Accused speeders demand to see city study that set speed limit
Judge Edward L. Hogshire has denied a
motion to dismiss decisions by the Charlottesville General District
Court made against six people accused of speeding on the Route 250
Bypass, all of whom claim their rights have been violated.
A trial for the six defendants — Michael J.
Tocci, Marcela T. Liguria, John Francis Valosky, Bonnie E. Baird, John
E. Curry IV and Turner Barringer — is set for 8:30 a.m. Aug. 3 in
Charlottesville Circuit Court.
The defendants, all cited for driving 50-54
miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone in the 300-600 blocks of the
bypass between Oct. 13, 2010 and April 24, argued their cases should be
dismissed on constitutional and statutory grounds, according to a
decision written by Hogshire.
The six said their due process rights were
violated because the city has not shown a copy of the traffic and
engineering study required to legally apply a 35 miles per hour speed
limit on that section of the bypass.
In Virginia, the maximum speed limit for
limited access highways like the bypass is generally 55 miles per hour,
and a traffic and engineering study is required to lower the maximum
speed limit.
Minutes from a July 3, 1967, Charlottesville
City Council meeting refer to such a traffic study being completed. The
council adopted an ordinance a month later, lowering the speed limit for
a portion of the bypass.
The defendants argued the city must produce a
copy of the traffic study to prove it was completed before the speed
limit was changed.
“Due process requires the prosecution to prove
every element necessary to establish the crime charged beyond a
reasonable doubt,” Hogshire wrote. “… In this case, due process requires
the commonwealth to prove certain facts beyond a reasonable doubt such
as the speed and location of the car. But due process does not require
the commonwealth to prove that the ordinance was itself properly
established.”
Virginia Code Section 42.6-878, which sets the
requirements for lowering speed limits on limited access highways,
includes a “rebuttable presumption.”
The rebuttable presumption requires the
defendants to provide “clear evidence” that the speed limit was not
established with the required traffic study.
“The city’s speed limit ordinance is not
invalidated simply because a 45-year-old traffic survey cannot be
produced,” Hogshire wrote.
Interesting article from VLW. Please call us if you need legal advice.
Tucker Griffin Barnes P.C.
Charlottesville & Lake Monticello
434-973-7474 (Cville)
434-589-3636 (Lake)
We have all been nabbed in the lower speed limit zones and there should be no mercy for these 6, give them WRECKLESS to set thejm straight!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis is good info. บาคาร่าเล่นง่าย
ReplyDeleteบาคาร่าเล่นง่าย
บาคาร่าเล่นง่าย
บาคาร่าเล่นง่าย
บาคาร่าเล่นง่าย