tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18513854493769447782024-03-13T11:07:43.763-04:00Florida Traffic LawInformation about Florida civil and criminal traffic laws. Find out more information on my website ejdirga.com.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-79658250968576635562017-07-14T08:50:00.002-04:002019-01-22T12:07:06.362-05:00New Website ComingThe new website is up! https://ejdirga.com. I will be using that site and blogging from there only about record expungements. I will continue to use this site to post about Florida Traffic Laws and Issues.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-49977651949934974022016-05-06T09:14:00.000-04:002016-05-06T09:14:11.737-04:00Traffic Tickets, Accidents, and Dash Cams<h2>
The Dash-Cam as an Answer to Everything</h2>
<div>
When you receive a ticket that you are positive the police issued to you in error or you are in an accident that you are ticketed for but you think wrongly - you think "Dash Cam." The idea of the dash-cam usually passes through your mind after-the-fact. These little devices can be valuable since they can create evidence that can easily be introduced in court for your defense.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Shortcomings and Longcomings of the Dash-Cam</h3>
</div>
<div>
The problem with the dash-cam is two-fold. First, many people who get a dash-cam place it facing forward on their front windshield. This gives them a great forward but limited view. You may want to buy another dash-cam for the rear window. One thing you do not want to do is pull out a camera and start recording law enforcement after you have been stopped. Most Officers don't care about dash-cam recordings. They respect your ability to protect yourself and to prove them wrong (if they were wrong). However, when you pull out a phone to record anyone you are now falling under an area of the law that requires consent for such recording. Additionally, when it comes to the police, any thought of giving you a break on the reason for the stop is gone when the first thing you do is pull out a camera. Being polite in that situation is a million times more effective.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When I mention these things, many of you out there immediately start to think "what about my rights?" That's a very good question and everyone of you should know what your rights are before you decide to exert them. Today, however, not many of you know what they are but think you do and then get upset when you are told what they aren't. Bottom line - you do not have a right to interfere with a police officer doing his or her job. This is where the dash-cam has the advantage.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Placement</h4>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Another issue is "where" they attach it to the windshield. Florida law prohibits the placing of anything below the ATI line (except for toll reading devices). You can find this line on the right or left side of your windshield. Many people have their cell phone "holders" attached to their windshield below this line and have not had any problems. However, it can result in a separate ticket if you are ever stopped.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For a dash-cam, make sure to attach it above this line or mount it on the top of the dashboard. The rear window has less restrictions but any dash-cam placed there should not obstruct your view.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
Using the Video as Evidence</h4>
<div>
If you ever need to use a video obtained from your dash-cam to defend yourself in court make sure to do the following. </div>
<div>
<ol>
<li>Download the video onto a medium you are okay to give to the court. This can be a flash drive or CD/DVR disk. (This also pertains to photos - print them out.)</li>
<li>Be able to run the video off the medium when you show the court. You can have it uploaded to Youtube or other online site but then you have to be able to verify that the video is the same as that on the medium. It is easier to just use the video on the medium that you will give to the court.</li>
<li>Make sure the video is evidence that exonerates you and not vice versa.</li>
</ol>
<div>
When your case is called the officer will present his case first. You will present your video evidence during your turn to present evidence. Remember, in order to present it - it has to be entered as evidence which means the court keeps the video. Do not run it off the dash-cam unless you plan on buying another or you can remove the video (flash-drive) from the camera.</div>
___________________<br />
For more information please go to my <a href="http://www.ejdirga.com/" target="_blank">website</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ejdirga.com/criminal_defense_attorney/profile.htm" rel="author">Eric J. Dirga</a>, Attorney, P.O.Box 3591, Orlando, FL 32802-3591 (407) 841-5555</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-7695118657722612682016-02-25T07:14:00.000-05:002016-02-25T07:16:10.844-05:00The Handcuff Key, another obscure "Tag! Your Guilty" crime.There is a Florida Statute that penalizes you for simply possessing a handcuff key. It is found in section 843.021, Florida Statutes, and is titled, "Unlawful possession of a concealed handcuff key." I'm writing this post because this is the kind of "slow creep" law that the government produces without anyone noticing. Yet year over year they add up making more and more unwitting individuals criminals.<br />
<br />
This law prohibits the following behavior: <b>Any person who possesses a concealed handcuff key commits a felony of the third degree, punishable by a $5,000 fine and/or 5 years in prison.</b><br />
<br />
Notice that the "title" and the "prohibited behavior" of the law says that there an unlawful way to possess a handcuff key when you conceal it. At least that is what I take from it. Luckily, the creators of this crime have included some definitions that cannot be overlooked (but usually are - mainly by law enforcement).<br />
<br />
The first definition is the “In custody” definition. This is defined as "any time while a person has been placed in handcuffs by a law enforcement officer, regardless of whether such person is under formal arrest." Why do we have this definition? The title nor the actual prohibited conduct includes anything about being in custody. Think about that.<br />
<br />
Then it goes on to describe what a “Handcuff key” means. If you had a picture in your mind it is time to expand your horizon. A handcuff key is "any key, tool, device, implement, or other thing used, designed, or intended to aid in unlocking or removing handcuffs." Think bobby-pin.<br />
<br />
But wait. We are talking about something that is concealed. What if I have a bobby-pin in my hair? Good question. Let's see. A “Concealed handcuff key” means any handcuff key (see definition) carried by a person in a manner that indicates an intent to prevent discovery of the key by a law enforcement officer, including, but not limited to, a handcuff key (see definition) carried:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>In a pocket of a piece of clothing of a person, and unconnected to any key ring;</li>
<li>On a necklace of a person;</li>
<li>On the body part of a person or on any item of clothing of such person, when the handcuff key is secured on the body part or item of clothing by use of tape, glue, line, or other material;</li>
<li>In or within any compartment, seam, fold, or other encasement within any item of clothing, belt, shoe, or jewelry of a person;</li>
<li>In or within any sock, hose, shoe, belt, undergarment, glove, hat, or similar item of clothing or accessory of a person;</li>
<li>By a person and disguised as jewelry or other object; or</li>
<li>In or within any body cavity of a person.</li>
</ol>
<br />
The key idea behind any criminal offense is the idea of "intent." So you would think, by reading the law, that so long as YOU do not INTEND to carry a handcuff key (see definition) in a way to prevent discovery you'd be okay. The problem is it is not you who decides what YOUR intent was. The law enforcement officer gets to decide that in a sworn affidavit presented to the court.<br />
<br />
Sure, you get to defend yourself. That is a great pleasure. And they even include defenses within this law (that you never even knew existed but you must specifically do). First, "[i]t is a defense to a charge of violating this section that, immediately upon being placed in custody, the person in custody actually and effectively disclosed to the law enforcement officer that he or she was in possession of a concealed handcuff key." Note that (a) you probably need to know this to do this, and (b) you have to "actually and effectively" do this - another area where the law enforcement officer gets to decide.<br />
<br />
But what about those people who typically carry a handcuff key? They have covered them too. "It is a defense to a charge of violating this section that the person in custody and in possession of a concealed handcuff key is:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>A federal, state, or local law enforcement officer, including a reserve or auxiliary officer, a licensed security officer, or a private investigator; or</li>
<li>A professional bail bond agent, temporary bail bond agent, runner, or limited surety agent.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<i>However, the defense is not available to any officer, investigator, agent, or runner listed in this subsection if the officer, investigator, agent, or runner, immediately upon being placed in custody, fails to actually and effectively disclose possession of the concealed handcuff key</i>."<br />
<br />
Does that seem weird to you? Does me. Seems as if those people are under the same obligation as everyone else - so why have a separate defense?<br />
<br />
This is called the "Police Union Get Out of Jail" card. Whereas, if you or I are arrested and, because we have no idea this law even exists, we have a handcuff key on us, we are going to get "tagged" with another charge (besides the one we were arrested for). And this new charge has us looking at 5-years in prison. The section dealing with "those people who typically carry a handcuff key" let's the police and the jailors know to ask that arrestee about a handcuff key.<br />
<br />
Think about this. Every year the Florida legislature passes and amends hundreds of laws. Luckily for us Floridians, they are required to follow the "single subject" rule. In Washington DC they have no single subject rule. Those people get to pass laws with nice sounding names like "Affordable Care Act" (who doesn't want affordable care?) and then stuff it with all sorts of laws, penalties, and definitions that have nothing to do with the Act.<br />
<br />
If you still believe that the government should be able to invade your privacy in order to "protect" you because you have nothing to hide (you haven't done anything wrong) - you are sorely mistaken.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-36789292305273318352015-04-21T16:23:00.000-04:002015-04-21T16:23:54.714-04:00A New Proposed Expungement Law In Florida<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkfeZuiLZBj0GKsCt5AB8sjsxiyNE-u9GWBP1QZFzlU5cdkZBLaSVuyU6wFRXETwZUuEbSTPfVMlHk3ohkQOfKFBBOyKXWzouLY2JS25QfPzLBVs0ZqM0Ra7j_hbkqhrKHcZMnxEp9dvpn/s1600/HERMAN+Speeding+Ticket.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkfeZuiLZBj0GKsCt5AB8sjsxiyNE-u9GWBP1QZFzlU5cdkZBLaSVuyU6wFRXETwZUuEbSTPfVMlHk3ohkQOfKFBBOyKXWzouLY2JS25QfPzLBVs0ZqM0Ra7j_hbkqhrKHcZMnxEp9dvpn/s1600/HERMAN+Speeding+Ticket.jpg" /></a></div>
<h2>
What Happens If SB488 and SB1612 Becomes Law</h2>
<div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Eric Dirga is an attorney in Orlando practicing criminal record expungement and sealing law. You can contact him at 407-841-5555 or email him at ejdirga@ejdirga.com.</i></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
A proposed amendment to Florida's Record Sealing and Record Expungement law may mean that you will be able to expunge multiple cases. If the proposed amendment becomes law the effective date will be October 15, 2015. Sounds good but there are some changes that are not so good:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>For judicial expungement and non-judicial sealings you will have to wait 1-year after your case is closed (supervision ended) before you can start.</li>
<li>AND THE BIG ONE: From the end of your case you want judicially expunged or non-judicial sealed to the day you apply for relief you cannot have been charged or arrested for any other offense.</li>
</ul>
<h3>
The Big One</h3>
</div>
<div>
The Big One means if you have an old case you want sealed or expunged that is eligible under the current law but will be ineligible under the new law you need to start the process before September 2015.</div>
<h3>
Scenario: Big One</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfXzLKl9fLn0eJ549SUKrhN-t1zgcNV7yQrmVSZrx2RUHuFDV6xmX9Ons9abkqU0izccMiH3gPOEHzcyWyr2WAFeBGlUgQG0foWpabVGRR_IfueIKtRw78sFIFoHcTkGgoNy7rgQ7Nbe1N/s1600/hm150421.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfXzLKl9fLn0eJ549SUKrhN-t1zgcNV7yQrmVSZrx2RUHuFDV6xmX9Ons9abkqU0izccMiH3gPOEHzcyWyr2WAFeBGlUgQG0foWpabVGRR_IfueIKtRw78sFIFoHcTkGgoNy7rgQ7Nbe1N/s1600/hm150421.gif" height="320" width="275" /></a></div>
<div>
