Wrong Speed Limit Cited in My Ticket

[gtfomynarnia]

My question involves a traffic citation from the state of: New Hampshire


I was cited for doing 84 in a 50 MPH zone contrary to RSA 265:60. I was gunned down by a Radar, and since I was 26+ over the limit, I must appear in court.

I noticed that the speed limit was not 50 on the road I was pulled over on, but rather 55 MPH.

So in short, on my ticket says I did 84 in a 50, when in reality I did 84 in a 55.

Is this anything I can use to my own advantage, or does this error not really matter or help me in anyway.


Thanks.

[That Guy]

I noticed that the speed limit was not 50 on the road I was pulled over on, but rather 55 MPH.

I'm not trying to be a smart azz but did you commit the alleged violation on the same road where you were pulled over?

Also, does your citation say:
265:60 or
265:60.I or
265:60.II ?

[gtfomynarnia]

I'm not trying to be a smart azz but did you commit the alleged violation on the same road where you were pulled over?

Also, does your citation say:
265:60 or
265:60.I or
265:60.II ?

Let me be more clear.

I was on route 9 heading east, and in one zone it is a 50, then it goes to a 55, and then back to a 50. I was pulled over in the 55 zone, and I was well passed the 55 sign too so there shouldn't have been any confusion.


And my citation says 265:60

[That Guy]

Let me be more clear.

I was on route 9 heading east, and in one zone it is a 50, then it goes to a 55, and then back to a 50. I was pulled over in the 55 zone, and I was well passed the 55 sign too so there shouldn't have been any confusion.

Well, let me be more clear.

The speed limit at the point where you are pulled over does NOT make a difference. The question is, did you commit the violation in 50mph zone or in a 55 mph zone?

Example: let us say that I committed a violation for driving at 75mph on the freeway where the speed limit is 65mph. Yet, by the time the officer caught up to me, lit me up and I stopped, I was off the freeway and in a 40mph zone. According to you, he has to cite me for driving 75mph in a 40mph zone because that's where I was pulled me over. That's not the way it works.

[gtfomynarnia]

Ah I see.

Well I committed the violation in the 55, because the cop was sitting in the 55, and when he flashed his lights I immediately pulled over. So, the cop caught me committing the violation in the 55, and I was pulled over in the 55.

Sorry for the confusion.

[That Guy]

Ah I see.

Well I committed the violation in the 55, because the cop was sitting in the 55, and when he flashed his lights I immediately pulled over. So, the cop caught me committing the violation in the 55, and I was pulled over in the 55.

Sorry for the confusion.

No problem...

Now that we've established that, and the reason why I asked you about the "I" & the "II" is because NH code 265:60 shows 2 separate and distinct violations:

I. No person shall drive a vehicle on a way at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle, or other conveyance on or entering the way in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.

And...

II. Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with RSA 265:60, I, the speed of any vehicle not in excess of the limit specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be prima facie lawful, but any speed in excess of the limit specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:

(a) In a posted school zone, at a speed of 10 miles per hour below the usual posted limit from 45 minutes prior to each school opening until each school opening and from each school closing until 45 minutes after each school closing.
(b) 30 miles per hour in any business or urban residence district as defined in RSA 259:118;
(c) 35 miles per hour in any rural residence district as defined in RSA 259:93, and on any class V highway outside the compact part of any city or town as defined in RSA 229:5, IV;
(d) 55 miles per hour in other locations, except as provided in (e);
(e) 65 miles an hour on the interstate system, the central New Hampshire turnpike and the eastern New Hampshire turnpike in locations where said highways are 4-lane divided highways or other divided highways of 4 or more lanes.
(f) On a portion of a highway where officers or employees of the agency having jurisdiction of the same, or any contractor of the agency or their employees, are at work on the roadway or so close thereto as to be endangered by passing traffic, at a speed of 10 miles per hour below the usual posted limit, but in no case greater than 45 miles per hour. The speed shall be displayed on signs as required by RSA 265:6-a.

As you can see, sub-section "I" means that you can be cited (depending on the conditions/hazards) for driving at any speed regardless of the speed limit. If an officer can articulate in his/her testimony that you were driving at a speed that is not reasonable nor prudent, then the posted speed limit does not matter. These are usually easier to beat and yet, depending on the officer's version, they can also be most difficult.

In that case, you driving at 84 in 50 or 84 in 55 makes no difference. Point is, your speed was neither reasonable nor prudent.

As for subsection "II", and while the speed limit being 50 versus 55 might make a big difference {and you can try to argue that the citation is invalid based on the erroneous speed limit}, your speed of 84 in either zone is well in excess of either limit.

