DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 1 What Is Reckless Driving?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 1 What Is Reckless Driving? Adam C. Calinger, Esq. V I RECKLESS DRIVING R G I N I A DEFENSE DISCLAIMER CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. PRIOR CASE RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE. EACH CASE MUST BE CONSIDERED IN CONTEXT. THIS BOOK IS FOR EDUCATIONAL AND INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT INTENDED AS LEGAL ADVICE. THE INFORMATION IN THIS BOOK DOES NOT CREATE ANY ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AUTHOR AND ANY OTHER PERSON. About the Author Adam Calinger is a criminal defense attorney in Fairfax, Virginia, defending clients charged with reckless driving and other criminal offenses. Adam received his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law. He received his undergraduate degree from Xavier University. After law school, Adam worked for United States Magistrate Judge James Seibert. He assisted Judge Seibert in ruling on criminal matters such as a motion to suppress and prosecution discovery of matters protected by attorney-client privilege. Adam then worked for Judge James Haley Jr. on the Virginia Court of Appeals. The Virginia Court of Appeals is the Court that hears almost all criminal appeals. Adam helped Judge Haley write numerous criminal law opinions. The Virginia Supreme Court expressly approved the reasoning of one of these opinions. In 2014, Adam joined the Fredericksburg Office of the Public Defender. He successfully defended numerous clients. Adam handled a broad range of charges, from misdemeanors up to a jury trial carrying a possible penalty of up to life in prison. Adam now practices in Fairfax, Virginia, representing persons charged with reckless driving and other criminal offenses. He consistently obtains positive results for his clients. Adam resides in Fredericksburg, Virginia, where he enjoys socializing with friends, attending church, and playing poker. Praise from Clients for Adam Calinger “Adam Calinger has a great knowledge of the judicial system. He maps out as many possible choices for his clients as possible. He tries to understand the person. He doesn’t just look at you as another client.” --Raphael S. “Adam is a great Attorney. I gave him a call to talk about my reckless driving charge. You could really tell he knew what he was talking about. So I choose him to represent me and how glad I am that I did. He showed up early and made me feel very relaxed. My reckless driving charge was dismissed. I am so grateful to have had Adam as my Attorney. Thanks!” --Eric H. “I highly recommend Adam Calinger to anyone who needs a lawyer! I had two prior lawyers before I hired Adam Calinger and am very glad I chose him. He did an amazing job on my case. I won completely! If you need a lawyer, you should call Adam Calinger!” --Allison T. "Adam and Catherine are great! Whether you need their assistance with something big or small, they will give 100% effort in assisting you. I would recommend them to everyone!" --Caty P. Consistent Success from Adam Calinger Jurisdiction Charge Outcome Stafford Reckless Driving Dismissed King George Reckless Driving Dismissed Fairfax Reckless Driving Reduced to Speeding Loudoun Reckless Driving Reduced to Infraction Spotsylvania Reckless Driving Reduced to Speeding Stafford DUI/DWI Reduced to Reckless Driving Prince William Marijuana Reduced to Paraphernalia Fredericksburg Driving Suspended Dismissed Spotsylvania Protective Order Violation Dismissed King George Felony Probation Violation Dismissed Fredericksburg Felony Credit Card Fraud Dismissed Table of Contents Chapter 1 What Is Reckless Driving? ............................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Consequences for Reckless Driving .............................................. 10 Chapter 3 Defending Your Case ..................................................................... 18 Chapter 4 Mythical Defenses (Don’t Try These!) .......................................... 26 Chapter 5 Reducing the Charge Below Reckless Driving .............................. 31 Chapter 6 What Happens at Court? ................................................................ 38 Chapter 7 Should I Appeal My Case? ............................................................ 46 Chapter 8 Should I Hire An Attorney? ........................................................... 49 Appendix ................................................................................................. 51 Chapter 1 What is Reckless Driving? Let’s start with the basics. What is reckless driving in Virginia? If you’re reading this book, that’s probably the first question you want to know. Reckless driving is a crime. It’s a class 1 misdemeanor. It’s not a civil infraction, like a speeding ticket. It’s an actual crime that will go on your criminal record and appear in background checks. That reckless driving is a class 1 misdemeanor means it’s the most serious kind of misdemeanor. There are four degrees of misdemeanors under Virginia law, with class 4 being the least serious and class 1 being the most serious. Examples of other class 1 misdemeanors include assault and battery, petit larceny, and DUI/DWI charges. While this is serious, you should also realize most misdemeanors under Virginia law are class 1 offenses. There are 14 different kinds of reckless driving enumerated in the Virginia Code. Persons with a reckless driving charge should look at the summons they were given by the officer to determine which one applies. The summons will state a Virginia Code section for reckless driving. Now let’s go through the various types of reckless driving. In each case, I’ll give a brief explanation of what the charge involves. At the end of the chapter, I’ll lay out the Code section texts so that you can look at the law yourself. General Reckless Driving (Virginia Code Section 46.2-852) This section generally states that where a person drives a vehicle in a reckless manner, that person is guilty of reckless driving. This is the “catch all” reckless driving section. If conduct doesn’t fall under another section, or if an officer isn’t sure about what to charge, this section can come into play. While reckless driving is supposed to involve serious misconduct that endangers lives or property, what that means is often up to the judge. 