Traffic violation procedures

So, I was looking into the misdemeanor law, specifically section 138. That’s the part they cited in the precautionary measure order. And yeah, you can definitely file an appeal, but the catch is that it doesn't actually stop the order from being enforced right away. It got me thinking—it might actually be worth appealing just to see what happens. Is it even possible for the same case to end up going two different ways if it lands in front of two different judges? It feels like such a wild loophole...
I’m going to spend a little more time digging through the misdemeanor law to be sure, but I’ll go ahead and draft what you suggested, urbanraven16. I'll touch base with you once that's done!

Gregory Cooper5 said:So, I was looking into the misdemeanor law, specifically section 138. That’s the part they cited in the precautionary measure order. And yeah, you can definitely file an appeal, but the catch is that it doesn't actually stop the order from being enforced right away. It got me thinking—it might actually be worth appealing just to see what happens. Is it even possible for the same case to end up going two different ways if it lands in front of two different judges? It feels like such a wild loophole...
I’m going to spend a little more time digging through the misdemeanor law to be sure, but I’ll go ahead and draft what you suggested, urbanraven16. I'll touch base with you once that's done!

Gregory Cooper5, I hate to say it, but the way you're navigating these regulations and grasping these basic concepts—especially for someone who's basically a graduated lawyer—is honestly kind of 👎

Honestly, hands-on experience is exactly what most students are lacking these days.

So, here’s my situation: I’m looking to appeal this driver's license suspension. My main gripe is with the timing regarding how the suspension kicks in. I’m arguing that the circumstances surrounding my license being taken away were handled poorly—specifically, whether it should take effect immediately, or if there's a twelve-hour window similar to how police can hold pedestrians until they sober up. I’ve been digging through the road traffic safety act, but I just can't find any specific provision that allows me to challenge this particular precautionary measure order based on those circumstances. Does anyone know of a legal argument I could actually lean on? It’ll eventually go before a judge, and hopefully, my license will be returned in the meantime, but I’m genuinely worried my appeal won't hold water because I don't know which specific statute or article to cite. Any ideas??

I mean, what's even the point of appealing that? Just take the fine and move on...

Gregory Cooper5 said:Honestly, hands-on experience is exactly what most students are lacking these days.

So, here’s my situation: I’m looking to appeal this driver's license suspension. My main gripe is with the timing regarding how the suspension kicks in. I’m arguing that the circumstances surrounding my license being taken away were handled poorly—specifically, whether it should take effect immediately, or if there's a twelve-hour window similar to how police can hold pedestrians until they sober up. I’ve been digging through the road traffic safety act, but I just can't find any specific provision that allows me to challenge this particular precautionary measure order based on those circumstances. Does anyone know of a legal argument I could actually lean on? It’ll eventually go before a judge, and hopefully, my license will be returned in the meantime, but I’m genuinely worried my appeal won't hold water because I don't know which specific statute or article to cite. Any ideas??

Look, you've got a whole mess of different statutes and regulations playing together here—you've got the vehicle code and general criminal codes to deal with, and since the general code isn't exactly a masterpiece of clarity in this section, parts of the vehicle code are going to come into play too...

Do whatever you think is best, really, but I’ll tell you one more time: don't go throwing every single article and subsection from five different laws at the wall in your appeal, because you're either going to trip over your own feet or end up looking like a total smart-alec to the judge, and trust me, there are judges who absolutely loathe people acting like legal geniuses... and you certainly aren't going to win an argument against a judge in their own backyard, so don't go picking a fight you can't finish... especially not by dragging in nonsense about pedestrians and 12-hour detentions, because that just has nothing to do with this...

WHAT ACTUALLY MATTERS and what you really need to point out—regardless of the fact that we're talking about a precautionary measure order authorized under the general code, which is what you're appealing in the first place—is that while the suspension itself is dictated by the vehicle code, that exact same code also dictates how you get it back, and it's not some arbitrary 72-hour wait, but rather immediately once the reason for the seizure has ceased to exist...

I mean, honestly, depending on how you started this, maybe it would be better if you didn't even file this appeal and just contested the misdemeanor order itself...