You were arrested for grand theft back in 2001. You resolved the case with a plea of no contest and you received a withhold of adjudication. In 2004 you ended your probation for the grand theft without any violations. In 2010 you were pulled over and cited for an expired driver's license that expired more than 6-months prior to the stop. You go to court and the case is dropped once you show the prosecutor your new valid driver's license.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
TODAY: You are eligible to have the 2001 Grand Theft sealed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
IF NEW LAW PASSES: You will not be eligible to seal your 2001 Grand Theft charge because there was an intervening charge/arrest.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<h3>
The Happy Happy Times</h3>
<div>
That Big One may be the only draw back of the proposed law. The good news is that if it becomes the law of the land you will be able to:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Expunge every charge that ends with a dismissal, no bill, and acquittal.</li>
<li>Be able to expunge one criminal arrest that resulted in a withhold of adjudication</li>
<li>Be able to seal one case that resulted in a withhold or one case that resulted in a conviction for a specified non-violent misdemeanor.</li>
</ul>
<div>
You will be able to do all this even if you have convictions for misdemeanors. The one disqualifying event would be a prior felony conviction.</div>
</div>
<h3>
The Bottom Line</h3>
<div>
Right now nothing has changed. The proposed law described above is just that - proposed. However, if it becomes law you should be prepared to take full advantage of both laws before the new law takes effect on October 1, 2015.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0Orlando, FL, USA28.5383355 -81.3792364999999928.0917165 -82.0246835 28.984954499999997 -80.733789499999986tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-24125765048422980642014-09-02T09:24:00.001-04:002014-09-02T09:24:59.419-04:00Passing Another Vehicle - Section 316.083, Florida StatutesPassing other vehicles while driving occurs every day. We do it or have it done to us each time we drive. This is a breakdown of this seemingly benign law.<br />
<h2>
Keeping The Peace</h2>
<div>
For whatever reason it seems that there are always people that want to go faster than you. You can be going less than the speed limit, the speed limit, or more than the speed limit and still someone has to get where ever it is they are going sooner than your driving rate will allow.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Sometimes these people get upset or maybe it is just the way they drive. They tailgate you (prohibited under s.316.0895), driving seemingly only several inches from your rear bumper, or when they do pass they return to the lane you are in and come within inches of clipping the front end of your car.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My solution is to put some sticker on the back end of your vehicle that will give the reader pause and think you just may be crazy but that won't work on the real crazies. All you can do is drive defensively.</div>
<h2>
The Correct Way To Pass</h2>
<div>
Let's take a look at how the statute tells us how to pass:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em><br />
The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall give an appropriate signal as provided for in s. 316.156, shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance, and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle.</em></blockquote>
Before we move on lets look at what the "appropriate signal" is the legislature is referring to so we are all on the same page. Section 316.156 states:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em><br />
Any stop or turn signal when required herein shall be given either by means of the hand and arm or by signal lamps[.]</em></blockquote>
Okaaaay. That's pretty clear... Do they still teach hand signals anymore? Let's move on.<br />
<br />
So after giving an appropriate signal "to pass" (?) we must then pass to the left (there is a section on when it is legal to pass to the right that I may or may not get to in this post) at a safe distance. I am assuming that a "safe distance" means more than several inches (you know who you are). Then we can return to the right side of the roadway once we have safely cleared the overtaken vehicle. Here I will assume that "safely cleared" means more than several inches also.<br />
<h2>
How Does This Section Translate So Far...</h2>
<div>
Basically, the idea the legislature wants to impart on those of us who drive motor vehicles is don't kill anyone when you pass them on the road. Always think - did I get in my car to cause an accident or was I just going to the grocery store (or any other destination where you may be going). Keeping that in mind, with the understanding that causing an accident can also hurt you, the idea is to drive safely. Despite the feeling of being rushed, physics teaches us that you can only go as fast as the vehicle that is directly in front of you.</div>
<h2>
What About The A-Hole That Speeds Up When I Try To Pass</h2>
<div>
We seem to have a tendency to accelerate as people go by us. We may not even be aware of it. The cure for this on limited access highways is to use cruise control. It is amazing to see how people speed up and slow down as they drive when you are on cruise control.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Then there are those that just don't want you to pass them for whatever unintelligent reason. They will knowingly accelerate so you cannot pass them at a comfortable speed. There is no rhyme or reason for this behavior but understand that it is prohibited by this law. Let's take a look:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em><br />
Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle, on audible signal or upon the visible blinking of the headlamps of the overtaking vehicle if such overtaking is being attempted at nighttime, and shall not increase the speed of his or her vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.</em></blockquote>
Yes, you read it correctly - by honking or flashing your headlights you are signaling the other driver that they need to move to the right. This is perfectly legal and if it occurs to us the law requires us to "give way to the right."<br />
<br />
Additionally, and to the point of this heading, the driver of the overtaken vehicle "shall not" increase his or her speed until he or she is completely passed by the overtaking vehicle. If the driver decides to speed up it is a violation of the statute and he or she can be cited for it.<br />
<h2>
Preventing Another Motor Vehicle From Passing Can Be A Crime (Weird)</h2>
<div>
Even though s. 316.083 prohibits a driver from preventing another vehicle from passing upon penalty of a traffic ticket, this behavior is also a crime. Under section 316.191 "Racing On The Highway" preventing another vehicle from passing can be considered a violation of the racing statute and carries with it a 1-year mandatory license suspension.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Needless to say, there are a lot of issues with having both these laws on the books. Which one a person is cited under will make a huge difference on what penalties he or she must defend against. Rather than having to pay for the defense of such a dilemma it is just easier to drive safely and get to where you want to go without incident. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Drive safe.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-70228058847515329472014-07-28T11:59:00.003-04:002014-07-28T12:01:17.936-04:00Just a Quick Post on "Sharing the Road"<h2>
Biking is Fun </h2>
Biking is a pretty popular sport. Everyone likes to bike except maybe people who like to fish - off a pier - in a chair - with a bucket next to them. I never got into fishing but I do bike.<br />
<h2>
Don't have to be a pro to like biking </h2>
I just like to recreational bike. You know, on the bike trails that seem to be everywhere these days. I don't enter races or anything, I just like to get outside sometimes and bike.<br />
<h2>
Bike Helmets Are To Protect Your Brain</h2>
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rcx_ch_iW9k/U9E1a-aqUnI/AAAAAAAABfQ/DpOItEMBhQc/s1600/IMG_2972.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rcx_ch_iW9k/U9E1a-aqUnI/AAAAAAAABfQ/DpOItEMBhQc/s1600/IMG_2972.JPG" height="320" width="201" /></a>Most people who bike today wear bicycle helmets. That is quite a change from when I grew up. We all thought bike helmets made you look dorky, and let's face it - they do. Today we know that a bike helmet can mean the difference between a minor fall and a major accident. So when I bike I always take my helmet.<br />
<h2>
Brains Are To Protect You</h2>
When I bike I also take my brain with me. I don't leave my cognitive reasoning in the closet when I bike. I use it to make my biking more fun, safe, and enjoyable.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Wait a minute, sir. It don't take no brains to ride a bike, daggummit!"</i></blockquote>
<br />
No, it really doesn't. Once you learn it is pretty easy to do without thinking. But I still take my brain.<br />
<h2>
Share The Road</h2>
I take my brain with me when I bike regardless. This means I look both ways before crossing into potential traffic and I ride in a designated bike path or, if none, on the sidewalk if it is a busy road and to the extreme right of the road if traffic is light or traffic is slow.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Dat aint sharing da road. That's just regressive thinking! You got a right just like a car to be on dat road and you need tah exercise dat right to get dose drivers to learn!"</i></blockquote>
<br />
Yes, yes, everything is Pavlovian. But there is this thing - I call it my brain (see above) that tells me that on my bike I lose every time if a car decides not to share the road. Maybe I try to train the one dog that can't be trained. Oh sure, maybe after the accident he'd learn <i>and learn good</i> but I'm still dead. My brain tells me "no."<br />
<h2>
Those Peculiar Bikers </h2>
I not talking about the bicyclists that ride on the right side of the road. You know the ones - they are enthusiasts, possibly training for a race, ride in groups, and they do everything they can to share the road with cars. For those bikers I always try to give them a wide birth just out of respect.<br />
<br />
But the bike riding folk that believe bikes are equal to cars and that all urban areas should be "bike friendly" and press this agenda are addressed here. These are the bikers that ride in the middle of the road and act like a car. They will continue to block traffic, piss-off drivers, and basically run amok. These are the few that need to realize reality.<br />
<br />
So, below I have listed the law as it exists today. Enjoy...<br />
<h2>
Section 316.2065 Bicycle regulations.—</h2>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">. . .</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="background-color: yellow;">(5)(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride in the lane marked for bicycle use or, if no lane is marked for bicycle use, as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway</span> except under any of the following situations:</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">3. When reasonably necessary to avoid any condition, including, but not limited to, a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard, or substandard-width lane, that makes it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For the purposes of this subsection, a “substandard-width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of such roadway as practicable.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">(6) Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway may not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles. Persons riding two abreast may not impede traffic when traveling at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing and shall ride within a single lane.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">(7) Any person operating a bicycle shall keep at least one hand upon the handlebars.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">(8) Every bicycle in use between sunset and sunrise shall be equipped with a lamp on the front exhibiting a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet to the front and a lamp and reflector on the rear each exhibiting a red light visible from a distance of 600 feet to the rear. A bicycle or its rider may be equipped with lights or reflectors in addition to those required by this section.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">(9) No parent of any minor child and no guardian of any minor ward may authorize or knowingly permit any such minor child or ward to violate any of the provisions of this section.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">(10) A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.</span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">(11) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give an audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.</span></span></span><br />
. . .</blockquote>
<h2>
</h2>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-28559270158668121222014-04-22T13:20:00.002-04:002014-04-22T13:20:53.266-04:00Can I Use The HOV Lane?<br />
<article><br />
I started this post thinking that it should be relatively easy to explain when you can use the HOV lane in Florida. Instead, I have come away more frustrated with the law, lawyers, legislators, and any big government advocate out there. This is a classic example of bureaucratic "___________" (input word here).<br />
<h2>
How Would You Write The HOV Law?</h2>
