has to testify in his favor… Generally, the main thing he’s entitled to at his initial court appearance is the opportunity formally having the charge read to him and saying if he wants to plead guilty or not guilty.</p>
<p>This offense is a petty misdemeanor, since one of the potential penalties is up to 30 days in jail. If it were my kid, I’d spring for an attorney after asking around to find one that is pretty well respected in traffic misdemeanors like this one.</p>
<p>I think there is more to this story than what the OP has stated. </p>
<p>Everyone knows that when a police officer arrives on the scene to write up an accident report, they need to see the position of the vehicles post collision as well as the damage to the vehicles. I wonder if the OP’s son had his friend drive the car away from the scene because of what may have been in the car at the time of the accident----for example: open containers of alcohol. </p>
<p>No matter how naive a driver may be, it is extremely hard to believe that one would think it’s OK to remove a vehicle from the scene of an accident before the police show up to examine the scene. What the heck was so important that his friend had to leave the scene with a vehicle involved in an accident?</p>
<p>Here we go again…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As has been previously stated, the driver’s parent was en route to the scene and could transport the driver home. I gather that they were on a busy/major street, and didn’t want to leave the car there.</p>
<p>Yes, in retrospect, it was probably a dumb decision. But since in may places, including everywhere I’ve ever lived, this level of fender bender did not require any kind of police involvement, and since apparently none of the participants INTENDED to involve the police, it really does not seem like that big of a deal. </p>
<p>Unless, of course, you assume that the OP’s S was DUI–which the cops on the scene did not.</p>
<p>All the rules I’ve seen state to move your car out of traffic, if the car can move. </p>
<p>I wonder if any here have asked (sans prompting) their own kids what they would have done in these circumstances. Fender bender, your friend wants to get going, what would you do or say?</p>
<p>lookingforward, clearly your kid ought to say that they would go directly to the nearest court and declare themselves guilty of every possible crime associated with the incident in order to teach themselves a lesson. And never, heaven forfend, ask advice of a parent because that would be advice of terminal “immaturity.” :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Like none of us has e er driven after a couple of glasses of wine and dinner. Please.</p>
<p>I’m a realist. The ops didn’t find him impaired. And the stacked on charges. What if he left itself after exchanging info and the other parter wasfine with it. And he didn’t
T know cops were called. Des he get a ticket for leaving then? How long do have to wait in ace cops come…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if it is a busy street, pulling over to the shoulder for 30seconds will do absolutely no harm. It’s not like you’re there for an extended period of time…
The other car involved was clearly still there.</p>
<p>
I can honestly say I haven’t, nor am I likely to ever. I’m not even judging the guy for having a few drinks though.
I’m just curious as to what kind of mother would actually condone this type of behavior, regardless as to whether or not it was legal.</p>
<p>Was there a reason for the police to check the driver for DUI?
If the other car had only minimal damage, and the police thought it made sense to remove the car from the scene, why would they check for DUI unless they thought something was suspicious?
Since they obviously felt something was amiss, it makes sense to have an attorneys advice, so it doesn’t snowball more than necessary.</p>
<p>Typically, the police do not need probable cause to ask for a field sobriety test. They usually need “reasonable suspicion” however. That can come from a variety of things. They may smell alcohol or ask the driver if they have been drinking. They can base it just on the time and place of the accident. It doesn’t take a lot. If they fail the field sobriety test, then they have probable cause for a breathalyzer or blood test.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have not. If I drink, even a beer, I will not drive. Period. I lost a good friend to a DUI when I was younger. He was walking to come see me. I will never ever ever drive with even a small amount of alcohol in me. I am always the DD.</p>
<p>lookingforward, clearly your kid ought to say that they would go directly to the nearest court and declare themselves guilty
Actually, I empathize with OP. I’ve tried to say that several times here. Kids don’t always know what to do. Would those who think a 22 year old should handle this himself, have told their own kid, “Sorry, kiddo, you’re on your own? I’m not coming over, I’m not going to do a little googling or ask on a forum?”</p>
<p>what kind of mother would actually condone… Heavens, no one knows anythng about how much and when he had a drink- no one asked. She never said she condoned drinking and driving. I’d guess the cops did the minimum test simply because he’s a 22 year old male, presumably built like a football player and he just had an accident. No breathalyzer. </p>