By the way, that 72-hour window includes Sundays and holidays, so don't try to claim you have to wait for a business day or regular office hours; you can show up at the DMV at the exact day and hour specified in the order, and that's why the DMV branch you go to has to be one of those 24/7 locations that stays open weekends, and they are legally required to give it back to you even if you roll up to the station absolutely wasted...

James Cox6 said:I replied to your PM with everything, but I'll repeat it here:

1. The statute of limitations starts from the moment the violation occurs.
2. File your appeal and wait for the statute of limitations to hit at the municipal court.
3. As for what to say... I sent you the details in your PM (I don't need the whole country reading my ramblings about how to lie)
4. You might only be able to get away with paying the court costs and the fine.

Can I get a private message too, since apparently everyone's looking for a little one-on-one time with your rambling thoughts?

I promise on my life I won't tell anyone what kind of nonsense you're spewing... honest to God!

urbanraven16 said:Can I get a private message too, since apparently everyone's looking for a little one-on-one time with your rambling thoughts?

I promise on my life I won't tell anyone what kind of nonsense you're spewing... honest to God!

Just pass it along; I won't say where I got it from if I use 🙂

I put together a draft like this:

Appeal against precautionary measure order number:
51xx-xx-xx dated June 29, 2007.

Within the legal timeframe, I am filing a formal objection against the aforementioned precautionary measure order from June 29, 2007.

Citing Article 138, Section 4(a) of the misdemeanor law, the Highway Patrol suspended my driver's license from June 29, 2007, through July 2, 2007, based on suspected violations of Article 199, Section 6 of the road traffic safety act.

In this specific instance, I believe there is absolutely no legal basis for such an extended suspension of my license. Furthermore, it is my position that the Highway Patrol is obligated to return my license once the underlying circumstances necessitating the seizure have been resolved, rather than simply waiting out a mandatory 72-hour window.

----
Do you guys think I should add anything else...? The thing is, I've been digging through the statutes and I just CANNOT find any mention of the license being returned once the circumstances cease... that's what's really tripping me up.

Gregory Cooper5 said:I put together a draft like this:

Appeal against precautionary measure order number:
51xx-xx-xx dated June 29, 2007.

Within the legal timeframe, I am filing a formal objection against the aforementioned precautionary measure order from June 29, 2007.

Citing Article 138, Section 4(a) of the misdemeanor law, the Highway Patrol suspended my driver's license from June 29, 2007, through July 2, 2007, based on suspected violations of Article 199, Section 6 of the road traffic safety act.

In this specific instance, I believe there is absolutely no legal basis for such an extended suspension of my license. Furthermore, it is my position that the Highway Patrol is obligated to return my license once the underlying circumstances necessitating the seizure have been resolved, rather than simply waiting out a mandatory 72-hour window.

----
Do you guys think I should add anything else...? The thing is, I've been digging through the statutes and I just CANNOT find any mention of the license being returned once the circumstances cease... that's what's really tripping me up.

this sentence:

"I believe that in this specific case, there is no legal basis for my driver's license to be suspended for such an extended period."

just scrap it entirely,

and in the phrase "Within the legal timeframe, I am filing an objection against the aforementioned Order," swap out "objection" for "appeal," and

as for that bit about things being restored "once the reasons cease," that's actually under Section 285.3 (since I have to dig through all these laws myself...) so just mention that and quote Section 285.3 directly. Also, try to smooth out the wording a bit...

Make sure to address it to the "competent" misdemeanor court and sign it.

Got it. I actually cited that specific article in my appeal, basically arguing that since the circumstances that led to my license being suspended are now behind me, I should be allowed to drive again.
Since I already suggested in my initial objection that the misdemeanor court vacated order should be issued and the case sent over for a regular trial, I’m wondering—if I file an appeal against this precautionary measure order, should I explicitly state something like, "Based on the aforementioned, I request that this precautionary measure order be vacated, declared void, or... what exactly??"

Or am I basically hitting a dead end once I've already laid out my reasons for wanting my license back?

Alright, I put this together and honestly, I’m feeling pretty good about it: obviously addressed to the misdemeanor court via the highway patrol...

Within the legal timeframe, I am filing an appeal against the aforementioned precautionary measure order dated June 29, 2007.