1 Police officers often issue charges under this section in accident cases. If one person is determined to be at fault, that person may get a charge under this section for generally driving unsafely. Faulty Brakes (Virginia Code Section 46.2-853) This section makes it reckless driving to drive a car not under control or that has faulty brakes. This can often occur where a person drives a car and the brakes need maintenance, or where the brakes suddenly go out due to a leak in the brake fluid system. Even though such conduct may not seem reckless, the Virginia Code provides that this can constitute reckless driving. Passing on the Crest of a Grade or a Curve (Virginia Code Section 46.2-854) This section makes it an offense to pass a car while approaching a crest in the road, or a curve in the road. However, there’s an important qualification. It’s only an offense where there are not two lanes of travel in each direction and where the driver’s view is obstructed. Driving with Impaired View or Control Impaired (Virginia Code Section 46.2- 855) This section makes it a crime to drive where there are items in the car, or even people in the car, that interfere with seeing out of the sides of the car or the front of the car. Note that this does not apply to seeing out of the back of the car. If an officer charges a person with this section for having boxes blocking the rear view, that person is actually not guilty. This section also makes it a crime to drive where items or other persons prevent a person from controlling the car’s driving mechanisms. Passing Two Vehicles Next to Each Other (Virginia Code Section 46.2-856) This Code section prohibits a person from passing two cars next to each other, except where there are three lanes of travel in each direction. Note that to avoid this section, there need to be three lanes of travel in each direction. Thus, if 2 a person has three lanes and passes two cars abreast, but there are only two lanes going in the other direction, this section may still apply. Driving Two Abreast in a Single Lane (Virginia Code Section 46.2-857) Here the Code prohibits a person driving parallel to another car in a single lane. Usually one lane can’t fit more than a single car anyway. It’s fairly obvious this conduct would be reckless. There’s a specific exception here for motorcycles, which can travel next to each other in a single lane. Passing at a Railroad Grade Crossing (Virginia Code Section 46.2-858) Here the Code forbids passing another car at a railroad crossing or highway intersection unless there are two lanes of travel in each direction. That’s usually the case, so don’t expect to see this charged very often. Passing a Stopped School Bus (Virginia Code Section 46.2-859) This is a common charge in court. When a school bus stops to let off children, you’re required to stop on both sides of the road and wait till the proceeds. You don’t need to stop of the school bus is on the other side of a divided road, which means that there’s a physical barrier or an unpaved area between the two sides of the road. Be careful on this. Police tend to be diligent about it. Failing to Give Proper Signals (Virginia Code Section 46.2-860) This section covers a lot of conduct that usually just constitutes an ordinary traffic infraction. It’s put in there to provide officers with more areas to stop potentially reckless drivers. Basically it allows police to charge anyone with reckless driving where the person fails to give timely notice of a traffic signal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reckless Driving; Vehicular Manslaughter; Death of Two Or More) Penal Law § 125.14 (4) (Committed on Or After Nov
    AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR HOMICIDE (Reckless Driving; Vehicular Manslaughter; Death of Two or More) Penal Law § 125.14 (4) (Committed on or after Nov. 1, 2007) The (specify) count is Aggravated Vehicular Homicide. Under our law, a person is guilty of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide when he or she engages in Reckless Driving1 and commits the crime of Vehicular Manslaughter in the Second Degree2 and causes the death of more than one 3 person. The following terms used in that definition have a special meaning: A person ENGAGES IN RECKLESS DRIVING when that person drives or uses any motor vehicle,4 in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of a public highway, road, street, or avenue, or unreasonably endangers users of a public highway, road, street, or avenue.5 1 At this point, the statute continues: “as defined by section twelve hundred twelve of the vehicle and traffic law.” That definition is utilized in this charge in the definition of “reckless driving.” 2 At this point, the statute continues: “as defined in section 125.12 of this article.” 3 At this point, the statute states “other person.” For purposes of clarity, the word “other” modifying “person” has been omitted. 4 At this point, the statute continues: “motorcycle or any other vehicle propelled by any power other than a muscular power or any appliance or accessory thereof.” (Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1212). Such language has been omitted here due to the all encompassing term “motor vehicle.” The additional statutory language should, however, be inserted if that type of vehicle is at issue.
