I was pulled over a while ago for reckless driving...and for the sake
of the question I will go into detail about how he pulled me over. The
ticket was issued in Colorado, Arapahoe county. I was driving down a
two lane road (on both sides...so all together 4 lanes) late at night.
The road is straight and is shaped like a bowl...so at any point on
the road you can see the whole road. The posted speed limit is 45 mph.
I was travelling around 90 miles an hour. I passed a truck that was
about 1/4 mile away from the next light, while slowing down to take a
right at that light. I slowed down to take a right turn and then
another right turn into a neighborhood. The lights went off behind me
and I pulled over. He approached the window and asked me "where are
you going in such a hurry?" and I said home...and he then proceeded to
tell me that he didn't clock me in any way...radar or otherwise...but
that I looked like i was going about ninety. I was impressed that he
was that spot on...but I also knew that without actually knowing my
speed  he coudln't give me a speeding ticket...i was in the clear...or
so i thought. He came back and handed me a reckless driving ticket...i
was stunned. I know that reckless driving tickets cannot be given on
speeding alone...especially if the cop has no way of proving how fast
i was going. Also, He claimed to have sped up to 125 to catch up to
me...but between where he was parked and where the light I took a
right at is 1/4 mile...and uphill. This means he would have had to
have sped up to 125 and slowed back down to 20 or so in order to take
the turn...in a quarter mile. Is a normal police interceptor even
capable of this....I know my car isn't...a suped up Audi A4. So the
questions are:

1. Will this ticket hold up in court considering the only measurement
of my speed is visual?

2. Is a regular police interceptor capable of doing that speed
increase and decrease in that amount of space...i'm 99 percent sure
that its not.

3. What would be the best defense for me to take?

4. Could you direct me to any case law on the matter.

Just so you know I have already gotten professional legal help...I
would just like this as extra info...no need to tell me about the
terms of service and recommending professional help. Thanks

Dear spacehog371,


First of all, I urge you to fight, fight, fight! The more vigorously
you battle against this charge, the likelier the prosecutor is to give
you a reasonable plea bargain such as a reduction to careless driving. I
say so from my personal experience in defending myself against a Class 2
speeding ticket. My friends told me I was crazy, but when the prosecutor
wouldn't give me a reasonable deal, I went to trial and defended myself
over the course of three court sessions until the prosecutor gave in and
had the charge reduced to a Class 1 offense. My insurance has therefore
gone up by only 15% instead of 50% or more. But enough about me. I shall
address your questions in order.



1. Will this ticket hold up in court considering the only measurement
of my speed is visual?


If the ticket holds up, it won't have anything to do with a measurement of
speed. It is vital to remember that you are not charged with speeding. The
charge is reckless driving, which is defined as "a wanton or willful
disregard for the safety of persons or property". The words "wanton" and
"willful" imply a state of mind rather than a specific physical act. They
imply that you consciously chose a course of action that would endanger
persons or property.

The prosecutor won't be interested in establishing how fast you were
going, since he doesn't have the evidence to show this and the exact
number isn't relevant to the charge. In the event that negotiations fail
and your case comes to trial, the prosecutor will make his argument by
calling the ticketing officer to the stand and getting him to tell a
story about his extensive training and long policing experience, and
why he deemed you to be driving recklessly.

The prosecutor won't ask the officer, "How fast was Mr. Spacehog
driving?", he'll ask something like, "Did you perceive Mr. Spacehog to
be driving at such a rate of speed that he posed a danger to persons or
property in the vicinity?". Then the officer will say, "Yes, with all
my experience and expertise, I do believe so," and that's pretty much
the whole case.

So the case essentially comes down to the track record and credibility of
the police officer, which is problematic because the court tends to favor
the officer's point of view. It is very hard to defend against subjective
arguments such as these, much harder than in factual matters where you
can sift through technical details ad infinitum: when was the lidar
gun last calibrated? at what angle was the tripod placed with respect
to the roadway? when did the officer last visit an ophthalmologist? and
so forth. Remember that if it comes to your word against the officer's
in traffic court, the judge will always -- not as a matter of official
policy, but as a matter of expedient practice -- favor the officer's
point of view. Traffic cases that turn on a decision about competing
points of view are dangerous for the defendant. This is why you and your
lawyer are best off hammering out a good plea bargain.



2. Is a regular police interceptor capable of doing that speed increase
and decrease in that amount of space...i'm 99 percent sure that its not.