The highway patrol, citing Article 138, Section 4 of the misdemeanor law due to suspicion that I violated Article 199, Section 6 of the road traffic safety act, suspended my driver's license from June 29, 2007, to July 2, 2007.

Article 285, Section 1 of the road traffic safety act states that a police officer shall temporarily seize a driver's license and remove the driver from traffic; meanwhile, Section 3 of that same Act specifies: "Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of this article, the driver's license is temporarily seized until the reasons for its seizure cease, for a maximum period of 30 days."

It is my position that the highway patrol is obligated to return my driver's license immediately once the reasons for the seizure no longer exist, rather than waiting 72 hours after the precautionary measure order was handed to me. Therefore, such a legal order and its continued existence no longer carry any legal weight.

Given the facts stated above,

I propose

that precautionary measure order number: xxxx-xxx-xx-x dated June 29, 2007, be vacated.

What do you guys think???

Gregory Cooper5 said:Alright, I put this together and honestly, I’m feeling pretty good about it: obviously addressed to the misdemeanor court via the highway patrol...

Within the legal timeframe, I am filing an appeal against the aforementioned precautionary measure order dated June 29, 2007.

The highway patrol, citing Article 138, Section 4 of the misdemeanor law due to suspicion that I violated Article 199, Section 6 of the road traffic safety act, suspended my driver's license from June 29, 2007, to July 2, 2007.

Article 285, Section 1 of the road traffic safety act states that a police officer shall temporarily seize a driver's license and remove the driver from traffic; meanwhile, Section 3 of that same Act specifies: "Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of this article, the driver's license is temporarily seized until the reasons for its seizure cease, for a maximum period of 30 days."

It is my position that the highway patrol is obligated to return my driver's license immediately once the reasons for the seizure no longer exist, rather than waiting 72 hours after the precautionary measure order was handed to me. Therefore, such a legal order and its continued existence no longer carry any legal weight.

Given the facts stated above,

I propose

that precautionary measure order number: xxxx-xxx-xx-x dated June 29, 2007, be vacated.

What do you guys think???

Oh, stop being so modest, seriously... I actually heard through the grapevine that the CEO is looking for you; apparently, he caught a glimpse of your work and wants you as his right-hand man, though he did mention he’s a little worried you might just outshine him and steal his job entirely, but hey, a talent like yours shouldn't stay hidden forever, so whatever the cost may be... 😁

In all seriousness, it’s solid stuff—you're clear, concise, and hit all the necessary points, though you might want to tweak that part where you say "while section 3 of the same Law states"... if you swap out the word "law" for "section of the law," it'll serve its purpose much better...

Alright, now let’s see what we can do with just the actual citation. Since Sarah isn't giving me the advice you suggested, let's just look at this purely for the sake of it and see if there are any glaring errors regarding the breathalyzer—specifically what’s recorded in the sobriety test report in these sections:

1- At what exact time were you pulled over?

2- Did you drink or not (whatever was circled)

3- If you did drink, what exactly is written in the space where you supposedly stated what and when you consumed alcohol?

4- At what time was the breathalyzer actually used?

1. And look at sections 1 and 4—they list the exact same timestamp for both the initial stop and when they blew me into the breathalyzer.

2. I checked the boxes saying I consent to the testing, that I’m not being deceptive, and that I’m not requesting any expert medical review or blood/urine samples.

3. I honestly told them straight up that I'd had two beers a few hours earlier, but they recorded it as "0.5 liters of beer one and a half hours before the stop."

Some people are telling me I should argue that they didn't actually hand me the citation, but that it was already printed out and sitting in the machine! As far as everything else goes, it all looks pretty standard: the address, the license plate number, the officer's name and badge, the hat, the vest—all that stuff. The only weird part is that by the time he approached me, I had already stepped out of my car and was heading toward the door to lock up, while their patrol car was just idling behind the corner. He asked me where I was headed, and I told him I was going to see my girlfriend. To that, he snapped back with some nonsense about how I couldn't just pull over and then throw it in reverse, which is something I NEVER did—I simply stopped the car and got out.

urbanraven16 said:Oh, stop being so modest, seriously... I actually heard through the grapevine that the CEO is looking for you; apparently, he caught a glimpse of your work and wants you as his right-hand man, though he did mention he’s a little worried you might just outshine him and steal his job entirely, but hey, a talent like yours shouldn't stay hidden forever, so whatever the cost may be... 😁

In all seriousness, it’s solid stuff—you're clear, concise, and hit all the necessary points, though you might want to tweak that part where you say "while section 3 of the same Law states"... if you swap out the word "law" for "section of the law," it'll serve its purpose much better...

