#chatham County Speeding Ticket

[trafficticketskissling]

Should Judges Get Special License Plates?

www.kisslinglaw.com

11/3/17

Two days ago I was in the office of an assistant district attorney who was a former magistrate judge.  I saw a license plate similar to the one above on his wall and had no idea what it was for.  I though it had something to do with Michael Jordan.  My question to him was why do judges have special license plates.  Off the cuff, he said, “so we do not get pulled over by police.”  This did not shock me.  I cannot think of any other legitimate reason for judges to have special license plates.  I did a little research and came across the article below from NY where they looked into whether or not it was ethical.  Of course the state bar came to the wrong conclusion.  See below.

A state commission looking at whether judicial license plates help judges dodge parking and traffic tickets declared Wednesday there was no problem.

But one of the panel’s own members slammed the report as “an exercise in evasion.”

“The failure of our report to confront the issue head on ... betrays a pragmatic queasiness with the possibility of withdrawing an established, longstanding perk for the judiciary," wrote veteran attorney Richard Emery, a member of the Commission on Judicial Conduct. "Public confidence will further erode if we exempt our judges from equal application of the law — no matter how minor."

The commission started probing the issue in August after an upstate judge — who served in the Office of Court Administration advising judges on ethics — helped fix a ticket for herself and for the wife of another judge.

At the time, the commission declared the possible abuse of judicial license plates to dodge parking and traffic tickets was potentially pervasive.

The commission also noted it had "repeatedly" looked at cases where judicial plates inspired cops to deep-six parking and traffic violations for judges.

But Wednesday's 14-page report said such plates were not a problem.

Paid Content by Florastor Daily Probiotic

Flora + Restore = Florastor®

State records show 2,265 state, local and federal judges use the specially marked plates on their private vehicles.

The 10-member commission issued a finding that declared judicial plates "do not create an appearance of impropriety."

Four commission members are judges, two of whom have judicial plates.

The toughest recommendation in the report was to order the Office of Court Administration to put the issue on the agenda of training programs for judges.

Even the report itself made clear the commission keeps running into this issue: "Over the years in the course of investigating other complaints of ticket-fixing, the Commission has been advised by law enforcement officers in various parts of the state that at times they have declined to issue tickets to motorists whom they stopped for speeding, once they realized by virtue of license plates that the drivers were judges."

Emery blasted the findings, citing numerous cases of judges fixing or trying to fix tickets, and even of one judge being driven home by cops to avoid a drunk-driving charges instead of being arrested.

"Though judges are unequivocally prohibited from using their judicial status to obtain special treatment for themselves, their families or friends, they are legislatively authorized to flaunt their judicial status on their personal vehicles wherever they go," he wrote. "This schizophrenic message inevitably leads to bizarre scenarios involving special treatment being afforded and accepted by judges."

Thanks to the NY Daily News for the article

[dr-archeville]

INDY Daily: Back to School with COVID-19, the Feasibility of Reparations, the Triangle's Renter Wage Gap

It’s Wednesday, August 11

   Thanks to our sponsor this week, Theatre Raleigh. August 25th kicks off their third show in their 2021 Summer Season series, Fun Home. Winner of the 2015 Tony Award for Best Musical, Fun Home is a refreshingly honest, wholly original musical about seeing your parents through grown-up eyes. Theatre Raleigh is also committed to ensuring the comfort and safety of their audiences and artists.  Visit Theatre Raleigh to book your tickets and learn more about their safety updates.

Good morning, readers.

I hate to ruminate on bad news all the time but with the COVID-19 situation being what it is today, I don't feel like I have any other choice.

The state's percent positive rate was reported at 14 percent yesterday, higher than at any point I can recall (though I believe it was higher at the pandemic's peak this winter).  This report details how North Carolina's COVID surge is actually steeper than this winter's:

"Multiple experts agree that the speed of the increase in the number of cases per day is faster now than it was over the winter, and that’s due to the highly contagious delta variant.

From June to October of 2020, the number of daily new coronavirus cases reported were mostly in the 1,000s or 2,000s range, with several exceptions where the state only reported a few hundred new cases.  On Nov. 11, the state reported over 3,000 new cases for the first time.  On Nov. 19, there were over 4,000 new cases for the first time.

But the current surge in COVID-19 cases in North Carolina looks a little different.  On June 30, 208 new cases of COVID-19 were reported in North Carolina.  But it only took until Aug. 5 for the state to report over 4,000 new COVID-19 cases."

Mask mandates are back for Durham, Orange, and Chatham counties, and likely will come back for Wake, too, once all the county's mayors get on the same page.

There are reports of COVID-19 clusters at nine schools across Wake, Durham, and Johnston counties.  Teachers and staff from WCPSS to UNC-Chapel Hill have told us they're worried the Delta variant will run rampant in their classrooms.

And all the while, we're living in dueling realities, where some  of us have been vaccinated, some of us can't be vaccinated, and some of us won't be.

As I was driving to work yesterday, I listened to this NPR interview with the chancellor of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.  I know, it's Arkansas, where only about a third of the population is fully vaccinated.  While the situation maybe isn't so dire in North Carolina, it was jarring just the same.

The doctor, Cam Patterson, talked about how much different this wave of the virus is, with younger patients hospitalized with serious illness, pregnant mothers losing their babies because of COVID-19 infections, children hospitalized with COVID complications, including a five-week old baby, at the Arkansas Children's Hospital.

I don't highlight all this to shock or scare people, but to ask people who are resistant to the precautions –– getting vaccinated, wearing a mask indoors, asking children to wear masks at school –– to please consider the medical workers who have to take care of COVID-19 patients day in and day out.  Because they live in a different reality, too, and it's one that's likely a lot worse than any of us who haven't experienced it are able to imagine.

We've got a new, COVID coverage-heavy issue on stands today, and you can read all of our stories on our website. Stay safe and thanks for reading.