You don't necessarily know where the cop was waiting, but if you are
correct in your assessment that he was at a standstill a quarter-mile
away, then no way is it possible. No police interceptor in the United
States can hit 125 mph in a quarter-mile. Look at the following car.

Fast Autos: 2004 Porsche 911 GT2
http://www.fast-autos.net/porsche/04porschegt2.html

Some traffic police in Germany do drive the Porsche 911 Turbo, but what
you see at the above link is the ultra-light racing version of the Porsche
911. No cop drives that on duty. When driven by a professional test
driver, it can reach a top speed of 121 mph within a quarter-mile. What
American sedan is going to top that by 4 mph, especially uphill and with
room to slow down? Forget about it.



3. What would be the best defense for me to take?


If you can't work out a good plea bargain and the case goes to trial,
the only defense you can offer is that you were not in the state of mind,
the "wanton or willful disregard", that must be present in one who is
guilty of reckless driving. You must argue that you did not consciously
take a dangerous course of action on the road. It helps if you can state
emphatically that you were conscious of driving with full control and a
high regard for the surrounding persons and property. You may have been
driving fast, but it is certainly possible to drive both fast and safely,
and that is what you were doing.

For your reference, here's what the Colorado Driver Handbook has to say
on the matter, including a quotation of the Reckless Driving and Careless
Driving statutes.


    42-4-1401 RECKLESS DRIVING: Any person who drives any motor
    vehicle, bicycle, or motorized bicycle in such a manner as to
    indicate either a wanton or willful disregard for the safety of
    persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. 42-4-1402
    CARELESS DRIVING: Any person who drives any motor vehicle,
    bicycle, or motorized bicycle in careless and imprudent manner,
    without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners,
    traffic and use of the streets and highways driving.

    AGGRESSIVE DRIVING

    Aggressive driving or reckless driving is defined as any
    behind-the-wheel behavior that places another person (or people)
    and/or property in danger through willful action without regard
    to safety.

    Aggressive vs. Reckless

    Driving assertively to enter a freeway or changing lanes to
    protect yourself from another motorist encroaching on your lane
    is acceptable, but at what point does assertive driving become
    aggressive or reckless? The line is defined by your intent as
    a motorist. If a law enforcement officer notes your actions
    as endangering another person or property (including the other
    motorist's vehicle) you can be charged under Colorado 's reckless
    driving statute (42-4-1401) and if convicted, up to eight points
    can be assessed against your driving record. A single act,
    such as tailgating another driver, passing on the shoulder or
    running a red light could be seen by a law enforcement officer
    as aggressive if the officer believes the action is willful and
    places others in danger. A combination of acts, such as speeding,
    cutting off other vehicles, swerving toward another motorist,
    honking, flashing headlights, yelling and using inappropriate
    hand gestures can also be considered aggressive driving. Some
    acts, such as waving a weapon at another motorist, bumping or
    ramming another vehicle or high speed pursuit of a vehicle can
    result in criminal charges beyond a reckless driving charge.

Colorado Division of Motor Vehicles: Colorado Driver Handbook Part 4
http://www.revenue.state.co.us/mv_dir/formspdf/DRP233725-37.pdf



4. Could you direct me to any case law on the matter?


I remember reading an Alaska Supreme Court opinion that addressed
specifically the question of whether speeding alone constitutes reckless
driving and concluded that it did not. I have been unable to locate
a similar finding in Colorado state law, which is not to say that it
doesn't exist.

I did find the following opinion by the Colorado Supreme Court, which
makes it clear that that reckless driving is a question of mental
state. In fact, it is here called a "culpable mental state", which means
that the driver must actually feel guilty while doing his reckless
driving. To be convicted, it is not enough that the driver committed
certain actions. The prosecution must show that the driver felt guilty
while committing those actions. 


    To be convicted of reckless driving, a person must operate a motor
    vehicle "in such a manner as to indicate either a wanton or a
    willful disregard for the safety of persons or property." Thus, a
    conviction for reckless driving requires a culpable mental state.

FindLaw: Colorado Supreme Court: December 1999: In the Matter of Kearns
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=co&vol=1999sc\sc1220a&invol=1
    
    
I suppose a good lawyer would use this finding to undermine the police
officer's testimony. He might argue that although the police officer
observed you committing certain actions, it is not possible to conclude
from those actions alone that you were in a culpable mental state. This
is why reckless driving is more often charged in cases of road rage:
someone yelling from his car, giving other the drivers the finger and
so on, is more clearly acting with wanton or willful disregard. If you
were calm throughout the incident and there was no friction with other
drivers on the road, that helps.
    