Alright, now let’s see what we can do with just the actual citation. Since Sarah isn't giving me the advice you suggested, let's just look at this purely for the sake of it and see if there are any glaring errors regarding the breathalyzer—specifically what’s recorded in the sobriety test report in these sections:

1- At what exact time were you pulled over?

2- Did you drink or not (whatever was circled)

3- If you did drink, what exactly is written in the space where you supposedly stated what and when you consumed alcohol?

4- At what time was the breathalyzer actually used?

Rumor has it Gregory Cooper5 is going to eclipse the big shots, which is honestly saying something. 🙂

😎 Well, don't go being like that! /I sheepishly looked down at my shoes, feeling my face turn bright red/

Man, you're acting like you're writing a PhD thesis here 🙂

Oh, come on, don't be silly! I want to do this properly—and more importantly, I want to get the details exactly right. Besides, the basic structure for all these kinds of formal complaints, grievances, or legal filings is pretty much the same: you state what you’re unhappy about and then explain what you want changed. That's just what I'm trying to put together here...
..
And you? You're just gathering intel. I truly hope you never actually have to use it.🙂

You're really something... all this noise and overcomplicating things just because of one minor infraction... what would you even do if you actually committed a felony? Like, say, hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk?

James Cox6,
don't go overboard here! Good grief, what kind of felony are we talking about? What pedestrian massacre?! You're being way too dramatic! 😲

Gregory Cooper5 said:1. And look at sections 1 and 4—they list the exact same timestamp for both the initial stop and when they blew me into the breathalyzer.

2. I checked the boxes saying I consent to the testing, that I’m not being deceptive, and that I’m not requesting any expert medical review or blood/urine samples.

3. I honestly told them straight up that I'd had two beers a few hours earlier, but they recorded it as "0.5 liters of beer one and a half hours before the stop."

Some people are telling me I should argue that they didn't actually hand me the citation, but that it was already printed out and sitting in the machine! As far as everything else goes, it all looks pretty standard: the address, the license plate number, the officer's name and badge, the hat, the vest—all that stuff. The only weird part is that by the time he approached me, I had already stepped out of my car and was heading toward the door to lock up, while their patrol car was just idling behind the corner. He asked me where I was headed, and I told him I was going to see my girlfriend. To that, he snapped back with some nonsense about how I couldn't just pull over and then throw it in reverse, which is something I NEVER did—I simply stopped the car and got out.

Honestly, none of that is actually wrong on their part... they followed the procedure perfectly fine...

But if you want to look at it this way: you basically have two different paths you can take...

Option one is to challenge the specific type and severity of the penalty itself, which skips the initial hearing stage and goes straight to the DMV administrative review process...

Option two is the classic route where you just fight the whole thing in front of a judge...

The perk of the first option is that you don't have to sit there turning bright red in front of a judge, plus the fines and costs can't end up being higher than what was originally on the ticket, whereas the second option gives you a better shot at waiting out the statute of limitations, but it also opens the door for you to walk in facing a $2,000 fine and walk out with even more debt or a suspended license...$50, though you might get lucky...

Since this is your first offense, the fine is relatively low, and you're still a college student, there isn't much chance you'll get hit with anything more than the minimum fine or basic safety measures if you go with option two during the initial hearing, but hey, nothing's guaranteed...

Also, if you're dealing with a major metropolitan court like Los Angeles or Chicago, going the long way might help with the statute of limitations, but there's always that nagging possibility that some new state legislation gets passed that extends the expiration period to four years, and then your hopes for a statute of limitations defense just go right out the window...

So, yeah, those are the cards you're holding, so make your choice...

By the way, I read through all those objections you listed, and it's unlikely—well, actually, it's almost certain—that there's anything in there that would "seriously" help you get dismissed... it really just comes down to whether you can play the waiting game with the statute of limitations...