Careless and Prohibited Driving in Arkansas

My husband was issued a citation for Careless and Prohibited Driving yesterday afternoon following his accident. He hydroplaned while on a curve coming down a mountain, lost control and flipped his truck, totaling it. My children and I were a few miles behind him and found him walking along the road. We picked him up and drove on home to get one of our friends to help us pull his truck out of the ditch. There was no property damage, other than to his truck, and he was the only one involved.
We were later told that my husband was wanted at the sheriffs office. We went there and he was cited for careless and prohibited driving. He has a court date and he was just going to pay the fine and be done with it but he needs to have a clean driving record, as he is a commercial truck driver. I told him to fight the charge since there were no witnesses and no officers showed up until after he left the accident. For all anyone knows, I could have been driving the truck instead of him.
A trucking company called him today wanting him to drive for them but my husband told him about yesterday and what he was charged with and this company told him to get an attorney and fight the charge. If this goes on his record it may prevent him from driving a commercial vehicle, which will mean a loss of income for us. This is all good if we could actually find an attorney willing to take this on. The attorney's in this area are afraid to go up against the cops in our county for some odd reason.
So, what do you think...should he just pay it and hope to find a trucking company willing to hire him or should he continue to search for an attorney and fight this charge? Thanks for any and all replies!

Quote:

---

Quoting sixsenuf2002

---

My husband was issued a citation for Careless and Prohibited Driving yesterday afternoon following his accident. He hydroplaned while on a curve coming down a mountain, lost control and flipped his truck, totaling it. My children and I were a few miles behind him and found him walking along the road. We picked him up and drove on home to get one of our friends to help us pull his truck out of the ditch. There was no property damage, other than to his truck, and he was the only one involved.
We were later told that my husband was wanted at the sheriffs office. We went there and he was cited for careless and prohibited driving. He has a court date and he was just going to pay the fine and be done with it but he needs to have a clean driving record, as he is a commercial truck driver. I told him to fight the charge since there were no witnesses and no officers showed up until after he left the accident. For all anyone knows, I could have been driving the truck instead of him.
A trucking company called him today wanting him to drive for them but my husband told him about yesterday and what he was charged with and this company told him to get an attorney and fight the charge. If this goes on his record it may prevent him from driving a commercial vehicle, which will mean a loss of income for us. This is all good if we could actually find an attorney willing to take this on. The attorney's in this area are afraid to go up against the cops in our county for some odd reason.
So, what do you think...should he just pay it and hope to find a trucking company willing to hire him or should he continue to search for an attorney and fight this charge? Thanks for any and all replies!

---

My response:

Fight it on what grounds?

Your husband was, apparently, violating the "Basic Speed Law." But for that violation, he wouldn't have gone out of control and flipped his truck.

I don't see any grounds.

IAAL

Given that his CDL is on the line, he should heed that advice, get an attorney, and try to get a resolution that won't cost him his employability. I'm not disagreeing with IAAL that the factual grounds, if established, could support the charges (and if he admitted the facts to the police, his statements can be used against him) - but for practical reasons, or out of recognition of the harsh result, it may be possible to get a better outcome. A local lawyer should be able to estimate what sort of deal he may be able to obtain.

You should also be aware that if you have a CDL and are convicted of a traffic offense in Arkansas, it must go on your driving record even if you were not operating a commercial motor vehicle at the time--this is a result of a fairly new law which became effective at the beginning of 2005. Many jurisdictions in this state have an ordinance--it is termed hazardous or unsafe driving or the like--if he could plead to that as a lesser charge of careless and prohibited driving then the offense would not go on his driving record and he would probably end up saving some money too.

Well, while at the sheriff's office he was asked by the officer "What happend?" My husbands reply was "I really don't know." Then the officer asked him if he had been drinking. My husband replied no. The officer then left the building, came back with a breath test machine and had him blow in it. He did this and then the officer told him he wouldn't charge him with leaving the scene but he was charging him with careless and prohibited driving. My husband signed the ticket and we left. So the only evidence that the state actually has is that they found my husbands truck in the ditch. My husband didn't admit he was or wasn't driving.

As far as the "basic speed law"...he was driving the speed limit of 55mph and his truck was totalled because when he slid off the road, he hit a colvert and it flipped. This could have happened to anyone driving say 25 mph on a down hill curve. Thanks for your replies!

This is not an uncommon careless and prohibited driving type case where an officer comes up on the scene after the accident happened. Even though the officer did not see it happen the cases are often proved by use of circumstantial evidence.

Quote:

---

Quoting Litigator

---

You should also be aware that if you have a CDL and are convicted of a traffic offense in Arkansas, it must go on your driving record even if you were not operating a commercial motor vehicle at the time--this is a result of a fairly new law which became effective at the beginning of 2005. Many jurisdictions in this state have an ordinance--it is termed hazardous or unsafe driving or the like--if he could plead to that as a lesser charge of careless and prohibited driving then the offense would not go on his driving record and he would probably end up saving some money too.

---

Thank you for sharing this info with me. My husband and I will look into seeing if he can get it dropped to a lesser charge. He really needs to keep his driving record clean. Thanks again!:)

Quote:

---

Quoting sixsenuf2002

---

Well, while at the sheriff's office he was asked by the officer "What happend?" My husbands reply was "I really don't know." Then the officer asked him if he had been drinking. My husband replied no. The officer then left the building, came back with a breath test machine and had him blow in it. He did this and then the officer told him he wouldn't charge him with leaving the scene but he was charging him with careless and prohibited driving. My husband signed the ticket and we left. So the only evidence that the state actually has is that they found my husbands truck in the ditch. My husband didn't admit he was or wasn't driving.