    
A lawyer in Colorado Springs named Robert Gustafson cites some case
law in discussing the difference between careless driving and reckless
driving. You will also be interested in what he has to say further below
about potential defenses.
    
    
    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CARELESS DRIVING & RECKLESS 
    DRIVING?
    
    Reckless Driving.  One may be said to be guilty of wanton
    behavior when, although the defendant may not have deliberately
    intended to injure anyone, he consciously chooses a dangerous
    course of action which to a reasonable mind creates a strong
    probability that injury to others will result. Martin v. People,
    179 Colo. 237, 499 P.2d 606 (1972).
    
    One who commits reckless driving necessarily has been guilty of
    careless driving, for the greater degree of negligence includes
    the lesser. People v. Chapman, 192 Colo. 322, 557 P.2d 1211
    (1977).  This means careless driving is a "lesser included 
    offense" of reckless driving, and if charged with reckless, a
    defendant may request a jury instruction on careless.  Reckless
    driving is a "lesser included offense of vehicular eluding.
    People v. Pena, 962 P.2d 285 (Colo. App. 1997).

    Both reckless and careless driving offenses consist of two
    elements: (1) the act of driving a motor vehicle, and (2) the
    state of mind in "disregard" of or "without due regard" for
    safety. People v. Chapman, 192 Colo. 322, 557 P.2d 1211 (1977).

    The two offenses differ only in that the degree of negligence
    required is far more culpable in reckless driving than in careless
    driving, although it falls short of intentional wrongdoing. id.

    [...]

    POTENTIAL DEFENSES

    Careless driving offense is usually charged when a motor vehicle
    accident has occurred.  Negligence is a factual determination
    based upon the circumstances of the case.  Unless the defendant
    can challenge reasonable suspicion for the initial contact,
    frequently the case turns upon factual argument.  Prosecutors
    usually offer reasonable plea bargains regarding careless driving
    and the case need not go to trial.

    Reckless driving is usually charged in cases of excessive speed,
    especially when combined with weaving in and out of traffic.
    It's frequently charged in connection with a DUI case or a younger
    driver feeling his oats, and it's not uncommon a motorcycle was
    being driven.  Reckless driving is more likely to be charged
    today than years past due to the proliferation of cell phones
    and road rage - a driver got somebody royally pissed off and the
    other driver called you in.  As with careless driving, this is
    a factual circumstance argument the prosecutor won't deal the
    case and the defendant can not challenge reasonable suspicion
    for the initial contact.

    [...]

    Do I need an attorney?  Probably time to loosen the pocket book
    and hire a defense attorney.

    RECKLESS DRIVING

    Reckless driving is another story - it is 8 points and a major
    offense for habitual offender purposes + likely large insurance
    premium increase or potential cancellation.  You need not retain
    my services, but hire counsel.

    If convicted of either offense, you could anticipate significant
    increase in your insurance premiums - probably over a period
    of 3 - 5 years.  Contact your insurance company underwriters
    to learn more of the potential consequence before you speak to
    prosecutors or decide whether or not to hire an attorney.

Gustafson Law Office: Colorado Careless Driving & Reckless Driving
http://www.gustafsonlaw.com/Traf-Careless-Reckless.htm



Gustafson says elsewhere that "Most reckless driving cases plea
bargain and do not proceed to trial." Even though you have gotten legal
assistance already, you may want to call Gustafson and speak to him
about your case. He will grant you a first consultation, in which you
discuss the facts of your case and its suitability for trial, at no
charge. Elsewhere on his website, I see that he mentions a "Potential
Fee Quote" for reckless driving: the settlement flat fee, meaning that he
arranges a plea bargain, is typically $950, while the trial flat fee is
typically $2500. If he fails to reach a settlement and you go to trial,
the settlement fee is deducted from the trial flat fee.

Gustafson Law Office: First Consultation
http://www.gustafsonlaw.com/Atty-Fees-Costs.htm#Fees&Costs-3
    
    

I truly wish you all the best in this case. Fight the man with with all
your might! Never despair!
    

Regards,

leapinglizard

Good Research.

90 in a 45 MPH zone.  Plead quilty.

It never ceases to amazes me that people who speed think nothing of it.