    [Show full text]
  • AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR HOMICIDE (Reckless Driving; Vehicular Manslaughter; BAC .18) Penal Law § 125.14 (1) (Committed on Or After Nov
    AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR HOMICIDE (Reckless Driving; Vehicular Manslaughter; BAC .18) Penal Law § 125.14 (1) (Committed on or after Nov. 1, 2007) (Revised January, 2013) 1 The (specify) count is Aggravated Vehicular Homicide. Under our law, a person is guilty of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide when he or she engages in Reckless Driving2 and commits the crime of Vehicular Manslaughter in the Second Degree3 and does so4 while operating a motor vehicle while he or she has .18 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in his or her blood as shown by chemical analysis of his or her blood, breath, urine or saliva.5 The following terms used in that definition have a special meaning: A person ENGAGES IN RECKLESS DRIVING when that 1 The 2013 revision was for the purpose of inserting into the charge the law as applied to a reckless driving charge where the driver is also alleged to have been intoxicated. See footnote eight and the text it references. 2 At this point, the statute continues: “as defined by section twelve hundred twelve of the vehicle and traffic law.” That definition is utilized in this charge in the definition of “reckless driving.” 3 At this point, the statute continues: “as defined in section 125.12 of this article.” 4 The "and does so" is substituted for the statutory language of: "and commits such crimes." The reference to "crimes" in the context of this statute is not correct. While "reckless driving" is a crime, the statute does not recite that the offender must commit the "crime" of "reckless driving"; rather, the statute recites that the offender must "engage" in "reckless driving." 5 At this point, the statute continues “made pursuant to the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-four of the vehicle and traffic law.” person drives or uses any motor vehicle,6 in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of a public highway, road, street, or avenue, or unreasonably endangers users of a public highway, road, street, or avenue.7 Intoxication, absent more, does not establish reckless driving.
    [Show full text]
  • Tortious Speech David A
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 47 | Issue 1 Article 3 Winter 1-1-1990 Tortious Speech David A. Anderson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation David A. Anderson, Tortious Speech, 47 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 71 (1990), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol47/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TORTIOUS SPEECH DAVID A. ANDERSON* When most of the communications torts were developing, it was thought that tortious speech required no constitutional protection. If the speech occurred in advertising, the tort rules of liability were doubly insulated from constitutional attack, because it was also believed that commercial speech required no constitutional protection. The courts and occasionally the leg- islatures developed nonconstitutional rules to adjust between the social, economic, and personal interests protected by these torts and the conflicting values of free speech. Except in defamation, these state law rules are still the dominant means of accommodating these competing interests. Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,' however, we have known that the constitution protects some tortious speech. Since the 1970s we have known also that the constitution protects some commercial speech. As a consequence, all the communications torts are now vulnerable to constitu- tional scrutiny.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanctions for Drunk Driving Accidents Resulting in Serious Injuries And/Or Death
    Sanctions for Drunk Driving Accidents Resulting in Serious Injuries and/or Death State Statutory Citation Description of Penalty Alabama Ala. Code §§ 13A-6-20 & Serious Bodily Injury: Driving under the influence that result in the 13A-5-6(a)(2) serious bodily injury of another person is assault in the first degree, Ala. Code § 13A-6-4 which is a Class B felony. These felonies are punishable by no more than 20 years and no less than two years incarceration. Criminally Negligent Homicide: A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide by causing the death of another through criminally negligent conduct. If the death is caused while operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, the punishment is increased to a Class C felony, which is punishable by a prison term of no more than 10 years or less than 1 year and one day. Alaska Alaska Stat. §§ Homicide by Vehicle: Vehicular homicide can be second degree 11.41.110(a)(2), murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide, depending 11.41.120(a), & on the facts surrounding the death (see Puzewicz v. State, 856 P.2d 11.41.130(a) 1178, 1181 (Alaska App. 1993). Alaska Stat. Ann. § Second degree murder is an unclassified felony and shall be 12.55.125 (West) imprisoned for not less than 15 years nor more than 99 years Manslaughter is a class A felony and punishable by a sentence of not more than 20 years in prison. Criminally Negligent Homicide is a class B felony and punishable by a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years.
