Git;99593 The problem is said:See my post above, pointing out that most states/municipalities have allow either a presumptive inference or a rebuttable presumption that the owner of the vehicle was the driver. You dont need an image of his/her face.
See my post above, pointing out that most states/municipalities have allow either a presumptive inference or a rebuttable presumption that the owner of the vehicle was the driver. You don't need an image of his/her face.
22655. (a) When any peace officer, as that term is defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the
Penal Code or any regularly employed and salaried employee who is
engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking statutes and
regulations, has reasonable cause to believe that a motor vehicle on
a highway or on private property open to the general public onto
which the public is explicitly or implicitly invited, located within
the territorial limits in which the officer is empowered to act, has
been involved in a hit-and-run accident, and the operator of the
vehicle has failed to stop and comply with Sections 20002 to 20006,
inclusive, the officer may remove the vehicle from the highway or
from public or private property for the purpose of inspection.
(b) Unless sooner released, the vehicle shall be released upon the
expiration of 48 hours after the removal from the highway or private
property upon demand of the owner. When determining the 48-hour
period, weekends, and holidays shall not be included.
This is incorrect, for example the statute I cited in new jersey, N.J.S.A. 39:4-129 includes a permissive inference and the driver faces 6 months in jail if anyone was injured (that can even be a minor injury) or up to 30 days for property damage alone. It is not a simple red light camera type ticket. In fact in NJ, the courts essentially allowed a presumptive inference before it was codified into law. Now this might not applicable in every state but im pretty certain NJ is not the only state/municipality with this provision.I can't speak regarding the laws in all 50 states - but generally when your talking about a "rebuttable presumption that the owner of the vehicle was the driver" your basically dealing with some sort of traffic violation - photo radar, red light camera, etc etc
These violations are usually classified as a 'misdemeanor' and generally you do not even contest the violations before a judge - it is usually some sort of "traffic commissioner" (an attorney who volunteers his time, etc)
Again, not trying to paint with a broad brush - a 'property damage only' Hit and Run is usually classified as a misdemeanor and the suspect would have the right to a trial and the right to face their accuser. (6th amendment and 'innocent until proven guilty' comes to mind). You need to prove who was the driver was and the case can not stand on the suspect's own admission even if they did cop out to it - they could later recant and/or don't have to testify (5th amendment)
Civilly - the Investigating Officer should have been able to conclude that the Caravan did infact collide with the OP's truck and now that I take a closer look at the license plate I see that it is a California plate - so at this point I am pretty confident that I know what I am talking about
OP - what city or area did this occur in? If it is California and you find the vehicle, call the police and have a Traffic Officer respond to impound it - they can only hold it for up to 48 hours, but it sure gets there attention...
This is incorrect, for example the statute I cited in new jersey, N.J.S.A. 39:4-129 includes a permissive inference and the driver faces 6 months in jail if anyone was injured (that can even be a minor injury) or up to 30 days for property damage alone. It is not a simple red light camera type ticket. In fact in NJ, the courts essentially allowed a presumptive inference before it was codified into law. Now this might not applicable in every state but im pretty certain NJ is not the only state/municipality with this provision.
I did miss the post about California and I have not done the research for California law or the local municipal ordinance.Fenderman - I guess you missed the part where the OP said it happened it California and that I am pretty familiar with California Law
I don't want to get into a legal debate with you, but the prosecutor still has the burden to PROVE that someone committed the crime. (Use some common sense - a jury is going to convict someone just because they are the registered owner of a vehicle ?) Last time I checked New Jersey is still in the United States and again you're innocent until proven guilty, you have the right to challenge your accuser and you have the right not to testify)
pozella - the Police should have filled out a 'long form' accident report since there is workable evidence - the license plate. (A 'short form' is only two pages, front and back and is basically to just record the accident as a stat for the state) On the long form report, it should list the suspect vehicle on the front page since you have the plate and the officer should have listed the registered owner info also. You are entitled to a copy of the report - you should ask for one, and it should have the suspects name and address on it.
If all they did was the short form - you need to ask to speak with a Traffic Supervisor and ask what is going on. A short form report is usually taken when there is nothing to go on - ie, you parked your car at 10 PM and when you went the back the next morning you the side door smashed in, and you have no idea what happened, etc.
A long form report usually requires follow up and attempt to contact the registered owner of the other vehicle at the very least. If someone didn't do that - they are not doing their job (in my opinion.)
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/police/