Before we get into the baloney of how the Florida legislature wrote the HOV law, let's imagine that we wrote it or just imagine how you think it was written. With a little thought we would come up with something like:<br />
<ul>
<li>HOV means High Occupancy Vehicle and that type vehicle can be any vehicle that has a driver and at least one passenger.</li>
<li>HOV Lane means a lane designated for use by an HOV. </li>
<li>A designated HOV lane requires that any vehicle driven in that lane have at least 2 people in that vehicle.</li>
<li>If there is only one person in the vehicle while driving in an HOV lane that person is breaking the law and if caught shall be issued a ticket.</li>
</ul>
Done! That was easy! I hope it makes sense and is understandable by everyone. If not, no worries, see the real law below.<br />
<h2>
The Law (s. 316.0741, Fla. Stat.)</h2>
Usually, I would just write a synopsis of the law and keep it simple. Here, however, one has to see to believe:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">316.0741 High-occupancy-vehicle lanes.—<br />
(1) As used in this section, the term:<br />
(a) “High-occupancy-vehicle lane” or “HOV lane” means a lane of a public roadway designated for use by vehicles in which there is more than one occupant unless otherwise authorized by federal law.<br />
(b) “Hybrid vehicle” means a motor vehicle:<br />
1. That draws propulsion energy from onboard sources of stored energy which are both an internal combustion or heat engine using combustible fuel and a rechargeable energy-storage system;<br />
2. That, in the case of a passenger automobile or light truck, has received a certificate of conformity under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. ss. 7401 et seq., and meets or exceeds the equivalent qualifying California standards for a low-emission vehicle; and<br />
3. That, in the case of a tri-vehicle, is an inherently low-emission vehicle as provided in subsection (4).<br />
(2) The number of persons who must be in a vehicle to qualify for legal use of the HOV lane and the hours during which the lane will serve as an HOV lane, if it is not designated as such on a full-time basis, must also be indicated on a traffic control device.<br />
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4), a vehicle may not be driven in an HOV lane if the vehicle is occupied by fewer than the number of occupants indicated by a traffic control device. A driver who violates this section shall be cited for a moving violation, punishable as provided in chapter 318.<br />
(4)(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an inherently low-emission vehicle (ILEV) that is certified and labeled in accordance with federal regulations may be driven in an HOV lane at any time, regardless of its occupancy. In addition, upon the state’s receipt of written notice from the proper federal regulatory agency authorizing such use, a vehicle defined as a hybrid vehicle under this section may be driven in an HOV lane at any time, regardless of its occupancy.<br />
(b) All eligible hybrid and all eligible other low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles driven in an HOV lane must comply with the minimum fuel economy standards in 23 U.S.C. s. 166(f)(3)(B).<br />
(c) Upon issuance of the applicable United States Environmental Protection Agency final rule pursuant to 23 U.S.C. s. 166(e), relating to the eligibility of hybrid and other low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles for operation in an HOV lane, regardless of occupancy, the Department of Transportation shall review the rule and recommend to the Legislature any statutory changes necessary for compliance with the federal rule. The department shall provide its recommendations no later than 30 days following issuance of the final rule.<br />
(5) The department shall issue a decal and registration certificate, to be renewed annually, reflecting the HOV lane designation on vehicles meeting the criteria in subsection (4) authorizing driving in an HOV lane at any time. The department may charge a fee for a decal, not to exceed the costs of designing, producing, and distributing each decal, or $5, whichever is less. The proceeds from sale of the decals shall be deposited in the Highway Safety Operating Trust Fund. The department may, for reasons of operation and management of HOV facilities, limit or discontinue issuance of decals for the use of HOV facilities by hybrid and low-emission and energy-efficient vehicles, regardless of occupancy, if it has been determined by the Department of Transportation that the facilities are degraded as defined by 23 U.S.C. s. 166(d)(2).<br />
(6) Vehicles having decals by virtue of compliance with the minimum fuel economy standards under 23 U.S.C. s. 166(f)(3)(B), and which are registered for use in high-occupancy-vehicle toll lanes or express lanes in accordance with Department of Transportation rule, shall be allowed to use any HOV lanes redesignated as high-occupancy-vehicle toll lanes or express lanes without requiring payment of a toll.<br />
(7) The department may adopt rules necessary to administer this section.</span></span></blockquote>
But we are not done. If you bothered to read this statute you would see that it refers to a federal law. Now we have to take a look at that:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">23 U.S.C. § 166 : US Code - Section 166: HOV facilities - <br />
(a) In General. - <br />
(1) Authority of state agencies. - A State agency that has jurisdiction over the operation of a HOV facility shall establish the occupancy requirements of vehicles operating on the facility. <br />
(2) Occupancy requirement. - Except as otherwise provided by this section, no fewer than two occupants per vehicle may be required for use of a HOV facility. <br />
(b) Exceptions. - <br />
(1) In general. - Notwithstanding the occupancy requirement of subsection (a)(2), the exceptions in paragraphs (2) through (5) shall apply with respect to a State agency operating a HOV facility. <br />
(2) Motorcycles and bicycles. - <br />
(A) In general. - Subject to subparagraph (B), the State agency shall allow motorcycles and bicycles to use the HOV facility. <br />
(B) Safety exception. - <br />
(i) In general. - A State agency may restrict use of the HOV facility by motorcycles or bicycles (or both) if the agency certifies to the Secretary that such use would create a safety hazard and the Secretary accepts the certification. <br />
(ii) Acceptance of certification. - The Secretary may accept a certification under this subparagraph only after the Secretary publishes notice of the certification in the Federal Register and provides an opportunity for public comment. <br />
(3) Public transportation vehicles. - The State agency may allow public transportation vehicles to use the HOV facility if the agency - <br />
(A) establishes requirements for clearly identifying the vehicles; and <br />
(B) establishes procedures for enforcing the restrictions on the use of the facility by the vehicles. <br />
(4) High occupancy toll vehicles. - The State agency may allow vehicles not otherwise exempt pursuant to this subsection to use the HOV facility if the operators of the vehicles pay a toll charged by the agency for use of the facility and the agency - <br />
(A) establishes a program that addresses how motorists can enroll and participate in the toll program; <br />
(B) develops, manages, and maintains a system that will automatically collect the toll; and <br />
(C) establishes policies and procedures to - <br />
(i) manage the demand to use the facility by varying the toll amount that is charged; and<br />
(ii) enforce violations of use of the facility. <br />
(5) Low emission and energy-efficient vehicles. - <br />
(A) Inherently low emission vehicle. - Before September 30, 2009, the State agency may allow vehicles that are certified as inherently low-emission vehicles pursuant to section 88.311-93 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), and are labeled in accordance with section 88.312- 93 of such title (or successor regulations), to use the HOV facility if the agency establishes procedures for enforcing the restrictions on the use of the facility by the vehicles. <br />
(B) Other low emission and energy-efficient vehicles. - Before September 30, 2009, the State agency may allow vehicles certified as low emission and energy-efficient vehicles under subsection (e), and labeled in accordance with subsection (e), to use the HOV facility if the operators of the vehicles pay a toll charged by the agency for use of the facility and the agency - <br />
(i) establishes a program that addresses the selection of vehicles under this paragraph; and<br />
(ii) establishes procedures for enforcing the restrictions on the use of the facility by the vehicles. <br />
(C) Amount of tolls. - Under subparagraph (B), a State agency may charge no toll or may charge a toll that is less than tolls charged under paragraph (4). <br />
(c) Requirements Applicable to Tolls. - <br />
(1) In general. - Tolls may be charged under paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (b) notwithstanding section 301 and, except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), subject to the requirements of section 129. <br />
(2) HOV facilities on the interstate system. - Notwithstanding section 129, tolls may be charged under paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (b) on a HOV facility on the Interstate System. <br />
(3) Excess toll revenues. - If a State agency makes a certification under section 129(a)(3) with respect to toll revenues collected under paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (b), the State, in the use of toll revenues under that sentence, shall give priority consideration to projects for developing alternatives to single occupancy vehicle travel and projects for improving highway safety. <br />
(d) HOV Facility Management, Operation, Monitoring, and Enforcement. - <br />
(1) In general. - A State agency that allows vehicles to use a HOV facility under paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) in a fiscal year shall certify to the Secretary that the agency will carry out the following responsibilities with respect to the facility in the fiscal year: <br />
(A) Establishing, managing, and supporting a performance monitoring, evaluation, and reporting program for the facility that provides for continuous monitoring, assessment, and reporting on the impacts that the vehicles may have on the operation of the facility and adjacent highways. <br />
(B) Establishing, managing, and supporting an enforcement program that ensures that the facility is being operated in accordance with the requirements of this section. <br />
(C) Limiting or discontinuing the use of the facility by the vehicles if the presence of the vehicles has degraded the operation of the facility. <br />
(2) Degraded facility. - <br />
(A) Definition of minimum average operating speed. - In this paragraph, the term "minimum average operating speed" means - <br />
(i) 45 miles per hour, in the case of a HOV facility with a speed limit of 50 miles per hour or greater; and <br />
(ii) not more than 10 miles per hour below the speed limit, in the case of a HOV facility with a speed limit of less than 50 miles per hour. <br />
(B) Standard for determining degraded facility. - For purposes of paragraph (1), the operation of a HOV facility shall be considered to be degraded if vehicles operating on the facility are failing to maintain a minimum average operating speed 90 percent of the time over a consecutive 180-day period during morning or evening weekday peak hour periods (or both). <br />
(C) Management of low emission and energy-efficient vehicles. - In managing the use of HOV lanes by low emission and energy- efficient vehicles that do not meet applicable occupancy requirements, a State agency may increase the percentages described in subsection (f)(3)(B)(i). <br />
(e) Certification of Low Emission and Energy-Efficient Vehicles. - Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall - <br />
(1) issue a final rule establishing requirements for certification of vehicles as low emission and energy-efficient vehicles for purposes of this section and requirements for the labeling of the vehicles; and <br />
(2) establish guidelines and procedures for making the vehicle comparisons and performance calculations described in subsection (f)(3)(B), in accordance with section 32908(b) of title 49. <br />
(f) Definitions. - In this section, the following definitions apply: <br />
(1) Alternative fuel vehicle. - The term "alternative fuel vehicle" means a vehicle that is operating on - <br />
(A) methanol, denatured ethanol, or other alcohols; <br />
(B) a mixture containing at least 85 percent of methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols by volume with gasoline or other fuels; <br />
(C) natural gas; <br />
(D) liquefied petroleum gas; <br />
(E) hydrogen; <br />
(F) coal derived liquid fuels; <br />
(G) fuels (except alcohol) derived from biological materials; <br />
(H) electricity (including electricity from solar energy); or <br />
(I) any other fuel that the Secretary prescribes by regulation that is not substantially petroleum and that would yield substantial energy security and environmental benefits, including fuels regulated under section 490 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations). <br />
(2) HOV facility. - The term "HOV facility" means a high occupancy vehicle facility. <br />
(3) Low emission and energy-efficient vehicle. - The term "low emission and energy-efficient vehicle" means a vehicle that - <br />