    [Show full text]
  • What Happens When You Go to Traffic Court, JDP-CR-161
    You received a Complaint Ticket, Where can I park? which you may hear referred to as Some courthouses have parking, but many do What Happens an infraction or a violation. When you not. You may need to park in a nearby lot or decided to plead “Not Guilty,” you signed garage or find on-street metered parking. For When You the back of the ticket and sent it to the information, please check the website: http:// Centralized Infractions Bureau (CIB), www.jud.ct.gov/directory/court_directions.htm Go To you called CIB at (860) 263-2750 or you or call the clerk’s office. plead not guilty on line. Traffic Court Your case has been transferred to a What time should I come to the courthouse? Superior Court location for the area where your ticket was issued. You You will want to be at the courthouse at least probably have questions about what 15 minutes before the time that is in the Notice will happen when you come to court. you received. Courts have metal detectors at This brochure will answer some of your their entrances, so it may take extra time to enter questions. For more information go the building. to the Branch website at http://www. jud.ct.gov/faq/traffic.html, the Clerk’s What will happen when I get to Office, or Court Service Centers and the courthouse? Public Information Desks. The courthouse doors open at 8:30 AM. Please be prepared to wait briefly in a line at The information in this brochure is not a the entrance.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Review Process and License Disposition of Drivers Referred by Law Enforcement and Other Sources in Virginia DISCLAIMER
    DOT HS 811 484 July 2011 Medical Review Process and License Disposition of Drivers Referred by Law Enforcement and Other Sources in Virginia DISCLAIMER This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade names, manufacturers’ names, or specific products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere thanks are extended to Millicent Ford, director, Driver Services Division, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (Virginia DMV), and Ronnie Hall, deputy director, Driver Services, Virginia DMV, for supporting the data extraction and analyses activities undertaken in this project, and for their review of this report. For their monthly reporting of referral counts by source throughout this project we are also grateful to Theresa Gonyo, director (retired) of Data Management, and Donna Bryant, IT specialist, IT/Systems Support Group, both of Virginia DMV. TransAnalytics would also like to acknowledge and thank Jackie Branche, healthcare compliance officer, Medical Review Services, Virginia DMV, for her endless patience and time spent helping us understand the medical review process and her assistance during the case study data extraction and analyses. i INTRODUCTION This year, 2011, the first of the Baby Boom generation begins to reach age 65.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion and Declaration for Order Vacating Conviction Plaintiff Vs
    STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT No. Motion and Declaration for Order Vacating Conviction Plaintiff vs. Defendant. I. Motion DEFENDANT asks the court for an order vacating his or her conviction of misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offenses. This motion is based on RCW 9.96.060, the case record and files, and the declaration of defendant. Dated: Defendant/ Defendant's Attorney/ WSBA # Print Name II. Declaration of Defendant I, , state as follows: 2.1. On _________________________________________(date) I was convicted of the following offense(s): Count No: ____ Offense: _____________________________ (Check any applicable boxes below) Excluded Offense Prior Offense Domestic Violence Prostitution with Trafficking Count No: ____ Offense: _____________________________ (Check any applicable boxes below) Excluded Offense Prior Offense Domestic Violence Prostitution with Trafficking Count No: ____ Offense: _____________________________ (Check any applicable boxes below) Excluded Offense Prior Offense Domestic Violence Prostitution with Trafficking 2.2 There are no criminal charges pending against me in any court of this state or another state, or in any federal court or tribal court as of the date I file this motion (RCW 9.96.060(2)(b)); MT/DECL FOR ORD VACATING CONV (MTAF) - Page 1 of 3 CrRLJ 09.0100 - (07/2019) RCW 9.96.060 KCDC July 2019 2.3 Excluded Offenses: The offense for which I was convicted is a misdemeanor offense and not one of the following offenses (RCW 9.96.060(2)(c)-(e)): A violation of chapter 9A.44 RCW (sex offenses), except for failure to register as a sex offender under RCW 9A.44.132 A violation of chapter 9.68 RCW (obscenity and pornography) A violation of chapter 9.68A RCW (sexual exploitation of children) A violent offense as defined in RCW 9.94A.030 or an attempt to commit a violent offense Driving while under the influence (“DUI”), RCW 46.61.502 Actual physical control while under the influence, RCW 46.61.504 Operating a railroad, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Libel and the Reporting of Rumor