Like the INDY Daily? Share it with your friends and ask them to subscribe

The INDY Daily is made possible by the INDY Press Club, which is helping us keep fearless, independent local journalism viable in the Triangle.

[Photos from archives.]

Orange County

We spoke with Shenekia Weeks, the Town of Chapel Hill's new (and first) officer for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, about her work.

Orange County will reinstate its indoors mask mandate beginning at 5 p.m. today. The requirement applies to the municipalities of Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill.

A UNC faculty member told the INDY she doesn't feel the university is fully prepared for the return of students:

"I don’t feel safe and I think there are a lot of people that are uncomfortable but it’s all said in one-on-one conversations. It’s not said in a group setting. I think everyone is a little wary about saying too much and everyone is just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Students come back in a week and we have been there for three weeks now. It feels really tense."

Durham County

In Durham, the percentage of fully vaccinated residents has been dropping off month to month since June.

Duke economist William Darity, Jr. will helm a research project on the feasibility of paying reparations to the descendants of Black enslaved people, funded by a $300,000 grant from the William T. Grant Foundation.

[Illustration by Jon Fuller.]

Wake County

While COVID-19 metrics are increasing rapidly in Wake County, and neighboring counties are reinstating mask mandates, Wake County hasn't yet. Such a mandate would need buy-in from all 12 mayors of the county's 12 municipalities, in addition to county leaders. Mayor Mary-Ann Baldwin and Cary Mayor Harold Weinbrecht told the N&O they're monitoring the situation.

A Wake County Public Schools middle school music teacher says she is worried about the Delta variant running rampant in her classroom:

"It is kind of like rearranging the furniture when the house is on fire. None of us feel quite ready to tackle this beast again but here we go whether we’re ready or not."

Wake County is offering free at-home COVID-19 testing kits.

House Wake!, which provides financial assistance to people during the pandemic, has launched an online portal.

Guest House Raleigh, the boutique hotel started by former Raleigh Planning Commission member Matt Tomasulo and his wife, architect Nicole Alvarez, has been sold to Loden Properties, owner of downtown Raleigh's Longleaf Hotel. Loden acquired the hotel, located at 420 South Bloodworth Street, for $1.75 million.

The zebra cobra owner took a plea deal and will give up his snakes, plus pay a $13,000 fine, some of which will go to the first responders who worked the case.

NC + Elsewhere

A new study from personal financial website Smartest Dollar found that the Triangle fared poorly in terms of the renter wage gap.

House Bill 96 was presented to Gov. Cooper yesterday. The bill permits pharmacists to administer more injections and other medications, including PEP and birth control, but it prohibits teens from getting a COVID-19 shot on their own. It's not clear whether Cooper will sign the bill.

Charlotte is the latest city to expand LGBTQ protections. Where's Raleigh?

In case you missed it, Madison Cawthorn is joining a revolt against members of the Buncombe County School Board for requiring masks in public schools.

Statewide COVID-19 by the numbers: Tuesday, August 10

2,985 New lab-confirmed cases (1,089,923 total; seven-day average trending up)

2,179 Current hospitalizations reported (seven-day average increasing; 13,768 total deaths, +9 over Monday)

16,006 Completed tests (14.76 million total; most recent positive rate was 14 percent)

9,984,713 Total vaccinations administered; 47 percent of population fully vaccinated; 58 percent of 18 years+ fully vaccinated (State data not updated daily)

[Image from DPAC.]

Eat. Drink. Do.

Get out and about in the Triangle today. Got an Eat.Drink.Do Idea? Email us at EatDrinkDo@indyweek.com

Eat This spicy fudge brownie with vanilla ice cream, dulce de leche caramel, and peanut-cocoa nib crumble from Luna Rotisserie looks to be everything.

Drink Grab a beer after a run at Raleigh Brewing's Run Club. 

Do Styx performs at DPAC as part of its world tour.

Today's weather

Partly cloud and hotter with highs in the mid

Song of the day

Styx –– Come Sail Away The famed 70s rock band band plays DPAC as part of its world tour this evening.

—Jane Porter— Send me an email | Find me on Twitter

If you’d like to advertise your business to the Daily's 33,000-plus subscribers, please contact John Hurld at jhurld@indyweek.com.

Love the INDY Daily? Support it by joining the INDY Press Club.

[wileynickelus]

Criminal Defense Law Firm Located in Cary

Criminal Lawyers Relight NC At The Law offices of Wiley Nickel, PLLC we take care of a number of Criminal arguments by the person for whom the law process is against matters in and around the vessel after-wash division for government purposes. Our office is gave position of in Cary, North Carolina.

Vessel after-wash division for government purposes& Durham County Criminal fields of interest covering:

1.      DWI/DUI cases

2.      Assault cases

3.      First Offender Programs/Drinking tickets

4.      Marijuana Possession/Minor medical substance sometimes used for amusement attacks

5.      Larceny/Shoplifting cases

6.      Vessel after-wash division for government purposes& Durham County Low-Level Felony examples

7.      DMV Hearings 

8.      kept by man violent acts safe-keeping orders 

9.      wake division for government purposes, Chatham division for government purposes& Lee County Traffic/Speeding tickets

10.  uncontested divorces/No competition, fight Divorce  in cry for dead County

11.  Expungements throughout North Carolina

1.      Expungements for sent away cases

2.       Expungements for having necessary qualities felony/misdemeanor law decisions against the wrongdoer

Call US- 1 (919) 585-1486 and the best lawyers support you in The Law offices of Wiley Nickel, PLLC.

[trafficticketskissling]

www.kisslinglaw.com

As you may be able to tell, I am on a kick about passing stopped school buses.  My question is why are the consequences so high.  In North Carolina, passing a stopped school bus carries $180 in court costs, $500 fine and is a misdemeanor.  According to the below article, there is less than one child killed each year in North Carolina due to passing a stopped school bus.  On the other side, according to state DMV records, there are on average over 80 teen fatalities each year.  Shouldn’t the legislature be more concerned about the 80 than the one?