(A) has been certified by the Administrator as meeting the Tier II emission level established in regulations prescribed by the Administrator under section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7521(i)) for that make and model year vehicle; and <br />
(B)(i) is certified by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the manufacturer, to have achieved not less than a 50-percent increase in city fuel economy or not less than a 25-percent increase in combined city- highway fuel economy (or such greater percentage of city or city-highway fuel economy as may be determined by a State under subsection (d)(2)(C)) relative to a comparable vehicle that is an internal combustion gasoline fueled vehicle (other than a vehicle that has propulsion energy from onboard hybrid sources); or <br />
(ii) is an alternative fuel vehicle. <br />
(4) Public transportation vehicle. - The term "public transportation vehicle" means a vehicle that - <br />
(A) provides designated public transportation (as defined in section 221 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12141) or provides public school transportation (to and from public or private primary, secondary, or tertiary schools); and <br />
(B)(i) is owned or operated by a public entity; <br />
(ii) is operated under a contract with a public entity; or <br />
(iii) is operated pursuant to a license by the Secretary or a State agency to provide motorbus or school vehicle transportation services to the public. <br />
(5) State agency. - <br />
(A) In general. - The term "State agency", as used with respect to a HOV facility, means an agency of a State or local government having jurisdiction over the operation of the facility. <br />
(B) Inclusion. - The term "State agency" includes a State transportation department.</span></span></blockquote>
<h2>
Final Conclusion</h2>
Screw it. Just stay out of the HOV lane. Typically it won't save you any time anyway.<br />
<hr />
<footer><br />
- <i><a href="https://plus.google.com/108166851430373418755" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> is an Orlando attorney practicing criminal defense. He represents clients seeking criminal record expungements throughout the state of Florida and all traffic infractions/charges in Central Florida.</i><br />
</footer><br />
</article>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-20522860676131994312014-03-10T10:29:00.000-04:002014-03-10T10:29:10.413-04:00How Red Light Cameras Are Classic "Ambushes"By now we are all aware of Red Light Cameras. They were implemented under the guise of "Safety." We have heard about them, we have seen them, and some of us have been caught by them. It, like most politics of today, has divided us. You have the people that are protesting with signs against them and you have the opinion letter writers posting their thoughts for them in local papers.<br />
<br />
The question isn't whether they are effective - they are, to the tune of millions of dollars being sucked out of our local economies and being sent to companies located in New York or Arizona. The real question is why they are so effective.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Do That Many People Really Run Red Lights</h3>
<br />
With the astronomical revenue being generated by Red Light Cameras it is easy to protest and easy to applaud them. The protesters see the cameras as governmental hands reaching into our pockets and taking our money. The pro-camera types look at the numbers generated and think everyone of those cited deserve it because they ran a red light.<br />
<br />
The reality is on the side of the protesters. Unfortunately, the pro-camera types are sadly misinformed. There are reasons why the numbers are so high and each reason should make everyone disgusted with the level of greed and corruption our local and state governments presents. I have been fighting these tickets in court since they arrived over three years ago and below I will go through all the reasons why I find these cameras the most vile act perpetrated against citizens in the state of Florida since I have been a lawyer.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The List of Sins</h3>
<br />
Red Light Cameras ticket the owners of cars that are considered to have entered into the intersection after the light has turned red. Entering the intersection after the light has turned red means the front tire has not crossed the white stop-bar (white painted line on the road) while the light was still yellow. The cameras take a picture of a vehicle just before crossing that white stop-bar. It shows the color of the light before the car has passed into the intersection. Based on this picture a ticket is issued.<br />
<br />
The camera also gives the time of how long the light was red prior to a cited vehicle entering into the intersection. This information does not factor into whether or not a ticket is issued. For cameras, the issue is black or white - was the light red.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Why So Many Tickets - The Shorten Yellow Light </h3>
<br />
Fast forward to May of 2013 when it was discovered that at the beginning of 2011 the Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT] amended their long-standing rule of how they calculate the yellow-light times for approaching vehicles. What had been working fine for decades all of a sudden needed to be changed just six months after the Red Light Camera statute [s. <a href="tel:316.0083" x-apple-data-detectors-result="0" x-apple-data-detectors-type="telephone" x-apple-data-detectors="true">316.0083</a>, F.S.] came into existence. Also understand that an administrative rule change usually takes months if not years to go from suggestion to actual enforceable rule, - so the idea to change the rule was hatched after the initial cameras had been installed but before the Red Light Camera law took effect. These changes resulted in yellow-light times being shortened and often times they were shortened drastically. These changes did something else. It destroyed years of studies done at many intersections that were used to determine the correct yellow-light time used prior to 2011.<br />
<br />
Last year, after having been caught with the short-yellows, the FDOT reluctantly decided to arbitrarily up the yellow-light times to "help senior citizens have more time to react." I have paraphrased the reason here but that was their publicized reasoning. It had nothing to do with the fact that they had very recently and dangerously shortened them or anything to do with the Red Light Cameras. It was for the "safety" of our seniors. However, the amount they decided to lengthen the yellow-lights was far short of what the times were before the 2011 rule change and it was not based on any studies. It was an arbitrary appeasing bump - that's it. <br />
<br />
For all the pro-camera people, you should understand that the vast majority of people cited for running red lights by cameras run the lights within 3/10ths of a second after it has turned red. The rule change shortened the yellow-light times between 4/10ths to a 1 second on average. Just enough to make the cameras very profitable. Also note that this change had nothing to do with safety.<br />
<br />
<h3>
A Careful And Prudent Right Hand Turn</h3>
<br />
Read the Red Light Camera law and you will see that you are not suppose to get ticketed if you make a right-on-red turn "carefully and prudently." Look closer and you will also see that the Red Light Camera law enforces a different statute. It enforces section 316.074 and 316.075 of the Florida Statutes. In order to know what the definition of "careful and prudent" means you have to read those two statutes because each requires you to come to a complete stop before making a right-on-red turn.<br />
<br />
"Well if that's the law..." It is the law. The difference is that for generations we have made safe right-on-red turns that did not involve coming to a complete stop. They may have been illegal but police would rarely cite someone for making this type of turn at an intersection and they were generally accepted. Enter the Red Light Camera and now we will enforce the letter of the law. No exceptions. What was okay for generations is now strictly forbidden.<br />
<br />
So why the "Careful and Prudent" language in the statute? It was never in sections 316.074 or 316.075. So why put it in the Red Light Camera statute? It seems very confusing. Even with the revamped statute that came out in 2013 the language remains. It is there on purpose yet the only thing it does is confuse.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Placement of the Signs Indicating a Camera Exists</h3>
<br />
The FDOT rules require signage to be placed at intersections that have Red Light Cameras. The signs are placed well ahead of the oncoming intersection. The distance is determined by the speed limit on the road. Sounds fair. But let's not forget the stated purpose of the cameras by those politicians that signed the contracts with these companies - Safety. Why only put them well before the intersection when drivers are not looking for such signs. Why not, in the name of safety, also place them right at the corner where someone needing to make a right turn may think twice about not stopping. Why not hang them up by the lights themselves where people actually look?<br />
<br />
<h3>
The New Ability to Challenge Your Notice of Violation</h3>
The new law also allows people to challenge the Notice of Violation [NOV] before it turns into a ticket. Sounds pretty sweet, eh! Unfortunately, the statute turns this administrative hearing into a Kangaroo Court. The statute states that at these hearings "[f]ormal rules of evidence do not apply, but due process shall be observed and govern the proceedings." This is a joke. You will have due process to have any "evidence" used against you. On top of this travesty, the local hearing officer can fine you up to $250 in administrative fees on top of the $158 for the NOV.<br />
<br />
The rules of evidence have been developed for one purpose - to make sure evidence introduced before a fact-finder is truthful, competent, and not misleading. At these hearings, none of that applies. The enforcement officers will jump right into showing the video, the pictures, and the registration. You cannot object because ... rules of evidence don't apply. <br />
<br />
<h3>
The Red Light Camera Companies</h3>
<br />
Despite Florida's Chapter 119 Sunshine Laws we will never know the true conversations that took place between the municipalities and the red light camera companies. Suffice it to say, the companies, with their years of experience, had a say on everything about the use of the cameras. They helped write the law, the contracts, and help change the FDOT rules. Everything about the Red Light Cameras was done on purpose from the "Careful and Prudent" language, meant to trick people into running red lights, to the placement of the cameras at intersections where right-on-red turns are prevalent even if that means putting one in front of a hospital's emergency room entrance.<br />
<br />
Whenever the Red Light Cameras come under attack the politicians run back behind the "Cameras are for Safety" barricade. It's a ready made safe-harbor that the camera companies sold the politicians back when they convinced them about how much money could be made. Let's face it, politicians today are not known for their foresight and in the case of Red Light Cameras they really failed in perceiving the disaster these cameras would have on voter's perceptions. Another area where politicians typically score an "F" is in economics. How often we hear about the millions a "College Bowl Game" will bring into the local economy or a "Bike Week" or some other event. Yet despite the municipalities boasting of how much money was generated by Red Light Camera fines they failed to realize the millions that were being sucked out of our economies and sent to other states.<br />
<br />
<h3>
What Red Light Cameras Do Well </h3>
<br />
Red Light Cameras do one thing well - pad the municipal coffers with money that is labeled "For Safety" and not as a tax increase. That has to have politicians mouths watering! However, the reality is that it is much worse. It is a lie. Shortening yellow-light times is not safe. Confusing people is not safe. Placing cameras not in high accident intersections but at intersections where the most money will be generated is a lie.<br />
<br />
<h3>
When Red Light Cameras Go Away </h3>
<br />
These cameras do not go away until the political heat becomes too much for our esteemed leaders (see Clermont - still has cameras but...) or, more likely, the money generated by these cameras dries up (see St. Petersburg). And when the tenure of repeal starts to rise the red light camera companies like American Traffic Solutions [ATS] run to Tallahassee with millions of our money to pocket the re-election war chests of our holy legislators. More disturbing, more stomach churning, is that when asked about these large donations, companies like ATS call this "educating" the legislators.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Getting A Fair Hearing </h3>
<br />
In court the lies are even worse. Most counties have submitted to political pressure and rammed the Red Light Camera tickets home. Some still tend to actually obey the law. Even then trying to get answers from Red Light Camera companies is incredibly hard. The law [s. 316.07456, F.S.] requires that the cameras meet specific testing requirements set out by FDOT. However, the companies all claim that those specifications are "trade secrets" and do not disclose them. So it is and has been from day-one impossible to find out whether or not a particular camera was functioning properly when its data was used to issue a ticket. No one cited in Florida and no court hearing a Red Light Camera case has ever known the answer required to be told pursuant to s. 316.07456, Fla. Stat.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Red Light Cameras Expose The Lies</h3>