    Notes Libel and the Reporting of Rumor On October 5, 1981, the Washington Post reported a rumor that Presi- dent Jimmy Carter had bugged the Washington residence of President- elect Ronald Reagan during Reagan's preinauguration stay. ' A furor quickly ensued. President Carter threatened to sue the Post for libel,2 3 dropping the threat only after its publisher apologized two weeks later. The Post was harshly criticized for publishing what it admitted was ru- mor,4 and the criticism increased when the newspaper acknowledged in an 1. The report appeared in a gossip column called "The Ear," which the Post published three times a week. The report read in full: Y'ALL COME. Well. Quite a little ripple among White Housers new and old. That tired old tale about Nancy dying for the Carters to blow out of the White House as swiftly as possible is doing a re-run-with a hot new twist. (Remember the uproar? Nancy supposedly moaned that she wished Rosalynn and Jimmy would skip out before the Inauguration, so she could pitch into her decor chores.) Now, word's around among Rosalynn's close pals, about exactly why the Carters were so sure Nancy wanted them Out. They're saying that Blair House, where Nancy was lodging-and chatting up First Decorator Ted Graber-was bugged. And at least one tattler in the Carter tribe has described listening in to the Tape Itself. Now, the whole story's been carried back to the present White House inhabitants, by another tattler. Ear is absolutely appalled.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Deter Pedestrian Deaths: a Utilitarian Perspective on Careless Driving
    Touro Law Review Volume 36 Number 2 Article 5 2020 How to Deter Pedestrian Deaths: A Utilitarian Perspective on Careless Driving John Clennan Touro Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview Part of the Civil Law Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Litigation Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Clennan, John (2020) "How to Deter Pedestrian Deaths: A Utilitarian Perspective on Careless Driving," Touro Law Review: Vol. 36 : No. 2 , Article 5. Available at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol36/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Touro Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Clennan: How to Deter Pedestrian Deaths HOW TO DETER PEDESTRIAN DEATHS: A UTILITARIAN PERSPECTIVE ON CARELESS DRIVING John Clennan* I. INTRODUCTION For the last twenty years, politicians, developers, business leaders, academics, and environmentalists have formed coalitions to encourage transit-oriented development.1 Proponents of transit- oriented development argue that jurisdictions need to enact land-use reform to mitigate the damage of suburban sprawl.2 On Long Island, transit-oriented development is big business. With the goals of reducing pollution and car dependency, jurisdictions grant smart growth developers tax breaks worth millions.3 In most * Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, J.D. Candidate 2020; St. Joseph’s College, B.S. in Business Administration and Social Science, minor in History and American Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Reckless Driving; Vehicular Assault; Prior VTL 1192 Within Ten Years) Penal Law § 120.04-A (3) (Committed on Or After Nov
    AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR ASSAULT (Reckless Driving; Vehicular Assault; Prior VTL 1192 Within Ten Years) Penal Law § 120.04-a (3) (Committed on or after Nov. 1, 2007) Note: Subdivision three of Penal Law § 120.04-a requires commission of Reckless Driving, Vehicular Assault in the Second Degree and the element that the defendant has been previously convicted of violating any of the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law (or a conviction in any other state or jurisdiction for an offense which, if committed in this state, would constitute a violation of section eleven hundred ninety-two of the vehicle and traffic law) within the preceding ten years. That latter element is subject to the procedure set forth in CPL 200.60. That procedure requires