Article 1

Every school day in North Carolina, drivers pass stopped school buses, violating state laws requiring drivers to yield when a bus’s stop arm is extended.

“Over 3,000 cars per day in North Carolina pass a stopped school bus illegally while it’s stopped to pick up kids,” said Derek Graham, section chief of transportation services at the N.C. Department of Public Instruction.

Data provided by DPI indicates that 3,153 vehicles passed stopped school buses on March 26. There were 13,323 school buses on North Carolina roadways on that single day, and with more than 800,000 kids in the state relying on these buses, the danger is very real.

“The biggest safety problem for kids is not on the school bus itself — that’s the safest way to get to and from school — it’s getting on and off the bus,” Graham said.

Click Here for a map showing stop arm violations in each county Since 1999, 13 children have died simply trying to get to and from school. One of those children was 7-year-old Alyiah Morgan, of Harrells, who in April 2013 was hit by a truck along Highway 421.

Alyiah was getting off her school bus — its lights were flashing and the stop sign was out — when the Highway Patrol said a log truck went past stop sign and hit her. She died on the way to the hospital.

“She was tomboy when she wanted to be a tomboy, a princess when she wanted to be a princess,” her aunt Rosabell Martinez described.

She said memories of Alyiah’s contagious smile and her eyes that could light up a room are things that she keeps close to her heart.

“It’s terrible you have to lose somebody you love for something so senseless — that this person was in a rush or that person wasn’t paying attention,” Martinez said.

The driver in the case, Johnny Allen Spell, was charged with involuntary manslaughter and driving while impaired. He is currently in prison.

The Rules

Cases like Alyiah’s are far too common, and with new technology the proof is undeniable. A pilot program funded by the state has equipped more than 400 buses with new camera systems.

Now, surveillance videos show what the state’s bus drivers have seen for years.

“The cameras are rolling at every bus stop,” Graham said.

Still, the program is limited in scope. The N.C. Department of Public Instruction reports that Wake County, for example, has 928 buses, but only two with stop-arm cameras. Durham County has 260 buses and three with the cameras, while Cumberland County has 444 buses and only two with cameras.

Link: Buses with stop-arm cameras by North Carolina school district Those cameras catch images of the car, the driver and the license plate — a task that used to be left up to the bus driver.

Bus driver Cooper often has his bus passed while stopped “I blow my horn or something like that to try and get their attention. but they already flew by,” said Thomas Cooper, who has been behind the wheel of a school bus for 4 years.

“A lot of times the places we have to stop, they have to cross the street,” he added. “I’ve got to constantly keep my eye out on the child and the traffic.”

Under North Carolina law, G.S. 20-217, drivers going either direction must stop when a school bus is stopped to let children off unless it is on a four or more lane highway divided by a median or a four or more lane road with a center turning lane. Drivers are not supposed to continue until the bus has completed dropping the children off and begun to move again.

The cue is the bus’s lights. The bus will first flash yellow lights indicting it is about to stop.

But Graham said many drivers have the view that yellow means to speed up to get through.

“Yellow means caution,” Graham said. “On a school bus, that’s where you have to be cautious because there are kids around.”

Children Often Aren’t Watching

Of course, children aren’t necessarily watching for cars, which is one reason North Carolina has strict laws to protect children.

WNCN Investigates took cameras out to see what happened when school buses stopped for students, and it only took minutes to find violators.

On Aug. 19, WNCN followed a school bus in Cary. At the first stop, a white convertible zoomed by as the bus opened its doors, completely ignoring the flashing stop arm on the bus.

That’s no surprise to those like Martinez, who has seen what can be horrible consequences.

“Even if it’s not your child, you should be thinking about someone else’s child,” Martinez said.

“We’d love to have the situation where the cameras are not even needed because people are doing what they are supposed to do,” Graham said. “Until that happens, we’re going to take the evidence off these cameras to make sure the motoring public either pays attention or pays up.”

For Martinez, it’s a call for stricter laws, and since 2001 lawmakers have been working on doing just that.

The latest changes came in 2012.

“It was increased to $500, it’s five points on your driver’s license, and it gets even worse if you were to strike or kill a child. We’re talking felonies,” Graham said.

Drivers who are convicted of passing school bus face a $500 fine, a hefty five points on their driver’s record and are not eligible for a prayer for judgment.

A driver who passes a stopped school bus and hits someone will face a Class I felony and a minimum of $1,000. The penalty rises to a Class H felony and fine of $2,500 if someone is killed.

Solving the Problem

So what are the solutions? Part of it is making sure children are paying attention as they cross.

“No earbuds, no texting while crossing the street — parents and students alike,” Graham said.

Although for little kids, it’s not always easy. WNCN’s cameras also saw children darting across the street without a single glance.

“A lot of times they’re sleepy, they want to eat — all type of situations like this,” said Cooper, the bus driver.

Martinez, the aunt of Alyiah Morgan, urges drivers to be careful “Our kids can’t see around that school bus,” added Martinez. “Who is that other person who’s going to help our child get from one end to the other end?”

Bus drivers and parents must help guide students when it’s safe to cross.

“Put an extra person on the bus. Have a monitor,” she added.

It’s Alyiah’s story that pushes Martinez to call for change.

“I challenge every single person that has a driver’s license to watch for these babies, because you could prevent what we’re going through,” she explained. “Let’s make changes to save somebody else’s child.”

Chart 1

https://connect.ncdot.gov/business/DMV/DMV%20Documents/2015%20Crash%20Facts.pdf

[trafficticketskissling]

Will Defects on Face of Ticket get you a Dismissal

www.kisslinglaw.com

In a lot of states, you can get a traffic ticket dismissed is there are any mistakes on the face of the ticket.  No so in North Carolina.  Here is a great article from the NC School of Government on the issue.