Nothing about a Red Light Camera is truthful. From the moment municipalities started their campaigns for "safety" to today when cameras are moved because drivers have "changed their behavior." If a local politician is talking about the cameras he or she is lying to some degree. It doesn't matter if they are trying to convince you of the safety aspects of the cameras or their desire to repeal the law.<br />
<br />
The one benefit the Red Light Cameras have given us is that it has exposed the disgusting ability of political leaders and appointees to, despite the exposed truth, to look us right in our eyes and lie.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-26284889970854408602013-10-14T23:41:00.001-04:002013-10-14T23:41:38.618-04:00Problems With Florida Toll RoadsFlorida has several toll roads that just about every resident must use at some point in their life. The problem is that nothing is as it seems with tolls.<br />
<article><br />
<br />
<h3>There is NO $100 Fine for a Toll Violation</h3><br />
Before you enter just about any toll booth you will see a sign that states there is a $100 fine for violating the toll. That is a lie. Maybe in some corner of an obscure statute it says that the fine is $100 but that is never what you face if you are cited for running a toll.<br />
<br />
Just as a refresher - if your vehicle registration address is correct or, if you are a SunPass or E-Pass account holder, your account address is up to date then if you run a toll you will:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>First receive a notice saying you ran a toll and ask for the toll amount plus a small administrative fee.</li>
<li>If that is not paid you will receive another notice asking for the toll amount (e.g., $1.25) plus $25.</li>
<li>Finally, if that is not paid a citation for $262 will be issued (not $100).</li>
</ul><br />
<h3>Having an Account With SunPass or E-Pass is Not Automatic</h3><br />
Even if you have an account with SunPass or E-Pass it does not mean you are always good to go. Make sure you keep your address on your <i>account</i> up-to-date. Yes, this means your vehicle registration address is not the primary "go-to address" anymore.<br />
<br />
Additionally, I suggest you use a credit card with auto-replenishment. If you do, make sure to update the card after it expires and you receive a new one. If you do not use auto-replenishment you must keep track of your driving and check your account often.<br />
<br />
<h3>The Main Reasons Why People Receive Toll Tickets</h3><br />
There are several common reasons why someone gets a toll ticket. They are:<br />
<ul><li>No SunPass or E-Pass account.</li>
<li>Account lacks funds - usually has a large balance from the toll authority.</li>
<li>Address is wrong (Remember, SunPass will charge your account if the address associated with the account is accurate even if the transponder does not work).</li>
<li>Vehicle sold with the license plate. Remember, the tag is assigned to the owner of the vehicle - that's you. Never leave a tag on a car you sell.</li>
</ul><br />
<h3>What You Can Do To Protect Yourself</h3><br />
There are several things we can do to avoid a toll ticket. Here are a few suggestions:</article><article><ul><li>Get a SunPass account - it works throughout the state.</li>
<li>Keep account information up-to-date (address, credit card info).</li>
<li>Keep vehicle registration up-to-date. If you move soon after your birthday, update the address online. Don't wait for the renewal notice.</li>
<li>Use a credit card with the auto-replenish feature.</li>
</ul><br />
<h3>Toll Ticket Fines Can Be Greatly Reduced</h3><br />
If you have a toll ticket don't despair. The fine amount can be drastically reduced. At a hearing an attorney can negotiate with the Tollway Authority Enforcement Officer to reduce your fine amount and sometimes even get some tickets dismissed.<br />
</article><br />
<br />
<footer><br />
- <i><a href="https://plus.google.com/108166851430373418755" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> is an Orlando attorney practicing criminal defense. He represents clients seeking criminal record expungements throughout the state of Florida and all traffic infractions/charges in Central Florida.</i></footer>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-81064152904225618102013-10-11T10:25:00.000-04:002013-10-11T10:25:12.275-04:00How to Look Up Laws on Florida's Online Statutes (for non-lawyers)If you get a ticket or are charged with a crime you may, at your leisure, decide to look up what it is you are charged with and maybe even try to find out what the penalty could be. If you have done this you probably gave up in frustration. Don't feel bad - Lawyers often feel the same way.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As an example, I recently had a client charged with a traffic violation that carried with it a $1000 fine. At first blush you might think my client was charged with speeding in a school zone at the Holy Nun Academy or worse. That's a huge fine!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Unfortunately, for my client, all he did was have a screw come loose on his License Plate tag holder on his motorcycle. Yes, it is a $1000 fine for placing a tag on a motorcycle that makes it hard to read, but enough about that.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I wanted to find out where this fine amount was located in the statutes. There are several ways to access the online statutes. I like the senate's access because I know where the search feature is there (<a href="http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/">http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/</a> ). I started with the statute number for the infraction itself - section 316.2085(3), Florida Statutes. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.333333015441895px;">The license tag of a motorcycle or moped must be permanently affixed to the vehicle and remain clearly visible from the rear at all times. ...</span></blockquote>
There was nothing about the fine amount in this section at all. Instead it referred to:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.333333015441895px;">A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.</span></blockquote>
Well, thanks for the specificity - an entire chapter? Anyhoo, I search for section 316.2085 in chapter 318 but lo and behold nothing comes up. How can this be?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Let me digress a bit. The online Florida Statutes has a great free search feature that can help you out a lot. I utilize it every time I do research there. Second, as a lawyer I know that the legislature has no rhyme or reason behind how they write these laws. SO the search feature is a must. There may be a method to the madness but the Florida Legislature is not sharing that information. I also know that they like to embed laws within laws and that knowledge helps me with my searches.</i></blockquote>
<br />
I decide to do a search for this particular statute (316.2085) in chapters 318, 320, 322, and back in 316 (the common chapters for all things relating to driving a motor vehicle in Florida). Doing that I find that there is a reference to it in section 316.1926 (additional offenses). This is very brief but it gives me a clue. Within this section is not only what I'm looking for but reference to the violation for exceeding the speed limit by 50 mph. This I know is a $1,000 fine citation.<br />
<br />
Now I search chapter 318 for section 316.1926 and wallah! There it is! Chapter 318 references penalties for section 316.1926 not 316.2085. It is confusing. It often times has you scratching your head. But it can be negotiated with the help of the search feature that, thoughtfully, was included in this great reference. And, did I mention, it is free!<br />
<br />
- <i><a href="https://plus.google.com/108166851430373418755" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> is an Orlando attorney practicing criminal defense. He represents clients seeking criminal record expungements throughout the state of Florida and all traffic infractions/charges in Central Florida.</i>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-9358455686667351272013-10-04T08:28:00.000-04:002013-10-04T08:28:56.585-04:00Florida's Move-Over Law SimplifiedSection 316.126 of the Florida Statutes is home to what is now called the "Mover Over Law." We should know it to mean we need to vacate the lane closest to a pulled over police car that has its lights on. Actually, it means a bit more than that. Hopefully, I can help elucidate everything the statute means.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Pull Over When An Emergency Vehicle Approaches</h3>
<br />
The first part of the statute refers to what we already think we know. When an emergency vehicle approaches with either lights or sirens on we must pull to the curb and allow the emergency vehicle to pass. Here are what emergency vehicles are that require this action:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: navy; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.333333015441895px;"><i>Vehicles of the fire department (fire patrol), police vehicles, and such ambulances and emergency vehicles of municipal departments, public service corporations operated by private corporations, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Health, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Corrections as are designated or authorized by their respective department or the chief of police of an incorporated city or any sheriff of any of the various counties.</i></span></blockquote>
I would have said cops, fire trucks and ambulances...<br />
<br />
<h3>
Move Over When An Emergency Vehicle is Stopped With Lights Flashing</h3>
<br />
The Move Over Act requires drivers to, as soon as it is safe, to move over, away from the side of the road where the emergency vehicle or Wrecker is stopped, one lane before passing. This must be done in a safe manner. If it cannot be made safely the vehicle must be slowed to 20 mph below the posted speed limit before passing the emergency vehicle or wrecker.<br />
<br />
Notice that "wreckers" are included in the Move Over Act. So long as the amber lights are on you must move over. Note also that emergency vehicles also must have there lights on to require the move over behavior.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: navy; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS'; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 13.333333015441895px;"><i>When an authorized emergency vehicle making use of any visual signals is parked or a wrecker displaying amber rotating or flashing lights is performing a recovery or loading on the roadside, the driver of every other vehicle, as soon as it is safe [must move over or slow down...]</i></span></blockquote>
Don't read too much into this. If their lights are on in a fashion other than just driving (flashers, blinkers, etc.) consider it to fall under this statute. Arguing that the wrecker was not "performing a recovery" will probably not work.<br />
<br />
Finally, if traffic is tight trying to cram your way into the next lane is not safe. If there is an additional police vehicle there it may be watching for Move Over Law violators. They can also get you for failure to yield if the day has been slow. Simply slow down. As soon as you pass the emergency vehicle you can start to speed up and be on your way.<br />
<br />
- <i><a href="https://plus.google.com/108166851430373418755" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> is an Orlando attorney practicing criminal defense. He represents clients seeking criminal record expungements throughout the state of Florida and all traffic infractions/charges in Central Florida.</i>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-5107571565248674882013-10-03T07:52:00.001-04:002013-10-03T07:52:35.758-04:00Flagler County Judge Sides With Constitution Over Big MoneyThis post deals with the Red Light Camera statute, s. 316.0083, Fla. Stat., better known as the Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program Act. Mark Wandall was a victim of a red light runner. His tragic story has since been manipulated by our legislators and local representatives into a cash grab whereby safety is no longer the goal. In fact, safety has been completely overlooked and abandoned, evidenced by the discovery that yellow light times have been trimmed to dangerous levels in order to boost the profits from red light cameras. But I digress...<br />
<br />
One of the peculiarities of the statute is the decision to cite the first named owner on the registration of a vehicle when there are multiple owners. Since the driver of the car is never viewed by the cameras (a strange requirement of the law) it just puts blame on the owner of the vehicle. If there is more than one owner the first named gets cited. There is no explanation for why the statute does this except the argument by the state that it is for efficiency, economy, and to avoid conflicting claims (note: nothing about the factual driver of the vehicle). This crack in the law was recently challenged by Attorney Davis Shekhter in Flagler County.<br />
<br />