<p>Btw, when D1 had her scratch incident on her friend’s car, she (my kid) was the DD. AND, I asked D2, my little road rules expert, ace grad of a tough driving course, if she thought it would be okay to let a friend drive the car off- and she had no idea. That’s one reason I suggested others see how their kids would answer.</p>
<p>I don’t see a conspiracy. I don’t presume he was drunk or hiding anything. But he IS in a pickle. Because he did get a ticket for leaving the scene- maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, but that’s the crux, that’s what he has to deal with. Why speculate about more or fishiness, when it could just be a dumb mistake?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I realize that. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.</p>
<p>If the parties had finished their exchange of info and the kid had driven off in his car before the cops arrived, would they have charged him with leaving the scene? Of course not. They were just ****ed off and wanted to stick it to him. </p>
<p>As for “what kind of mother would actually condone”…get a grip, angryelf. There is no evidence that the OP “condones” anything. Think about how you would enjoy having that kind of statement directed at YOU.</p>
<p>It seems to me that what’s peculiar in this case, and what made the police officer suspicious, was not so much that the car was taken away, but that the driver stayed. If the drivers had exchanged info, and had both left, there would presumably be no problem unless they were required to call the police–OP says they didn’t do so. If they weren’t expecting the police, why stay there at all? This is another reason a lawyer is needed–to make the story sound like it makes sense, if it does make sense.</p>
<p>Why stay there? I wasn’t under the impression they were hanging out. I thought the cop arrived while they were exchanging info.</p>
<p>
Yes, but this was after the passenger left with the car. How long does it take to exchange info? The situation is weird–it may be completely innocent, but on the surface there’s something odd about it. A judge is going to think the same thing–and a judge may not be receptive to a young person making the argument about whether the “leaving the scene” statute applies. It’s much better for a lawyer to craft the story and the argument.</p>
<p>This happened to me:</p>
<p>What could make the police suspicious? I was hit broadside by a driver. I went into shock and could only think about my then baby. The driver and the passenger changed places and (I’m NOT saying that this was the case with the OPs son) and dumped a six pack out the door on the curb.</p>
<p>Two other gentlemen (witnesses) gave me their cards and told me what had happened. Small snag: the driver had certain ties that no one wanted to mess with…so the switch worked. </p>
<p>It is possible that the police might think that the real driver left the scene. I’m am not saying that it happened that way, but the police are paid to be suspicious. It happened to me. Oh…and in my case there was no insurance on the other side (quel suprise!) with a big pay day coming up. The driver wasn’t going to risk losing the money.</p>
<p>The flaw is that it was the driver who stayed that owned the car. I doubt the owner of the car would have let the more intoxicated person drive his car? So, the switch theory wouldn’t hold. Plus, they were leaving a parking lot not just driving down a road…I see your point, but it doesn’t really fit here…also, both guys were legal,so having alcohol would not have been illegal. The car was very close and easily accessed if police required.</p>
<p>Regardless, he went to court today and went in the back room to speak with the “liason” (some spoke to prosecutor and some got liason) he came out and told us that he told the liason what happened. He told him him he would dismiss the leaving the scene. No real discussion about it, so I guess they knew it was a bad charge. He took a zero point “unsafe driving” instead of fail to yield. That apparently is the new hip plea for speeding, careless and assorted offenses becauses it gives zero points in exchange for a one time surcharge. He made the choice between plea or fail to yield w/2 points. About 40 other people in court today made the same choice!</p>
<p>Did I ever mention that I should have waited for the police report before posting? The police seemed like it was such a big deal, yet the report was only a few lines including, driver 1 exited the vehicle and then let passenger remove the vehicle which was then located at drivers residence (or something like that ) it didn’t even mention that DUI was suspected, so it appears to have been much less of a big deal after all. I guess they were just flexing their muscles. </p>
<p>Driver wasn’t even close to needing lawyer! He had planned to ask for one if he had to though. He had a chance to bring a relative in the back with him (who has legal background) but he chose to do it on his own, confident in his facts and ability to ask for postponement if lawyer needed. Glad to see it worked out for him. Wished he’d have let someone come along for backup though…not sure this was the right time for “I can do this” but, maybe it was as long as he knew his rights.</p>
<p>End of story! Thanks for the support from some of you.</p>