Stupidity....
Not only do you have to pay an expensive ticket which you are
"obviously" guilty of...

but you also have to pay this researcher $200.00 to tell you to pay the ticket.

From doing this....its no wonder you were stupid enough to do 90.

Oh, and I forgot...the police are harassing you? right? they always are....

I did not endanger anyone...maybe in the middle of the day with a
bunch of traffic around...but only myself. On a perfectly straight
road where you can see the whole thing, 90 is not dangerous, as you
can see anything coming up...there are not twists and turns...i wasn't
dodging traffic. so chill

usually the reason a speedlimit is posted is because there is a good
reason to go 45 there and not 90 , especially at night when all you
can see clearly is what your beams show you, you also state you were
next to an inhabited area, what would you have done in your car going
90 when all of a sudden a dog would have crossed the street , or a
couple of partying kids ,indeed you would have slammed right into it.

I speed too at times but never and excessive 100% over the speedlimit,
if you do this in the country I live in the police will invalidate
your driverslicense and take away your car , which in my opinion is
exactly what should happen to you

You just admitted to speeding, breaking the law.  I wish Google would
turn you in.  Damn these privacy policies!

I don't think the guy is an idiot for driving 90mph in the conditions
he is describing. There are plenty of highways in the US where the
speed limit is around 80mph. Those highways are just long straight
highways and the only reason the speed limits are higher is because
the distance traveled between two places is so much larger. As an
example in Florida some of the highways have very high speed limits
because the commute is so much longer. My own opinion is that you are
going to be found guilty of wreckless driving. A judge, whether a nice
one or not, is not going to have a soft spot for doubling the speed
limit at any time of the day. You got unlucky...if you are prone to
speeding its something that you'll have to face at some point. Instead
of spending $200 on google answers to find out how to get out of
it...save the money for the court fees.

First of all...the street is well let...I could see anything and
anyone walking near it...secondly, the highways have speed limits of
55...but cruising traffic usually travels around 75 or 80...thirdly,
most speed limits are illegal because the city does not go through the
proper steps to set them...i'll bet none of you know what a speed
survey is... last but not least, have none of you heard of the
autobahn, where there is absolutely no speed limit., yet if you were
to see people here driving 130+ on the highway...you'd slap a ticket
on them as fast as you could. There is a highway in colorado that has
virtually the exact same conditions as this road I am talking about,
and the speed limit is 75...the maximum speed limit in colorado. I was
not endagering anyone or anything...except possibly myself and my
car...by going that speed. For the record... A guy who is my age was
going 145 in a 45...and what did he get...a 6 point speeding
ticket...not reckless driving. Last week my mom got pulled over going
50 in a 25 IN A SCHOOL ZONE. She got a 4 point speeding ticket. Surely
going twice the speed limit in a school zone is worse than going twice
the speed limit on a highway...correct? No reckless driving ticket
there. Another thing, is the law always right? Certainly you don't
agree with every single law. The fact of the matter is I was not
endangering anybody but myself, and thus I should not be charged with
endangering other people...because clearly I was not.

It doe not matter how straight/well-lit/uncrowded/beautiful the street
was.  YOU BROKE THE LAW.  There is no excuse.  You have to face the
consequences.

I never said I didn't break the law...but you should be charged with
the right crime. I'm sure you'd be a little more than pissed of you
robbed a store and instead of being charged with burglary you were
charged with murder...see my point?

Your lucky I didn't catch you in my jurisdiction.  I would have pulled
your license and stuck you in jail.

That officer was being real nice to you.

I'm afraid a cop cannot revoke a drivers license just because he wants
to... and without proof of how fast I had been going, I think that
would have been a major mistake on his part. He'll mine as well have
arrested me for not using my turn signal...you can give a reckless
driving ticket for that too.

Dear spacehog371

You may well win this case but in the Court of Public Opinion (and in
the court of Google Answers :-)) it looks like the verdict is "Guilty"

Yours Truly
Mongolia

Just to correct a few misunderstandings 

The german autobahn has an adviced speed of 130 KM/ph or 80 miles and
some change you are allowed when conditions allow it to drive faster
on indicated pieces of highway however you are not insured since all
insurance companies in germany will not pay if an accident occurs
while you were driving over 130 km/h
Arround all cities in germany the speed limit is 120 km/h or lower
(roughly 75 m/ph) and if you are caught speeding the fines are very
steep