Judge Melissa Moore Stens heard the argument and agreed with Mr. Shekhter. There was no rational basis for the disparate treatment of the similarly situated persons. It therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Florida and United States Constitutions and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. This is despite the huge amount of money being funneled into legislators' coffers by the Red Light Camera companies and the political pressure from local government to get these tickets pushed through the courts so the revenue stream continues.<br />
<br />
<i>State v. Krainik</i>, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 991 (7th Judicial Circuit, Flagler County Court, August 14, 2013)<br />
<br />
See also, State v. Gonzalez, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 666b (17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Court, May 2, 2012)<br />
<br />
- <i><a href="https://plus.google.com/108166851430373418755" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> is an Orlando attorney practicing criminal defense. He represents clients seeking criminal record expungements throughout the state of Florida and all traffic infractions/charges in Central Florida.</i>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-16670518874892757282013-10-01T09:07:00.003-04:002013-10-01T09:07:28.793-04:00A Breakdown of the New "Anti-Texting" LawAs of today, October 1, 2013, Florida has a new law in effect. It has been dubbed the "Florida Ban on Texting While Driving Law" and it starts out with "It is the intent of the legislature to[...]". This usually means there may be some wording that does not make sense or is ripe for legal challenge so when the judges who must decide the issue read the law they have some guidance as to what was meant.<br />
<br />
The legislature intends this law to "improve roadway safety for all vehicle operators, vehicle passengers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other road users." In other words, everyone that comes in contact with a road or is in close proximity. It is also to "[p]revent crashes related to the act of text messaging while driving a motor vehicle" and "[r]educe injuries, deaths, property damage, healthcare costs, health insurance rates, and automobile insurance rates related to motor vehicle crashes." Don't hold your breath on those last parts. And finally, "[a]uthorize law enforcement officers [the probable cause] to stop motor vehicles and issue citations as a secondary offense to persons who are texting while driving." This is the real reason for this law.<br />
<br />
The law prohibits the following behaviors - A person may not operate a motor vehicle while:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Manually typing or entering multiple letters, numbers, symbols, or other characters into a wireless communications device or while sending or reading data on such device for the purpose of nonvoice interpersonal communication.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Wow. I bet most people did not know they were engaged in "nonvoice interpersonal communication," hashtag #NIC. Which means, they go on, "including but not limited to communication methods known as:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Texting</li>
<li>E-mailing</li>
<li>Instant messaging</li>
</ul>
<div>
Oh. Okay...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Since they said it, they have to define it. A "wireless communications device" means:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>any handheld device used or capable of being used in a handheld manner, that is designed or intended to receive or transmit text or character based messages, access or store data, or connect to the Internet or any communications service as defined in s. 812.15 and that allows text communications. </i></blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Really? Can someone please run for office that speaks English. Let me clear this up - Wireless Communications Device = Cell Phone.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, if your car is stationary it is 'not being operated" and therefore you can text at stop lights (whether red or green), stop signs, side of the road, parking lots, anywhere when you are not moving.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course we must now exclude all the times it is okay to text. All of the above does not apply in the following situations:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you are</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>performing official duties as an operator of an emergency vehicle, a law enforcement officer, a firefighter, or emergency medical services professional.</li>
<li>reporting an emergency or criminal or suspicious activity to law enforcement.</li>
<li>receiving messages that are:</li>
<ul>
<li>related to the operation of your GPS navigation.</li>
<li>related to safety related information such as traffic alerts.</li>
<li>data used primarily by the motor vehicle. (??? can we get a definition here.)</li>
<li>radio broadcasts.</li>
</ul>
<li>using a device or system for navigation purposes.(GPS, again?)</li>
<li>conducting "wireless interpersonal communication that does not require manual entry of multiple letters, numbers, or symbols, except to activate, deactivate, or initiate a feature or function."</li>
<li>conducting "wireless interpersonal communication that does not require reading text messages, except to activate, deactivate, or initiate a feature or function.</li>
<li>operating an autonomous vehicle. </li>
</ul>
<div>
Only in the event of a crash involving the death or personal injury (read - "if someone claims to be hurt") can the police get your cell phone records and use them to prove you violated this statute. Read this as - if you are involved in an accident and someone is rubbing their neck and you had your cell-phone with you then the police will search your cell phone records. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is a non-criminal non-moving infraction but if committed multiple times then the court can put points on your Motor Vehicle Report. Simply put, first time is no points. After that, points.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Law enforcement cannot pull you over just because they see you texting. They have to pull you over for another infraction and only then can they cite you additionally for Texting While Driving, hashtag #TWD.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Although the fact remains that distracted driving is dangerous this law will do little for safety. Drivers are just as distracted working their GPS or trying to read those big "Silver Alert" and "15 minutes to SR 436" signs as they are texting. What this law will do is allow law enforcement the added ability to stop and search your vehicle even as a secondary offense (Hint: Cannabis users - a sniff is a search). Moreover, despite the fact you may be typing into your GPS at the time, if you are cited for this infraction it will be your word against the police officer's word in court. Guess who wins.<br />
<br />
- <i><a href="https://plus.google.com/108166851430373418755" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> is an Orlando attorney practicing criminal defense. He represents clients seeking criminal record expungements throughout the state of Florida and all traffic infractions/charges in Central Florida.</i></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-44667873382703233102013-09-29T09:51:00.000-04:002013-10-01T09:05:37.807-04:00Failing to Comply With The Civil Penalty of a Traffic TicketLet's take a look at section 318.15 of the Florida Statutes. This section basically says that if a driver fails to either pay the ticket (bad), elect driving school (good), or challenge the ticket within thirty days of receipt of the citation the Clerk shall notify the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles [Department] within 10 days of such failure. Immediately after that notification the Department will issue a suspension notice to the driver that takes effect 20 days after the date of the letter. Additionally, if the driver fails to appear at a scheduled hearing the Clerk will notify the Department with the same result.<br />
<br />
What we are talking about here is the letter that people receive telling them that "Hey! Guess what - your license is suspended effective on blah, blah date! Have a great day!" What the letter fails to state clearly is that there are options to the driver to "repair" the situation. But hey, the silver lining is that they noticed you and you typically have time (unless you moved and did not change your address - I'll leave that for another time).<br />
<br />
<h3>What a Driver Can Do to "Fix" the Problem</h3><br />
So you got a ticket and life interrupts and before you know it you receive a letter from the Department with the ominous words telling you your driver's license will be suspended on a date less than 20 days away. Here's your fix it guide:<br />
<br />
You forgot completely about the ticket! No worries. Go to the Clerk of Court and pay the late fee ($23 usually) and ask for a hearing. So long as you do this before your license HAS BEEN suspended you can pay the late fee. The Clerk's Office will give you a document called a "D6" (unknown still why it is called this) that you can take to the local DMV to prevent the suspension.<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul><li>What if you don't want a hearing? Don't worry. It is too late to elect a driving school so the only way to keep points off would be to go to a hearing and hope the court keeps them off which is always a possibility (just don't miss the hearing!). Moreover, asking for a hearing will get you time - usually a lot of time. It will also prevent your ticket being handed off to a collection agency that charges (what should be a criminal) 40% surcharge.</li>
<li>What if you pay the late fee, get your D6, ask for a hearing, but forget to take the D6 to the local DMV? Well, it'll cost you but it is still fixable. You can still reinstate your license after it is suspended by bringing the D6 to the DMV and paying a fee. Unfortunately, the suspension will be noted on your Motor Vehicle Record [MVR] and remain there for 7 years.</li>
<li>What if my license is suspended before I can get to the Clerk's Office? In that case, you won't be able to get your D6 from the Clerk. You can still ask for a hearing up to 180 days after you receive the ticket but the court will have to order the Clerk to release the D6 so you can reinstate your driver's license.</li>
</ul><div>Forgetting to address a traffic violation within 30 days is a common problem that drivers face in their busy lives. I hope that this brief article helps most realize that there are options and that the letter from the Department can be a blessing in disguise.</div><div><br />
</div><div>- <i><a href="https://plus.google.com/108166851430373418755" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> is an Orlando attorney practicing criminal defense. He represents clients seeking criminal record expungements throughout the state of Florida and all traffic infractions/charges in Central Florida.</i> <br />
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-7600837614754080932013-09-20T11:23:00.001-04:002013-09-29T10:01:42.525-04:00If it was about safety...Lately, there has been some push-back on red light cameras in Florida. Two high ranking legislators want Florida to join 13 other states that ban camera enforcement. This comes after a Tampa Television News channel discovered that the state had, without comment, sneakily reduced the yellow light times to the minimum allowed by a new modified law. (See Noah Pransky). <div><br />
</div><div>Well get ready. These camera companies are about to out spend everyone to convince legislators to keep the cameras. They call it "educating" the representatives. It is actually large donations to re-election campaign funds. </div><div><br />
</div><div>The stronger the resistance the stronger the municipalities will argue for the cameras to stay. Why not - they are making millions. That would not be so bad if the municipalities were in business. They aren't - they represent us. Apparently, they believe we want them to pick our pockets. </div><div><br />
</div><div>90% of red light cameras come from cars that miss the light by less than half a second. A fraction that would not be there if the yellow times were put back to what they were in 2010. The municipalities will argue that it is about safety. It is not. When you hear that retort ask them why it is that safety requires a more dangerous intersection. </div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-52713419525546725442013-08-01T11:35:00.000-04:002013-08-02T09:50:13.971-04:00Florida Toll ViolationsIs it any wonder that people do not trust government. We pass laws against texting because it distracts drivers while at the same time government erects hundreds of electronic signs that they want us to read as we drive so we can go look for a "Silver Alert" vehicle.<br />
<br />
When it comes to Toll Violations we are told, by a sign before each toll both, that the fine for violating the toll is $100. I have yet to see a toll ticket that can be paid with $100. The one dollar toll ends up always being over $200 when it becomes a ticket. Not only is it deceitful it is also frustrating.<br />
<br />
Toll Violation tickets can end up costing people over $300 when the Clerk sends the ticket off to collections. There seems to be no grace-period either. The clerks send all tickets now-a-days immediately to collections upon it becoming late. I sure would like to know whose relative on the county commission got the gig with collections for the court. Pure robbery of the citizenry there.<br />