Last year, the court of appeals ruled that a citation that failed to allege an essential element of an offense was sufficient to serve as the State’s pleading. The court concluded that “the standard for issuance of an indictment [which must allege every essential element of an offense to be valid] is not precisely the same as [for] a citation,” and under the more relaxed standard, the citation adequately identified the offense even though it failed to allege an essential element. State v. Allen, __ N.C. App. __, 783 S.E.2d 799 (2016) (an officer cited a motorist for an open container violation, but failed to allege that the container was in the passenger compartment of the defendant’s vehicle; more information about Allen is here).

Last week, a divided panel of the same court ruled that a citation that failed to allege multiple elements of an offense was sufficient. The new opinion raises questions about just how low the bar is for citations, and perhaps for other district court pleadings as well.

The new case is State v. Jones.

Facts. The case began when a Raleigh officer stopped a vehicle for speeding. The driver wasn’t impaired, but did have an open can of cold beer in the car. The officer issued a citation that read in part as follows:

The officer named below has probable cause to believe that on or about Sunday, the 04 day of January, 2015 at 10:16PM in [Wake] [C]ounty . . . [Defendant] did unlawfully and willfully OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON A STREET OR HIGHWAY AT A SPEED OF 62 MPH IN A 45 MPH ZONE. (G.S. 20-141(J1)

and on or about Sunday, the 04 day of January, 2015 at 10:16PM in [Wake] [C]ounty . . . [Defendant] did unlawfully and willfully WITH AN OPEN CONTAINER OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AFTER DRINKING. (G.S. 20-138.7(A))[.]

Procedural history. The defendant was convicted on both counts in district court and appealed for trial de novo in superior court. A jury acquitted him of speeding but convicted him of the open container violation. He appealed again to the appellate division, arguing that the charging language for the open container charge was defective. He contended that the language omits (1) any allegation that he drove or operated a motor vehicle on a public street or highway, and (2) any allegation that the open container was in the passenger area of his vehicle.

Majority opinion. Judge Berger, joined by Judge Dillon, concluded that the citation was sufficient. The majority reasoned that a citation must only “[i]dentify the crime charged,” G.S. 15A-302(c); that the official commentary to article 49 of chapter 15A of the General Statutes states that this is “less than is required” for other forms of criminal process, because a citation “will be prepared by an officer on the scene”; and that a defendant who wants a more technical statement of the offense has a right to object to trial on a citation and thereby to require the State to file a statement of charges or to obtain a summons or an arrest warrant, G.S. 15A-922(c).

Applying these principles to the citation at issue, the majority stated:

The citation properly identified the crime of having an open container of alcohol in the car while alcohol remained in [the defendant’s] system . . . by citing [G.S.] 20-138.7(a) and stating Defendant had an open container of alcohol after drinking. Identifying a crime charged does not require a hyper-technical assertion of each element of an offense.

Dissent. Judge Zachary dissented. In her view, (1) a citation is a criminal pleading, G.S. 15A-921; (2) a pleading must “asserts facts supporting every element of a criminal offense,” G.S. 15A-924(a)(5); and (3) the citation at issue failed to allege multiple essential elements and so was fatally defective. As to the majority’s conclusion that the citations are held to a lower standard than other charging documents, Judge Zachary contended that the relaxed standard applies to the use of a citation as a criminal process that requires the defendant to come to court, but not to the use of a citation as a criminal pleading that formally charges the defendant with an offense.

Analysis. Both the majority opinion and the dissent in Jones are thoughtful and detailed. Given the dissent, I would be surprised if the defendant did not exercise his right to have the state supreme court review the matter.

If there is no further appeal, or if Jones is affirmed, two principal questions will arise:

Just how low is the bar for citations? When does charging language fail to “identify” the offense charged? The majority in Jones seemed to rely in part on the fact that the correct statutory citation accompanied the charging language. Will the inclusion of a correct statutory citation cure any and all defects with a citation? Could a statutory citation be sufficient by itself to identify an offense, even without any charging text?

Is there any impact on other district court pleadings? Most of the reasoning in Jones is specific to citations. Only citations are prepared by an officer in the field and a defendant’s right to object to being tried on a citation does not extend to other types of pleadings. But the last several pages of the majority opinion explores what seems to be an alternative holding that even if the citation were defective, “the [citation’s] failure to comply with [G.S.] 15A-924(a)(5) by neglecting to allege facts supporting every element of an offense in a citation is not a jurisdictional defect” that may be raised at any time.  The majority’s argument seems to be that while a proper indictment is required for the superior court to have jurisdiction over a felony, district court matters do not have the same jurisdictional prerequisite. Candidly, I am not sure that I fully grasp this section of the opinion, but the court appears to be drawing a distinction between misdemeanors and felonies, not between citations and other pleadings. Therefore, its reasoning may apply to other district court pleadings, and may impact the remedy available when pleading defects are identified.

I didn’t quickly find numerous cases from other states addressing similar issues, but I did find one. In State v. Leach, 782 P.2d 552 (Wash. 1989) (en banc), the Supreme Court of Washington held that while most criminal charging documents must allege every element of a charged offense, citations need not do so as long as they describe the offense generally and provide a citation to the pertinent statute. As did the majority in Jones, the court emphasized that citations are normally prepared at the scene by law enforcement officers.

[trafficticketskissling]

New Regs for Automated Cars

www.kisslinglaw.com

Great blog from NC SOG on new legislature on automated cars.

Last month, the General Assembly ratified a bill authorizing the operation of fully autonomous vehicles on state roadways. The legislation is effective December 1, 2017.  If you expect your car to begin driving you to work later this fall, however, you’ll be disappointed. In this instance, legislation has outpaced the technology it regulates.

The legislation. North Carolina joined nineteen other states in regulating the operation of the autonomous vehicles when Governor Roy Cooper signed House Bill 469 last week.