Put that all together and you might also be able to argue the fact that the officer did not specify neither a "I" not a "II", may have adversly affect your ability to put forth a defense (not knowing which sub-section you are being charged with violating).

Just my opinion....

Good luck!

[blewis]

There should be a "location" listed on your citation. Where you were pulled over or where the officer was "sitting", is NOT important. What is important is the speed limit at the location that the officer states the infraction was committed. If the speed limit at that EXACT location is 55, then your fine should be based on 29 over rather than 34. However, since anything 26 or more over seems to be treated the same, I doubt you'll get much of a break.

Now, all that said, let me give you my opinion as to why the 50 MPH limit actually affords you a better defense than 55.

The question That Guy posed about which subsection was cited was NOT idle curiousity. We actually have case law on the books here in WA that when a section, paragraph or subparagraph is not specified in a criminal complaint, the case is automatically dismissed. I don't know whether that holds for civil cases, as well, but it might be worth the argument. Basically, you'd be saying that without a more detailed specification of the charge, it is not possible to prepare a viable defense. Instead, you must literally try to prepare a defense against ALL possible charges stemming from RSA 265:60. This violates due process.

But let's take a close look at the law. Paragraph I is the "basic speed law" addressing speeds that are not "reasonable and prudent" under the conditions which existed at the time. To prove this charge, the prosecution MUST, at least, show those conditions. If the officer's notes (which you should be able to get through discovery) do not mention the traffic, weather, road conditions, etc., there is NO evidence which might show your speed was NOT reasonable and prudent.

Next, come paragraph II. This paragraph states:

II. Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with RSA 265:60, I, the speed of any vehicle not in excess of the limit specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be prima facie lawful, but any speed in excess of the limit specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:
(a) In a posted school zone, at a speed of 10 miles per hour below the usual posted limit from 45 minutes prior to each school opening until each school opening and from each school closing until 45 minutes after each school closing.
(b) 30 miles per hour in any business or urban residence district as defined in RSA 259:118;
(c) 35 miles per hour in any rural residence district as defined in RSA 259:93, and on any class V highway outside the compact part of any city or town as defined in RSA 229:5, IV;
(d) 55 miles per hour in other locations, except as provided in (e);
(e) 65 miles an hour on the interstate system, the central New Hampshire turnpike and the eastern New Hampshire turnpike in locations where said highways are 4-lane divided highways or other divided highways of 4 or more lanes.
(f) On a portion of a highway where officers or employees of the agency having jurisdiction of the same, or any contractor of the agency or their employees, are at work on the roadway or so close thereto as to be endangered by passing traffic, at a speed of 10 miles per hour below the usual posted limit, but in no case greater than 45 miles per hour. The speed shall be displayed on signs as required by RSA 265:6-a.

The first thing to note is that while paragraph (d) addresses a 55 MPH speed, none of these subparagraphs concern a 50 MPH speed zone. But, notice paragraph III, which states:

III. The limit specified in II(e) shall be the maximum lawful speed and no person shall drive a vehicle on said ways at a speed in excess of such maximum limit. The prima facie speed limits set forth in this section may be altered as authorized in RSA 265:62.

So, in order for speed in excess of an alternative speed limit to be treated as prima facie unlawful, it must comply with RSA 265:62, which states (in part):

I. Whenever the commissioner of transportation shall determine, upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, or in the event of vehicle or weather emergencies, that any prima facie speed limit hereinbefore set forth is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at any intersection or other place or upon any part of the state highway system, outside the compact part of cities or towns, said commissioner may determine and declare a reasonable and safe prima facie speed limit thereat which shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected....

So, if the prosecutor does not produce the engineering and traffic investigation which justifies the reduced limit, it cannot be considered prima facie unlawful. And if there is no indication of the existing conditions (meaning that the officer was relying entirely on the prima facie speed limit to define "reasonable and prudent", you could possibly get off.

Keep in mind that I have no real knowledge of NH law. If you think any of these arguments have merit, I'd run them by an attorney, if I were you. In fact, you may want to have an attorney present these arguments for you in court.

Good luck,
Barry

Oops, sorry Guy. I've almost duplicated your argument. I guess great minds do think alike....

[That Guy]

Oops, sorry Guy. I've almost duplicated your argument.

No apology needed... I actually missed the whole argument that the 50mph limit is not listed in the statute, so you made a GREAT point.

I guess great minds do think alike....

You can "guess" if you want... I am "sure" they do. Haha...