<br />
Anyhoo, the way to stay out from the thumb of local government is to make sure you keep your vehicle registration address up to date. If you move don't wait for the annual registration form to update your address. Change it immediately. This can be done online (if you have a credit card - yes, more money but cheaper than the ticket) at the address below:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://services.flhsmv.gov/virtualoffice/">https://services.flhsmv.gov/virtualoffice/</a><br />
<br />
<i><a href="https://plus.google.com/108166851430373418755" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> is an Orlando attorney practicing criminal defense. He represents clients seeking criminal record expungements throughout the state of Florida and all traffic infractions/charges in Central Florida.</i>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-19711234904441205172013-06-06T22:02:00.002-04:002013-06-08T19:27:36.265-04:00Got Toll Tickets? Don't Just Pay Them - Save Money!Have you ever driven past a toll and seen the big green sign indicating that the fine is $100 if you don't pay? If you have ever received a toll ticket you know that the sign is an outright lie.<br>
<h2>
Most Toll Tickets Are Well Over $200!</h2>
<br>
Most toll tickets are well over $200 when you receive them. Does that mean you have to pay all that money? Absolutely not.<br>
<h2>
The Law Allows For Many Ways To Reduce Your Toll Ticket</h2>
<br>
The law provides many ways to have a toll ticket reduced. Unfortunately most of those options require that you act within 30 days after the issuance of the ticket. That is not as easy as it sounds. Most people find out about a toll ticket only when the Department notices them of a pending drivers license suspension, well past the 30 days.<br>
<h2>
We Can Also Challenge The Amount At A Hearing</h2>
<br>
You can still challenge a toll ticket if it is past the 30 day time limit so long as your license has not yet gone into suspension. Additionally, even if your license has gone into suspension there still may be a way to save you a lot of money.<br>
<h2>
In Most Cases We Can Get Your Toll Fine Reduced Significantly</h2>
<br>
Reduce your $200+ fine to $50! Can that be done? In most cases the answer is "Yes!"<br>
<br>
Call <a href="tel:+14078415555">407-841-5555</a> or visit our <a href="http://ejdirga.com/traffic_tickets/toll_tickets/toll_violations.htm" target="_blank">website</a>. <br>
<a href="https://plus.google.com/108166851430373418755" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> is an Orlando attorney practicing criminal defense. He represents clients seeking criminal record expungements throughout the state of Florida and all traffic infractions/charges in Central Florida.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-20002828282841902352013-05-20T12:28:00.000-04:002013-05-20T12:28:10.192-04:00Ask your Redlight Camera Questions HereI unfortunately cannot answer all questions regarding Red Light Camera questions over the phone. Instead I'll ask everyone to ask the questions below in the comments' section. This way those with similar questions may find their question already answered. Thank you.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-25585055738059485682013-03-04T20:59:00.000-05:002013-03-04T21:01:03.109-05:00The Smell of Red Light Camera Companies<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<article>
<date datepub="datepub" datetime="2013-03-04">March 4, 2013</date>
<br />
I have been fighting red light camera tickets since 2010. Over the last two years it has become clear that there some very disturbing things going on with the red light camera cases and specifically the companies that have installed them.<br />
Before I go too far into this post I want to make sure my position is clear. Running red lights is one of the most hazardous things a person can do. The main cause for running a red light is speed - not texting or any other politically correct target of the day - it is speed. When a person drives over the speed limit they all think the amber light has been shortened to accommodate more camera tickets. It's not the time of the amber, it is the speed of the vehicle.
<br />
Additionally, the cities and counties that are fighting to push these tickets through are just trying to do what is right, what they believe is their job to do. They are doing nothing wrong in the prosecution of these cases. However, they need to start looking at what the red light camera companies are trying to do. They need to start looking at the documentation that the companies are trying to pass off as legitimate business records.
<br />
<h3>
Fabrication of Business Records</h3>
To any attorney defending clients from the red light camera citations it soon becomes clear that something fishy is going on with the documents produced by the red light camera companies. Defending these citations has always just been objecting to the form of the document. What is being asked to be introduced as a business record or public record has to meet certain criteria (a predicate must be laid). So far, the predicate has not been put before the court. The cities keep trying but without success (so far).
<br />
The worrisome thing that occurs is that when the cities and counties run into a road block they seem to come back at it with a bigger hammer. Not once have they looked at the situation and tried to legitimately clear the roadblock. But what is really disturbing is how witness testimony seems to change in an attempt to "say" what the court wants to hear.
<br />
From the beginning we have heard that a document that is titled the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/120483606/Florida-Statement-of-System-Reliability">"Florida Statement of System Reliability"</a> contains evidence of when the "self-test" occurs. This document always has it being done at the exact same time each day - midnight. Despite many other <i>problems</i> with this document it has become known, through the release of more documentation and testimony, that the Florida Statement of System Reliability does not indicate when the self-test occurs. Recent testimony and documentation now state the self-test always occurs around 2AM. The big red balloon here is the change in direction from the camera company's statements as to what is actually occurring. Either they are telling the truth now, they were telling the truth over the last two years, or they have yet to tell the truth. Why have the cities and counties not questioned the red light camera companies regarding this obvious problem?
<br />
This is just one example of some of the sketchy things that are going on with the red light camera hearings. Most of the municipalities hire outside counsel and are probably not keeping close tabs on what is going on. One, however, is using in-house counsel. It is inexcusable for our government to not pay attention to these issues. At one point I wrote about how the red light camera debacle could be fixed. As time drags on, it seems difficult that any of these companies can be trusted to be honest about their product and its reliability.
<br />
<footer>
<a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/108166851430373418755/posts" rel="author">Eric Dirga</a> is an <a href="http://www.ejdirga.com/">Orlando Criminal Defense and Traffic Law</a> attorney.
</footer>
</article>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-25837928930388323912012-12-31T10:38:00.001-05:002013-01-16T11:46:39.933-05:002012 - 2013<br />
<article><br />
<header><br />
<h2>
Year In Review, Looking Forward</h2>
<br />
<time datetime="2012-12-31" pubdate="pubdate">December 31, 2012</time><br />
<br />
</header><br />
<h3>
Red Light Cameras</h3>
<br />
The Red Light Camera debacle continues in the state of Florida. Spurned on by greed (not "safety") the law is full of problems. Unfortunately, in our society it is money that sways justice rather than justice itself. The noble cause of freedom has long ago disappeared from the minds of our elected "representatives" (joke). The Red Light Camera contracts that were signed before any state law was enacted were based on the idea that a single municipality could derive revenue by creating it's own traffic laws within it's boundaries. The Fifth District Court of Appeal rightfully struck down this tack by the cities as being in violation of the "uniform" traffic law requirement. This reasoned decision was not enough for the cities that had jumped the gun with the implementation of the red light cameras. They have now asked the Florida Supreme Court to review the Fifth District Court's decision.<br />
<br />
The pressure is on judges and hearing officers to "make the red light cameras work." There has to be some "higher" voice speaking down to them to try and get these citations to pay. That can be the only explanation for the contrasting orders that have come out of the courts. Note: higher voice does not mean God but political weight. See the two decisions from same judge below:<br />
<br />
(to be posted at later date but soon - check back)<br />
<br />
<h3>
Problems With State Use of "Diversion" Programs</h3>
<br />
I have noticed a problem with the use of "diversion" programs used by the Office of the State Attorney. A diversion program allows someone with no criminal history or a very minor history that has been charged with a new criminal offense (minor and non-violent) to participate in a program after which their criminal case is dropped. This is a great program for people who have actually committed a crime without police misconduct. However, if there is police misconduct such as an illegal stop (we still have the right to not be seized and searched, just FYI - see Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution) and a person accepts diversion there is not opportunity to punish law enforcement for their violation of our rights. When I say "punish" I refer to the legal sense of punishment in the form of suppression of evidence. Suppression was determined to be a way of trying to correct the bad behavior of the state officers when it came to violation of Constitutional Rights. The idea supposes that suppression would teach the state officers not to repeat the violation. With the Office of the State Attorney offering diversion more and more to first time offenders the opportunity to address state violations of our rights becomes less and less.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Racing On Highway Statute still Vague</h3>
<br />
The Racing on Highway statute has gone through several iterations since it was created in 2002. When it came to life back then we had police officers charging people with racing for such things as speeding, driving side by side, loud mufflers, spinning tires, and just because. It was a new law that the police could charge people with but unfortunately no one taught the police the nuances of the law. Soon thereafter, the original law was declared unconstitutional in one district. Later a different district found it to be A-OK. Just before the Florida Supreme Court decided who was right the legislature made some changes to the statute and and the review became moot. However, the changes did not clarify anything. It still says that "preventing another vehicle from passing" is racing when it is clearly a simple traffic infraction. The added language requiring that there be a "challenge" and an "acceptance" of that challenge has done little to educate law enforcement on when and when not to charge somebody with racing.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Final Thoughts...for now</h3>
<br />
If we don't challenge the authorities at the most mundane levels they will think it is okay to impose their will on us at all levels. Society requires laws to live by and we all accept those laws. At the same time we also know that power corrupts. If you look at our representatives at the local level we see the same people being elected or appointed to positions of power. A former commissioner becomes a member of the Tollway Authority, a son of a former Senator gets appointed to an open commission seat, a brother of a former Senator's law firm wins a city contract. These things happen. The only thing I know to do is challenge them anytime there is a violation of the law or our rights. This is not a new concept. It is how our government has been devised. The power of the people has an opportunity to be heard and to influence their representatives. Unfortunately, our representatives have become a class of select people not necessarily based on intelligence or civic duty and the people exercise their right to be heard less and less. Maybe someone will stand up and become the leader of reform. Maybe things will change for the better - and that is only a slight change, a nudge, just to keep us on track. We don't need much, just every so often we have to tack back on to our course rather than just accept the prevailing wind.<br />
<br />
<footer><br />
<address>
Eric Dirga is a lawyer with an office in Orlando. You can contact him at <a href="http://www.ejdirga.com/contact/contact_us.htm">his website</a> or on Google+.<br />
</address>
<br />
</footer><br />
</article>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-43246995256671945812012-11-27T12:54:00.000-05:002012-11-27T12:54:48.683-05:00Watch Out in Orange County!There is a new crack down going on in Orange County! It is the failure to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk law (<a href="http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/316.130" target="_blank">s. 316.130 F.S.</a>) and local law enforcement is watching for it!