S.L. 2017-166 (H 469) enacts new Article 18 in Chapter 20 (G.S. § 20-400 – 403) to regulate the operation of fully autonomous vehicles. A “fully autonomous vehicle” is a motor vehicle that is equipped with an automated driving system that does not require an occupant of the vehicle to perform any portion of the operational or tactical control of the vehicle when the automated driving system is engaged. In fact, to qualify as a fully autonomous vehicle any equipment that permits an occupant to perform part of the driving task must be stowed or made unusable so that an occupant cannot assume control of the vehicle when the automated driving system is engaged.

In engineering lingo, fully autonomous vehicles are classified at SAE Levels 4 and 5. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration explains these classifications this way:

At SAE Level 4, an automated system can conduct the driving task and monitor the driving environment, and the human need not take back control, but the automated system can operate only in certain environments and under certain conditions; and

At SAE Level 5, the automated system can perform all driving tasks, under all conditions that a human driver could perform them.

Vehicle requirements. New G.S. 20-401(g) permits the operation of fully autonomous vehicles on North Carolina roadways if the vehicle meets all of the following requirements:

(1) the vehicle complies with state and federal law and has been certified as being in compliance with federal motor vehicle safety standards;

(2) if involved in a crash, the vehicle is capable of stopping at the scene, contacting the appropriate law enforcement agency to report the crash, calling for medical assistance, and remaining at the scene until authorized to leave;

(3) the vehicle can achieve a “minimal risk condition” (meaning that if the automatic driving system fails, the vehicle comes to a complete stop);

(4) the vehicle is covered by a motor vehicle liability policy meeting statutory requirements; and

(5) the vehicle is lawfully registered.

No license necessary. New G.S. 20-401(a) states that the operator of a fully autonomous vehicle with the automated driving system engaged is not required to be licensed to drive.

The owner is responsible. New G.S. 20-401(d) provides that the person in whose name a fully autonomous vehicle is registered is responsible for any moving violations involving the vehicle.

Fully autonomous vehicles are no substitute for a babysitter. A person must be at least 12 years old to travel unsupervised in a fully autonomous vehicle. G.S. 20-401(c) makes it unlawful for the parent or legal guardian of a child under 12 to knowingly permit the child to occupy a fully autonomous vehicle that is in motion or that has the engine running unless the child is being supervised by a person who is at least 18 years old.

Preemption. Local governments are prohibited under new G.S. 20-401(f) from enacting laws regulating fully autonomous vehicles or vehicles that are equipped with an automated driving system. Local governments may, however, continue to regulate traffic as authorized in Chapter 153A and Chapter 160A of the General Statutes so long as the regulations apply to motor vehicles generally.

Fully Autonomous Vehicle Committee established. New G.S. 20-403 creates a Fully Autonomous Vehicle Committee within the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and specifies the categories of persons who shall comprise the 17-member committee. The committee must meet at least four times a year to consider matters related to fully autonomous vehicle technology, review the application of state motor vehicle law to fully autonomous vehicles, make recommendations regarding the testing of fully autonomous vehicles, make recommendations for DOT rules and ordinances, and make recommendations to the General Assembly on necessary changes to state law.

Where can I get one of these vehicles?  Nowhere just yet.

Ford Motor Company says it will produce a fully autonomous vehicle by 2021. But the vehicle it promises is a Level 4 vehicle, which means that it is fully autonomous only in certain areas and under certain conditions. An industry analyst explained here that such a car may only be fully autonomous in a geo-fenced area, such as the area of Pittsburgh where Uber is testing self-driving cars.

It may be another decade before Level 5 automation—think a vehicle with no steering wheel or pedals—is available.  But when it is, North Carolina will be ready.

[trafficticketskissling]

Duty to Report Accidents

www.kisslinglaw.com

Great article on what accidents need to be reported to police by Shea Denning of the NC SOG.

The general rule for a driver involved in a crash in which a person is injured or at least $1,000 in property damages occurs is this: The driver must stop his vehicle at the scene and must remain there with the vehicle until a law enforcement officer completes the crash investigation or authorizes the driver to leave and the vehicle to be removed. There is, however, an exception to this rule. That exception led to yesterday’s court of appeals opinion in State v. Scaturro, reversing a driver’s conviction on charges that he left the scene of a crash.

What is the exception? A driver may leave a crash scene in his vehicle to call for a law enforcement officer, to call for medical assistance or treatment, or to remove himself or others from significant risk of injury. G.S. 20-166. A driver who leaves for one of these purposes must return with the vehicle to the accident scene within a reasonable period of time, unless otherwise instructed by a law enforcement officer.

An additional responsibility. In addition to stopping and remaining at the scene, the driver of a vehicle involved in a crash must provide reasonable assistance to any person injured in the crash. Reasonable assistance includes calling for medical assistance.

What happened in State v. Scaturro? The defendant in Scaturro was driving his car in Wilmington, NC when he struck a boy riding a bicycle, who was making a U-turn around a median in the road. The boy was thrown from the bicycle, and the left side of his head, shoulder and elbow struck the pavement as he skidded across the road. His left ear was nearly severed in the fall.

The defendant got out of his car and saw that the boy was profusely bleeding. He gave the boy a rag to hold against his head. The boy called 911, but while he was on the phone, the defendant said he would take him to the hospital. The boy got into the defendant’s car and the defendant drove “‘like a maniac to get [him] to the hospital.’”  When the boy got out of the defendant’s car at the hospital, he made note of the defendant’s license plate number. The boy’s torn ear was removed in surgery immediately following the accident, and he has undergone additional surgeries since that time.

Two days after the accident, a highway patrol trooper located the defendant and asked him about the accident. The defendant admitted his involvement, and was arrested. He was indicted for one count of felony hit and run resulting in serious bodily injury in violation of N.C.G.S. § 20-166(a). The indictment alleged that he “unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously did fail to remain at the scene” of a crash.