Now back to your 'little' speeding violation, i don't care if the road
you were on matches the exact layout of the daytona speedring , the
posted speed was 45 , you did 90 hence you are wrong and in my humble
opinion you should at a minimum loose your drivers license and car and
preferably spend some time in jail on top of that for reckless
endangerment, nobody would have cared if you would have driven 55 or
60 there , but 90 miles per hour on what is basically an urban road is
plain assenine.

if you would really like to find out how dangerous your driving was i
would find an abandonned airfield and pull up to 90 miles an hour and
hit your brakes full untill you stand still , then do the same at 45
miles an hour and see what difference it makes in stopping , don't go
arround telling people your reaction speed is the same as a kolibri on
speed because it is pretty obvious you have no idea what kind of
forces you are toying with.

Anyway I am letting myself being carried away  , just wanted to get
this of my chest.

Well... that is not completely true. Although there are portions of
the autobahn that have a speed limit... a large part of it does not.
The advised speed is nothing...you can go however fast you want and
you are not violating any laws, but I like how you manipulated that to
sound like a speed limit...clever. I think you somehow fail to
understand that I was not endangering anyone but myself. You obviously
have no grasp of the law if you really believe I should be doing jail
time for endangering myself. Secondly, you have no idea what my level
of driving skill is. I've taken various driving courses at alot of
different places, and that alone puts me ahead of 99.99 percent of
other drivers out there. Have you taken driving courses...and I'm not
talking about drivers ed... So don't tell me that I don't know the
forces that I'm "toying" with because I know them a hell of alot
better than you or probably anybody who has commented yet. I've
already gone over the conditions a few times, but one more time, I
could see for one mile in front of me everything ahead...it was a well
lit road, and there was noone out. I'll take responsibilty for killing
myself, but I'll be damned if your going to tell me I should go to
jail for endangering myself. Your assuming I drive like that all the
time, but I don't...I drive normally when there are other people on
the road...i don't weave in and out of traffic...but when there is
noone in sight for a mile, I will drive spirited. I'm glad you are not
a cop, because you'd constantly be on your own personal vendetta
against the world, regardless about what the law had to say about it.
Screw off.

People seriously need to calm down.
Everyone here seems to be so bent on giving this guy a ticket and
enforcing the law when most of you have probably broken the same law
many times (the only difference being that you weren't caught)
People seem to be defending cops so much here and I personally feel
they are biased. I have been stopped twice in my life. The first time
I got stopped for going 50 in a 35 zone. The officer came up and gave
me this long lecture and I told him that can you please just let this
slide because I have no prior record of anything. He goes over to his
car and sits there for about 20 minutes and comes back to hand me a
seat belt ticket by saying that, "Well, seeing as how this is your
first time, I am going to let you off with only a seat belt ticket". I
was desperate at that point so I didn't care much and took the ticket.
The second time I got stopped for doing 85 in a 55 zone. I should have
gotten a ticket this time but did I get one? NO. Why? I have a PBA
card this time around. Cops help people who know cops and that's a
fact. He took the PBA card from me but the point is that I did not get
a ticket. Does that mean that I didn't break the law this time around?
Was my action any less punishable than my previous one? Why the sudden
change?
Stop trying to defend cops because they are there to give out tickets
upon the time of their choosing. Cops seem to be bent upon breaking
the law themselves at anytime they want but when someone else does the
same thing, its a major violation. I was at Dunkin Donuts a few months
back and I walked out of the place at about the same time as two cops
did. We were both parked next to each other and after I sat in my car,
I saw these two sit in theirs. Now, to get out of the parking lot, of
course you have to yield and enter on to the road. The traffic was
kinda jammed up and so what do the cops do? Ring the siren and fake an
emergency and get in the road. To you it might be minor but if its
that minor, then why don't all of us have this feature on our cars? It
would help quite a bit in times of heavy traffic and we could all just
weave on to the sidewalk or grass and get to our destination.
Most of the people that posted a comment on this post are only jumping
a bandwagon and reinforcing what the person before you has said. Some
of you are getting to excited abotu this that you began calling the
person stupid. Is he really that stupid? Even if he paid $200 to some
researcher to get an answer, then don't you think the answer is worth
it if it can potentially save you way more? Who is the stupid one
here?
None of you were in his position either when he was driving at 90 so
how do you guys know what he was and wasn't endangering? All you have
to judge by is his words and the cop's ticket. So please, calm
yourselves and most of you need to get an opinion of your own.
Peace