<br />
<h3>
Actually, They are doing a bit more...</h3>
Actually, they are setting you up. They have a plain clothes police officer standing at the ready to step out into the crosswalk as you approach. Once you are close, the undercover cop steps out and a marked unit is ready to pull you over if you do not hit your brakes.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Why is this happening...</h3>
<br />
Central Florida has the reputation of the most dangerous streets for pedestrians and the local governments have made it a priority to do something about it. Well, this is what they have come up with. Is it entrapment? "But for" the actions of the plain clothes police officer the infraction would not have occurred - right?<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Cost</h3>
<br />
The fine for this ticket is $166. It is considered a moving violation and points will be assessed if you just pay the fine.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-23535210892721977672012-11-07T14:55:00.000-05:002012-11-07T14:55:08.528-05:00How to Fix the Red Light Camera Dilemma<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpAreEGPc_w/UJq4ROrdI7I/AAAAAAAAAao/vx92vAZ-TQ8/s1600/Conroy+Vineland+002+03202012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Orlando Stops Red Light Camera Program" border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZpAreEGPc_w/UJq4ROrdI7I/AAAAAAAAAao/vx92vAZ-TQ8/s320/Conroy+Vineland+002+03202012.jpg" title="Orlando Stops Red Light Camera Program" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Orlando's "Stops" program. A Red Light Camera<br />
program still using unauthorized signage.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-size: large;">Red Light Cameras are here to stay.</span> If you don't like that it's too bad - get use to them. There is way too much money coming from them (because people continue to run them) for any municipality to give them up. Upset, disgusted, mad? Good. Now let's talk about fixing the problems faced by the municipalities.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">When these Red Light Camera companies came to Florida to peddle their wares</span> it was like a dream come true for the cities and towns under the budget crunch from the "great recession." The Red Light Camera companies came to them promising them millions so it was no surprise that the bureaucrats, politicians, and accountants looked past all the legalities straight to the bottom line. Before anyone thought to look towards consequences we had major cities <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/106485947/Orange-County-Red-Light-Camera-Contract" target="_blank">contracting</a> with these companies to throw up the first of many red light cameras. All seemed well at first. The money rolled in and all were happy (except, of course, for the public which was again being fleeced of their money by government).<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Then the consequences hit.</span> You see, Florida law requires the traffic laws to be uniform across the state. Makes sense, we take just one test to be able to drive throughout Florida therefore the laws should be uniform. Still, it is hard to believe these city politicians could not see past their own greed and recognize that problem, but they didn't. With all these municipalities formulating their own ordinances to enforce the red light camera tickets it was not long before someone challenged it. And someone did.<br />
<br />
Challenging an infraction typically requires that the driver, the person fleeced of his money, to pay for an appeal. An appeal can take over a year to be ruled upon. In this case it was appealed and the circuit court agreed with the driver. Unfortunately, that decision was "appealed" to the district court of appeal and that took more time.<br />
<br />
During this appellate process the State of Florida decided there was money to be had and, oh yeah, all these traffic laws have to be uniform. So the Florida legislature drew up a bill and passed it creating a new Florida statute specifically for red light camera citations (s. 316.0083, Fla. Stat.). To say it was thrown together in a rush is an understatement. The legislature was trying to create a legal process for something that had already started. It was, has been, and is a hard steep climb.<br />
<br />
You see, the problem the state has when law enforcement officers rely on machines to charge people is the ability to establish that the "machine" was working properly when it was used. For example, and as a comparison, the use of a radar gun or laser to measure a car's speed for the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law enforcement officer can't just come into court and say my radar gun told me the driver was speeding. How does anyone know if the radar was working properly or malfunctioned? So instead, the officer must show that the radar was working properly on that day. How does he do this? He follows the administrative code promulgated by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles that sets forth specific requirements, including regular maintenance schedules and daily testing. Now the officer can simply comply by the administrative code for radar guns and the reliability is presumed by the court. Simple, right.<br />
<br />
Wrong. Like I pointed out. The cities jumped the gun and got caught up in multimillion dollar contracts with companies way before any framework for the red light cameras was put in place. The state tried to remedy this by the passage of laws setting forth time-tables to get the infrastructure in place (regulations, i.e., administrative codes). The scramble was on but, remember when this started, the great recession wasn't over (by definition it was over but the economy had not changed gears and God knows what it is doing). There was no money. The Florida Department of Transportation sent out a <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/112471072/TID-Testing-Specifications" target="_blank">simple letter</a> instead of promulgating any codes for the testing and maintenance of the red light cameras. Big <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/111165853/Crabb-Transcript-Broward" target="_blank">problem</a> but that wasn't all.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6vGAUQpVgcQ/UJq7vjvWIvI/AAAAAAAAAbE/HUWIhzmoktk/s1600/Conroy+Vineland+009+03202012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Florida Red Light Camera" border="0" height="150" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6vGAUQpVgcQ/UJq7vjvWIvI/AAAAAAAAAbE/HUWIhzmoktk/s200/Conroy+Vineland+009+03202012.jpg" title="Florida Red Light Camera" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Florida red light camera.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
You see, these cities really didn't want to pay a high salaried union police officer to sit in an office all day and look at videos. The state apparently didn't want that either. So they passed a law allowing people that were not fully qualified law enforcement officers to sit and watch videos all day. They did make them have to get <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/112474294/STEP-Program" target="_blank">some training</a> but not to the level of a full police officer (and thus they did not have to pay them much). Unfortunately for the cities, the training required by the state for these video watchers is an 80-hour program established by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. In the cities rush to have red light cameras they just hired some ex-cop to train their video watchers in an "equivalent" class - that happened to be only 8-hours long. Yeah, it didn't seem equivalent to me either. Regardless, the Cities and Red Light Camera companies decided to draw the line in the sand and fight with what they had.<br />
<br />
Flash forward to today. We have a mess. Some cities are playing it smart and just dropping tickets that are being challenged by attorneys who fight these cases. Other cities are paying outside law firms (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/106485947/Orange-County-Red-Light-Camera-Contract" target="_blank">$$$</a>) to represent them in court for these cases. The courts are clogged and confusion reigns.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">How can the cities fix this problem?</span> Simple, really. Stop prosecuting these citations until they have properly trained their employees (as required by law) and push the state to promulgate codes that set forth a single established method of maintaining and testing the red light cameras. Seems rather simple but they have yet to do any of this. Instead they are continuing to spend money prosecuting cases that they know had improperly trained personnel issuing the citations.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">What about all us drivers that have to pay for these cameras?</span> All I can tell you is slow down and don't run red lights. As long as the cities are making money these cameras will not be going away. The only way they will go away is if they stop making money. Understand? Once the revenue dries up the companies and cities will invalidate their contracts and the cameras will be removed.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <a href="http://www.ejdirga.com/" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> is an attorney in Orlando practicing criminal defense<span style="font-size: x-small;"> and traffic law.</span> </span></i>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-70422965055075136732012-09-20T15:03:00.002-04:002012-09-20T15:03:54.171-04:00It's About The Money<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wZdocIAnyRc/UFtn9ehnq7I/AAAAAAAAAU4/WO_1S-0bDMY/s1600/Conroy+Vineland+013+03192012.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wZdocIAnyRc/UFtn9ehnq7I/AAAAAAAAAU4/WO_1S-0bDMY/s320/Conroy+Vineland+013+03192012.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">City of Orlando Red Light Camera intersection.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h1>
Orange County Red Light Camera Contract</h1>
<h2>
What they don't want you to know...</h2>
Orange County and American Traffic Solutions [ATS] have a contractual relationship involving the Red Light Cameras that we see popping up everywhere (for Orange County, it only involves those cameras in Orange County and outside of the cities). We have been told by our leaders (a/k/a politicians) that these cameras are for "our" safety.<br />
<br />
The reality is that <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/106485947" target="_blank">the contract</a> between Orange County and ATS is very lucrative for both parties.<br />
<br />
Read the contract here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106485947<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ejdirga.com/" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a><br />
<br />
More information at <a href="http://www.ejdirga.com/traffic_tickets/redlight_camera_tickets/redlight_tickets.htm" target="_blank">Eric J Dirga, PA website</a>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-63202437308971816732012-09-04T12:23:00.000-04:002012-11-09T17:00:53.803-05:00Speeding on I-4A few weeks back a woman in her twenties was killed on Interstate 4. She had gotten into a minor accident in the early morning hours and tried to get to the side of the road. As she walked/ran to get to safety she was struck and killed by another vehicle traveling above the speed limit.<br />
<br />
Every morning the news reports accidents on I-4 and other roads throughout central Florida. Often the accidents involve deaths. Every time we drive on I-4 there is someone exceeding the speed limit, tailgating, cutting off another driver or any combination of those activities in their rush to get somewhere. Somewhere that is undoubtedly not important enough to risk other people's lives for. This is the tragedy. Commuters know all too well the dangers involved while driving on I-4 yet some don't care. <br />
<br />
Yes, the on ramps are not particularly well designed, the amount of vehicle traffic has increased, and the road needs to be resurfaced. However, most everyone that drives on I-4 knows this. Daily drivers are also familiar with all the DOT circular signs signifying a fatal car accident that line the side of the road. <br />
<br />
I represent many people each month for traffic tickets. A majority of them are for speeding. The reason for so many speeding tickets is because there are a lot of unmarked police traveling I-4 to do one job - slow people down by ticketing them. They need to slow people down because despite all we know about I-4 people still tend to drive at speeds that endanger other people.<br />
<br />
Remember, if you get a ticket for speeding on I-4 your hearing will be in front of a judge or hearing officer that also drives on I-4. Making an excuse as to why you were exceeding the speed limit will get you very little traction with the judge or hearing officer with all the needless fatalities that occur on our roads.<br />
<br />
The best thing to do is not speed. It is amazing how driving the speed limit still gets you to the place you want to be in roughly the same time it takes if you exceeded the speed limit. If you are traveling with the flow of traffic and receive a speeding ticket always be courteous to the law enforcement officer. He or she may give you a break. Moreover, if you challenge your speeding ticket that same officer will appear to testify before the court and the judge that also drives on I-4. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><a href="http://www.ejdirga.com/" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> represents drivers issued traffic tickets and people injured in car accidents in the central Florida area.</i></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1851385449376944778.post-77041769014723954432012-08-03T15:54:00.003-04:002012-10-15T16:12:03.837-04:00Expungements: Two Things That Piss Me OffYoung dumb prosecutors that think its okay to "adjudicate" people at arraignments and public defenders that think a misdemeanor adjudication has no ramifications.<br />
<br />
First time offenses should always be a "withhold of adjudication" unless prohibited by law. Misdemeanors, in general, should be withholds.<br />
<br />
Adjudications of guilt in misdemeanor cases impact lives. Realize this.<br />
<br />
<i> <a href="http://www.ejdirga.com/" rel="author">Eric J Dirga</a> is an Orlando Criminal and Traffic Defense Attorney that prepares, files, and represents people who want to seal or expunge their criminal records.</i>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05127985181384055455noreply@blogger.com0