At defendant’s trial on the hit and run charges, the court instructed the jury that, in order for the defendant to be guilty of the offense, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “defendant’s failure to remain at the scene of the crash was willful, that is intentional.” The court defined intent as “a mental attitude seldom provable by direct evidence” and explained that intent “must ordinarily be proved by circumstances from which it may be inferred.”

Issue on appeal. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on willfulness.   He argued that the evidence showed that he only left the scene of the accident to take the injured boy to the nearest hospital, which is permitted under N.C.G.S. § 20-166(a) and (b), and therefore he did not willfully violate the statute. In response, the State argued that the defendant was not entitled to an instruction on willfulness because the statute does not permit a driver to leave the scene of an accident at all—not even to obtain medical assistance. Because the defendant did not object at trial to the jury instructions, the court of appeals considered whether the failure to instruct on willfulness was plain error. To meet that standard, it must be probable that absent the instructional error the jury would have returned a different verdict.

Court’s analysis.  The court of appeals quickly concluded that the trial court’s jury instructions were erroneous as G.S. 20-166(a) penalizes only willful violations of the statute. To be willful, an act must be both intentional and without justification or excuse. Thus, the court explained, a defendant might leave the scene of an accident intentionally, but still not willfully violate G.S. 20-166(a) if the intentional departure was justified or with excuse.

In considering whether the error had a probable impact on the jury’s verdict, the court noted that the defendant’s sole defense to the charges was that he was authorized to leave the crash scene; indeed, the defendant said he was required to leave to procure medical help for the boy. The defendant further contended that his failure to return to the scene was not willful as he was in an extremely emotional state and was traumatized by the accident. There was evidence at trial to support the defendant’s arguments.

The appellate court concluded that, given this context, the trial court’s failure to provide an instruction on willfulness deprived the defendant “of the gravamen of his basis for acquittal.” Had he received the instruction, the court reasoned, “it is at least probable that a jury would have concluded that [the] [d]efendant had a justification or excuse for leaving the scene and failing to return.”

The court reversed the defendant’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.

What is the scope of the exception?  To “prevent further confusion and danger” the court went on to explain that a driver may lawfully leave a crash scene to obtain medical care for himself or another injured person. The court reasoned that even though G.S. 20-166(a) instructs that drivers may only leave the scene to call for aid, that authorization is expanded by subsection (b)’s requirement that drivers render reasonable assistance to any person injured in a crash, which can include, but is not limited to, calling for medical assistance.

The court explained that “taking a seriously injured individual to the hospital to receive medical treatment is not prohibited . . .  in the event that such assistance is reasonable under the circumstances.” In fact, the court noted, violation of the directive in G.S. 20-166(b) to provide reasonable assistance is itself a Class 1 misdemeanor.

[trafficticketskissling]

Hit and Run

Yesterday I was rear ended while stopped in traffic.  As I was right in front of a gas station, I pulled out of the roadway into the gas station.  As I did so, the vehicle who hit me crossed over two lanes of traffic and drove away.  Luckily, the person behind them got their license number and gave it to me. 

Since i was not hurt, and my card did not have any damage, was the other driver required to stop and exchange information with me?  As you can see from the statute quoted below, the answer is yes, even if there is little property damage and no personal injury.

§ 20-166.  Duty to stop in event of a crash; furnishing information or assistance to injured person, etc.; persons assisting exempt from civil liability.

(a)        The driver of any vehicle who knows or reasonably should know:

(1)        That the vehicle which he or she is operating is involved in a crash; and

(2)        That the crash has resulted in serious bodily injury, as defined in G.S. 14-32.4, or death to any person;

shall immediately stop his or her vehicle at the scene of the crash. The driver shall remain with the vehicle at the scene of the crash until a law-enforcement officer completes the investigation of the crash or authorizes the driver to leave and the vehicle to be removed, unless remaining at the scene places the driver or others at significant risk of injury.

Prior to the completion of the investigation of the crash by a law enforcement officer, or the consent of the officer to leave, the driver may not facilitate, allow, or agree to the removal of the vehicle from the scene for any purpose other than to call for a law enforcement officer, to call for medical assistance or medical treatment as set forth in subsection (b) of this section, or to remove oneself or others from significant risk of injury. If the driver does leave for a reason permitted by this subsection, then the driver must return with the vehicle to the accident scene within a reasonable period of time, unless otherwise instructed by a law enforcement officer. A willful violation of this subsection shall be punished as a Class F felony.

(a1)      The driver of any vehicle who knows or reasonably should know:

(1)        That the vehicle which he or she is operating is involved in a crash; and

(2)        That the crash has resulted in injury;

shall immediately stop his or her vehicle at the scene of the crash. The driver shall remain with the vehicle at the scene of the crash until a law enforcement officer completes the investigation of the crash or authorizes the driver to leave and the vehicle to be removed, unless remaining at the scene places the driver or others at significant risk of injury.

Prior to the completion of the investigation of the crash by a law enforcement officer, or the consent of the officer to leave, the driver may not facilitate, allow, or agree to the removal of the vehicle from the scene for any purpose other than to call for a law enforcement officer, to call for medical assistance or medical treatment as set forth in subsection (b) of this section, or to remove oneself or others from significant risk of injury. If the driver does leave for a reason permitted by this subsection, then the driver must return with the vehicle to the crash scene within a reasonable period of time, unless otherwise instructed by a law enforcement officer. A willful violation of this subsection shall be punished as a Class H felony.

(b)        In addition to complying with the requirements of subsections (a) and (a1) of this section, the driver as set forth in subsections (a) and (a1) shall give his or her name, address, driver's license number and the license plate number of the vehicle to the person struck or the driver or occupants of any vehicle collided with, provided that the person or persons are physically and mentally capable of receiving such information, and shall render to any person injured in such crash reasonable assistance, including the calling for medical assistance if it is apparent that such assistance is necessary or is requested by the injured person. A violation of this subsection is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(c)        The driver of any vehicle, when the driver knows or reasonably should know that the vehicle which the driver is operating is involved in a crash which results:

(1)        Only in damage to property; or

(2)        In injury or death to any person, but only if the operator of the vehicle did not know and did not have reason to know of the death or injury;

shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the crash. If the crash is a reportable crash, the driver shall remain with the vehicle at the scene of the crash until a law enforcement officer completes the investigation of the crash or authorizes the driver to leave and the vehicle to be removed, unless remaining at the scene places the driver or others at significant risk of injury.