As far as the "basic speed law"...he was driving the speed limit of 55mph and his truck was totalled because when he slid off the road, he hit a colvert and it flipped. This could have happened to anyone driving say 25 mph on a down hill curve. Thanks for your replies!

---

My response:

Actually, your husband did admit to driving because of what he said, instead of saying, "I wasn't driving, my wife was driving." Also, he didn't say "the truck was stolen." So, his statement of "I really don't know" will be used against him. This is called circumstantial evidence.

Additionally, you didn't go out of control, despite the fact that you were on the same downhill of the mountain. So, it doesn't happen to anyone in the absence of negligence and a violation the Basic Speed Law. Since you didn't get into an accident yourself, you must have been traveling slower than your husband - - due to the wet conditions.

Additionally, while the sign may have said 55 mph, that doesn't mean he should have been moving at 55 mph under wet, rainy, conditions. That's why he went out of control - - the surface was wet, and as a result of his failure to slow down due to that condition, he was traveling "faster than was safe" - - a violation of the Basic Speed Law.

IAAL

Quote:

---

Quoting IAAL

---

My response:

Actually, your husband did admit to driving because of what he said, instead of saying, "I wasn't driving, my wife was driving." Also, he didn't say "the truck was stolen." So, his statement of "I really don't know" will be used against him. This is called circumstantial evidence.

Additionally, you didn't go out of control, despite the fact that you were on the same downhill of the mountain. So, it doesn't happen to anyone in the absence of negligence and a violation the Basic Speed Law. Since you didn't get into an accident yourself, you must have been traveling slower than your husband - - due to the wet conditions.

Additionally, while the sign may have said 55 mph, that doesn't mean he should have been moving at 55 mph under wet, rainy, conditions. That's why he went out of control - - the surface was wet, and as a result of his failure to slow down due to that condition, he was traveling "faster than was safe" - - a violation of the Basic Speed Law.

IAAL

---

Ok, I understand what you're saying. Thank you for your replies!:)

Quote:

---

Quoting sixsenuf2002

---

Ok, I understand what you're saying. Thank you for your replies!:)

---

My response:

You're welcome. For your reference, and for the edification of others reading this thread, the Arkansas "Basic Speed Law" is as follows:

JURISDICTION: ARKANSAS

This chapter summarizes Arkansas State statutes related to speed.

Basis for a Speed Law Violation:

Basic Speed Rule: No person shall drive a vehicle at speed that is greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards than existing. §27-51-201(a)(1)

IAAL

They are cracking down on hydroplaning in all jurisdictions since "drifting" has become the latest rage with the release of
THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS : TOKYO DRIFT
http://www.thefastandthefurious.com/

Your husband needs to show up on his court date. If the officer is not there, he can request that the charges be dismissed. If the officer is there, try to negotiate for a non-moving "faulty equipment" ticket. If that does not work, hire an attorney.

I know this thread is a few months old. I just wanted to post something that seems to be rather humorous in relation.

Charges will not be filed in Lewellen case

By TAMARA JOHNSON

Managing Editor

Charges will not be filed against a former state senator whose wrecked vehicle was found abandoned along Interstate 40 near Forrest City almost a year ago.

In a letter to Arkansas State Police, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Chris Morledge said the state is unable to meet the elements required to sustain any charges in the case involving Roy C. "Bill" Lewellen of Marianna.

In the four-page letter to investigating officer Franklin McMillion, Morledge said he and Prosecutor Fletcher Long decided, after analyzing three possible charges in the case, that the state "cannot sustain the elements of any of the charges."

On Feb. 27 last year, state police were called to the one-vehicle accident where the trooper found the 2003 Hyundai Elantra overturned just before 9 p.m., but no driver or witnesses. Inside the car, the trooper found blood on the driver and passenger side doors, two unopened bottles of wine, legal documents in the Lake View case and paperwork indicating Lewellen had rented the vehicle from U-Save Auto Rental. He later purchased the vehicle, which had been totaled, from the rental company.

According to Morledge's letter, Lewellen's former driver went to ASP headquarters shortly after the accident, claiming to have been driving the vehicle. However, when he was questioned by McMillion about the wreck and after having been advised of the consequences of filing a false police report, the man changed his story and admitted he was not driving the vehicle.

Lewellen visited ASP headquarters the day after the accident, but left before being interviewed.

Morledge said he and Long met about the case last week after the Crime Lab returned its report on the blood samples taken from inside the car and each of the five the judges in the First Judicial District recused themselves from the case. Prosecutors would have needed a circuit judge to sign an order requiring Lewellen to submit his DNA for comparison with the state crime lab report.

According to the letter, before seeking a special judge in the case, the prosecutors considered charges of driving while intoxicated, careless and prohibited driving and leaving the scene of an accident.

State law requires a defendant in a DWI case to be tested for alcohol concentration within four hours of the alleged offense. Because Lewellen was not at the accident scene, the test could not be performed. Therefore, the DWI charge could not withstand a court challenge because it was over 24 hours after the accident when he went to ASP headquarters.

As for leaving the scene of an accident, state law requires the driver to give his name and other information to the other driver in an accident. Because this was a one-vehicle accident, Morledge said, "Mr. Lewellen was not required to give notice to himself pursuant to the requirements."

On the careless and prohibited driving charge, "The state would be required to prove that Mr. Lewellen was in fact driving the vehicle. Absent a direct admission, which has not been yielded by the investigation...the state has no way to prove that Mr. Lewellen was driving the vehicle.

"The state can't prove any of the necessary elements in any of the charges," Morledge said, adding that the case is closed.