that the element related to the defendant’s prior conviction be alleged in a special information. If, upon arraignment on the special information, the defendant admits the prior conviction, the court must not make any reference to the conviction in the definition of the crime or in the listing of elements. But, if the defendant denies the prior conviction or remains mute, the court must add the prior conviction element to the definition of the crime and the list of elements. See People v Cooper, 78 NY2d 476, 479 (1991)(In a Vehicular Manslaughter case, CPL 200.60 required the special information to plead both defendant’s prior conviction and that he knew that the conviction resulted in revocation of his license); People v Burgess, 89 AD3d 1100 (2d Dept, 2011)(The defendant’s admission to a special information that he was previously convicted of driving while intoxicated, that his license was accordingly revoked, and that his license remained revoked as of the date of the alleged crimes relieved the People of their burden of proving those elements, and granted the defendant the protection afforded by CPL 200.60."); People v Alshoaibi, 273 AD2d 871, 872 (4th Dept 2000)("CPL 200.60 applies both to convictions and conviction-related facts."); People v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shocking Truth About Reckless Driving Speeding in Virginia
    The Shocking Truth about Reckless Driving Speeding in Virginia By Bob Battle Virginia Reckless Driving Speeding Lawyer www.BobBattleLaw.com (866) 419-7229 Fax (866) 853-0023 [email protected] Thank you for requesting and reading this material. The fact that you have taken the time to look at this information shows that you are serious about trying to get a great result in your Reckless Driving/Speeding case. We would be more than happy to "go to battle” for you at trial. -Bob Battle About Bob Battle: Richmond, Virginia DUI & Reckless Driving/Speeding Lawyer Bob Battle has gained national fame for his success in DUI and traffic defense. His winning defense of numerous pro athletes has made him the “first round draft choice” of Virginia traffic defendants. He is the author of a book on Virginia DUI’s titled “DUI/DWI Virginia Arrest Survival Guide: The DUI Guilt Myth.” In addition, Bob writes the extremely popular blog, “Virginia DUI Lawyer” and is a highly sought out seminar lecturer, teaching other lawyers all facets of DUI and Reckless Speeding defense. He is well known for his innovative technical defenses to radar, laser and VASCAR speeding results and lectured to other lawyers statewide on “The Defense of Serious Traffic Cases.” He is a vocal and outspoken critic of Virginia’s Reckless Driving Speeding laws and penalties. Bob has been interviewed by CNN and CBS Evening News and quoted in the Washington Post about Virginia’s harsh speeding laws. A former Fairfax prosecutor and federal law clerk, Bob Battle, has achieved the highest rating a lawyer can receive for Legal Ability and Ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • Vehicular Homicide Overview.Pdf
    Penalties for Drunk Driving Vehicular Homicide Victims of drunk driving crashes are given a life sentence. In instances of vehicular homicide caused by drunk drivers, these offenders rarely receive a life sentence in prison. Laws vary greatly on the amount of jail or prison time a drunk driver who kills an innocent person may receive. Most states have laws specifying penalties for drunk drivers who kill another person. Other states, like North Dakota and Arizona, do not but are able to bring charges that may bring incarceration through other statutes. Laws providing penalties for drunk drivers who kill allow for vast judicial discretion. As a result, offenders may receive days in jail followed by probation or in very rare instances—a life sentence. This document covers statutes providing for penalties to be brought against a drunk driver who kills another person through the operation of a motor vehicle, either intentionally or negligently. Approximate Jail or Prison Sentences Possible in Traffic Crash Deaths Caused by a Drunk Driver* Alabama: 1 to 10 years Montana: 0 to 30 years Alaska: 1 to 99 years Nebraska: 1 to 50 years Arizona: 1 to 22 years Nevada: 2 to 25 years Arkansas: 5 to 20 years New Hampshire: 0 to 15 years California: 0 to 10 years New Jersey: 5 to 10 years Colorado: 0 to 24 years New Mexico: 0 to 6 years Connecticut: 1 to 10 years New York: 0 to 15 years Delaware: 1 to 5 years North Carolina: 15 to 480 months DC: 0 to 30 years North Dakota: 0 to life Florida: 0 to 15 years imprisonment Georgia: 0 to 15 years Ohio: 1 to
    [Show full text]