Prior to the completion of the investigation of the crash by a law enforcement officer, or the consent of the officer to leave, the driver may not facilitate, allow, or agree to the removal of the vehicle from the scene, for any purpose other than to call for a law enforcement officer, to call for medical assistance or medical treatment, or to remove oneself or others from significant risk of injury. If the driver does leave for a reason permitted by this subsection, then the driver must return with the vehicle to the accident scene within a reasonable period of time, unless otherwise instructed by a law enforcement officer. A willful violation of this subsection is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(c1)      In addition to complying with the requirement of subsection (c) of this section, the driver as set forth in subsection (c) shall give his or her name, address, driver's license number and the license plate number of his vehicle to the driver or occupants of any other vehicle involved in the crash or to any person whose property is damaged in the crash. If the damaged property is a parked and unattended vehicle and the name and location of the owner is not known to or readily ascertainable by the driver of the responsible vehicle, the driver shall furnish the information required by this subsection to the nearest available peace officer, or, in the alternative, and provided the driver thereafter within 48 hours fully complies with G.S. 20-166.1(c), shall immediately place a paper-writing containing the information in a conspicuous place upon or in the damaged vehicle. If the damaged property is a guardrail, utility pole, or other fixed object owned by the Department of Transportation, a public utility, or other public service corporation to which report cannot readily be made at the scene, it shall be sufficient if the responsible driver shall furnish the information required to the nearest peace officer or make written report thereof containing the information by U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, to the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles within five days following the collision. A violation of this subsection is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(c2)      Notwithstanding subsections (a), (a1), and (c) of this section, if a crash occurs on a main lane, ramp, shoulder, median, or adjacent area of a highway, each vehicle shall be moved as soon as possible out of the travel lane and onto the shoulder or to a designated accident investigation site to complete the requirements of this section and minimize interference with traffic if all of the following apply:

(1)        The crash has not resulted in injury or death to any person or the drivers did not know or have reason to know of any injury or death.

(2)        Each vehicle can be normally and safely driven. For purposes of this subsection, a vehicle can be normally and safely driven if it does not require towing and can be operated under its own power and in its usual manner, without additional damage or hazard to the vehicle, other traffic, or the roadway.

(d)       Any person who renders first aid or emergency assistance at the scene of a motor vehicle crash on any street or highway to any person injured as a result of the accident, shall not be liable in civil damages for any acts or omissions relating to the services rendered, unless the acts or omissions amount to wanton conduct or intentional wrongdoing.

(e)        The Division of Motor Vehicles shall revoke the drivers license of a person convicted of violating subsection (a) or (a1) of this section for a period of one year, unless the court makes a finding that a longer period of revocation is appropriate under the circumstances of the case. If the court makes this finding, the Division of Motor Vehicles shall revoke that person's drivers license for two years. Upon a first conviction only for a violation of subsection (a1) of this section, a trial judge may allow limited driving privileges in the manner set forth in G.S. 20-179.3(b)(2) during any period of time during which the drivers license is revoked.

[trafficticketskissling]

NC Seat Belt Law

www.kisslinglaw.com

Great post from NC SOG.  Thanks to Shea Denning for the post.  As I teach a 4 hour safe driving course, I am amazed at the reasons young people give for not wearing their seat belts.  In one class, we had a student who wore his seat belt during the day but not at night.  His reasoning was that at night he did not want to get trapped in the car in case of an accident.  In every class, we have a least one student who claims to have a friend who lived because they were not wearing their seat belt.  Maybe it is a generational thing but I cannot imagine not wearing my seat belt.

State law has mandated seat belt use by North Carolina motorists for more than thirty years. The seat belt law has, however, changed a bit over time. As a result, not everyone is clear on who is covered, what is required, and what the penalties are for violations. This post covers the particulars of North Carolina’s seat belt requirements and addresses three common areas of confusion.

1. Everyone in the car must buckle up.

G.S. 20-135.2A

(a) requires that each occupant of a motor vehicle manufactured with seat belts have a seatbelt properly fastened about his or her body when the vehicle is in forward motion on a street or highway.

When it was first enacted

, G.S. 20-135.2A (1985) only required seat belt use by drivers and front seat passengers. Ten years ago, the

General Assembly amended the law

to require that everyone in the vehicle, including rear seat passengers, buckle up.

A separate statute,

G.S. 20-137.1

, requires that drivers with passengers who are under 16 years of age have such passengers secured in a child passenger restraint system or seat belt.

A handful of exceptions to the seat-belts-for-all-occupants requirement are listed in G.S. 20-135.2A(c).They apply to the following persons and motor vehicles:

Drivers or occupants of noncommercial motor vehicles with medical or physical conditions that prevent seat belt restraint;

Rural letter carriers;

Newspaper delivery persons while delivering newspapers;

Drivers and passengers who frequently stop and leave their vehicles or deliver property from their vehicles if the vehicle’s speed between stops is 20 mph or less;

Property carrying vehicles used for agricultural purpose in intrastate commerce;

Motor vehicles that are not required to be equipped with seat belts under federal law;

Occupants of a motor home other than the driver and front seat passengers;

Persons in the custody of a law enforcement officer who are being transported in the back of a law enforcement vehicle; and

Passengers of a residential garbage or recycling truck while the truck is operating during collection rounds.

2. A motor vehicle may not be stopped for a back-seat passenger’s failure to buckle up.

A law enforcement officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a driver or front seat passenger does not have a seat belt properly fastened about his or her body may stop the car to investigate.  A law enforcement officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that a rear seat occupant is not wearing a seat belt may not. That’s because G.S. 20-135.2A(d1) categorizes the failure to buckle up in the back seat as a secondary violation for which a vehicle may not be stopped. A law enforcement officer who has lawfully stopped a vehicle for another reason and learns in the process of a rear seat belt violation may, of course, cite the driver for this offense. Nearly as many charges were issued for unbuckled rear seat passengers in 2015 (12,847) as there were for unrestrained front-seat passengers (13,808). Charges for both categories were vastly outnumbered by the 108,320 charges issued for unbuckled drivers that year.

3. You need a statute book and a calculator to figure out the penalty for front seat violations.

The monetary penalty for a seat belt violation has significantly increased since seat belt use was first mandated. Back in 1986, a violation of the seat belt law (then, as now, an infraction) was punishable by a fine of $25. No court costs were assessed. Today, the penalty for a front-seat occupant’s failure to wear a seat belt is $25.50 plus $153.50 in district court costs.

That’s a total of $179

.

It is much simpler to calculate the costs of a rear seat violation. The penalty is a flat $10 and no costs may be assessed.

Are statutory amendments on the horizon?  

The Child Fatality Task Force, a legislative study commission,

has recommended

that law enforcement officers be permitted to stop vehicles for a back seat passenger’s failure to wear a seat belt and that the fine for back seat violations be increased to $25.  The task force contends that these changes are necessary to meet occupant protection criteria established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and to shore up certain federal funds. The task force further contends that making rear seat belt requirements a primary enforcement violation will increase seat belt usage. The group cites research findings that a greater percentage of fatal and serious injuries occur to unrestrained rear seat occupants than to unrestrained front seat occupants. It also states an unrestrained back seat passenger can injure a front seat passenger in a crash.

[wileynickelus]

Wake County Speeding Ticket Lawyer | Raleigh Traffic Citation Lawyer | Law Offices of Wiley Nickel

QUESTION: “The officer who gave me a Raleigh speeding ticket said it was mandatory that I appear in court. Do I have to appear in court?”

ANSWER: North Carolina law requires individuals to appear in Court when they receive speeding tickets at specific high rates of speed. In most situations, I’m able to get your court appearance waived and can save you the considerable time and effort of appearing in Court. It’s not a pleasant experience and it can definitely take a while. Every client at my law firm is sent a “waiver of appearance” form which allows me to handle their case without the client being present. There are certain situations where it is required for a client to appear in court but it’s usually a rare situation. For more information on how your Raleigh, NC speeding ticket will be handled please contact me directly. I’ll be happy to speak with you on the phone at any time.

QUESTION: “My Wake or Chatham County speeding ticket was for 20 mph over the speed limit. Can I lose my North Carolina driving license?”

ANSWER: Yes. However, the Law Offices of Wiley Nickel, PLLC has ways to help you keep your license. During your free initial consultation, we will discuss a number of factors that will help us in dealing with the Wake County District Attorney to help you keep your license and keep your insurance rates down.

QUESTION: “I received a North Carolina speeding ticket. I live in another state. Is the North Carolina ticket going to affect my insurance?”

ANSWER: While the DMV in your state will probably find out about the North Carolina traffic citation, the question of how the citation will affect your insurance depends on your local DMV and how your NC traffic ticket is handled. It will very likely follow you back home so it’s important to deal with it promptly. I can appear on your behalf to help fix your ticket in order to keep your insurance rates low and to make sure the damage is lessened or eliminated.

QUESTION: “My teenager just received a Wake County speeding ticket for 16 miles over the speed limit and was arrested. How can they do this?”

ANSWER: A North Carolina law went into effect that requires officers to arrest any 16 or 17 years old who has a learner’s permit or a provisional license if that person is charged with a criminal moving violation. Along with this arrest, there is an automatic license suspension for thirty days regardless of whether the teen is convicted of the offense. A teen driver charged with driving 15 mph above the speed limit, careless and reckless driving or driving in excess of 80 mph is going to be cuffed and taken downtown for mug shots and fingerprinting.

QUESTION: “Can I lose my car for prearranged racing?”

ANSWER If you have been charged with “prearranged racing” you could lose your car if convicted. Call my law office to speak with me about your case if you have been charged with this offense.

QUESTION “How can I fix a traffic ticket where I pled guilty?”

ANSWER You might be able to re-open your case by filing a Motion for Appropriate Relief. Also known as a MAR motion. MAR motions can be used in traffic cases. An example could be a situation where a driver has represented himself in court without a correct knowledge of the law and ends up with an insurance increase or suspension of license as a result.

QUESTION Can you get my ticket reduced to the non-moving violation of “improper equipment” in Wake County & Chatham County, NC?

ANSWER

Maybe! We’re looking for the right answer to the questions below for Wake County and Chatham County Traffic Tickets:

No more than one other moving violation in the last three (3) years

No more than three moving violations within the last ten (10) years

No reductions to improper equipment in North Carolina within the last three (3) years

The original ticket says you were charged with speeding 20 mph or less over the posted speed limit and not in excess of 85 mph.

Assuming eligibility we charge a flat fee of $370 for improper equipment eligible cases. That covers all court costs and fines.

Call the Law Offices of Wiley Nickel, PLLC for help!

Make sure your car insurance rates stay low by contacting a speeding ticket attorney who knows how to handle speeding tickets and get the best possible outcome. Losing your driving privilege is a very unpleasant experience and can possibly be avoided if you handle your case the right way.

Call me at 1 (919) 650–2851 for a zero cost consultation about your speeding ticket or traffic citation. I handle speeding ticket cases in Wake County and Chatham County, North Carolina including the cities of Raleigh, Cary, Apex, Morrisville, Wake Forrest, Garner, Pittsboro, Siler City, Goldston, and Fuquay Varina. My office is conveniently located in Cary, North Carolina near the SAS campus and I-40 at exit 278 (Harrison Ave exit).