Speeding in the workzone Indiana

C

Ca13

New Member
Jurisdiction
Indiana
I'm 20 years old and from Chicago (ticket is from Indiana so out of state). I don't have any previous violations or speeding tickets. I got a ticket for driving 80 mph in a 45 mph workzone. There were no workers present and no crash involved. On the ticket it says contrary to the code 9-21-5-11(c)(2) - Workzone Speeding - Workers not present. I need to appear in court since I was told it's not payable. How serious is it what should I expect and should I get a lawyer?
 
Ca13 said:
How serious is it what should I expect and should I get a lawyer?
Click to expand...

Here's a link where you can read section 9-21-5-11 of the Indiana Statutes. Sub-section (c) simply defines the conditions under which a temporary worksite speed limit may be enforced. As you'll see, sub-section (d)(1) indicates that a violation is a Class B infraction and will carry a fine of at least $300. According to section 34-28-5-4(b), a Class B infraction may result in a fine up to $1,000. Given that driving 80mph in a work zone is an excellent way to kill people, I wouldn't be at all surprised if your fine is closer to $1k than $300, but I'm not familiar with the propensities of Judge Who in Unknown County, Indiana. On top of that, don't be surprised if your auto insurance rates double.

Decide for yourself whether hiring an attorney (who may or may not be able to do a darn thing for you) is worthwhile. Consultations ought to be free, and phone calls will cost you nothing.
 
That's a doozy of a ticket.
In addition to the fines for the work zone mentioned above, you would also have the fine for speeding 35 over the limit.

This is going to end up costing you a lot of money. In the end. I think a win is anything that keeps it from significantly harming your insurance rates. If not, you might suddenly find insurance too expensive for a few years and not be able to maintain the vehicle.
 
Ca13 said:
I'm 20 years old and from Chicago (ticket is from Indiana so out of state). I don't have any previous violations or speeding tickets. I got a ticket for driving 80 mph in a 45 mph workzone. There were no workers present and no crash involved. On the ticket it says contrary to the code 9-21-5-11(c)(2) - Workzone Speeding - Workers not present. I need to appear in court since I was told it's not payable. How serious is it what should I expect and should I get a lawyer?
Click to expand...

Note: the thing to focus on, per code 9-21-5-11(c)(2), is whether " the establishing authority determines that the safety of the traveling public requires enforcement of the worksite speed limit" even when no workers are there.
 
Red Kayak said:
Note: the thing to focus on, per code 9-21-5-11(c)(2), is whether " the establishing authority determines that the safety of the traveling public requires enforcement of the worksite speed limit" even when no workers are there.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The focus is on safety, and not just for the workers at the site. If you don't see workers, don't assume none are there. If the zone is marked for a lower speed through the construction zone it may be due to factors like higher hazards in the zone like temporary lane and road changes, obstacles in the area like construction equipment, and so forth. Construction zones can be dangerous because of those temporary conditions during construction that increase risk of accident even when no workers are present.
 
welkin said:
The way I read the quote is that the ticket says Workers not present.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's really no question about that. When workers aren't present, the state has to prove "the establishing authority determines that the safety of the traveling public requires enforcement of the worksite speed limit," as indicated above.
 
flyingron said:
They don't have to "prove" anything. They just have to make a determination. The standard is pretty low.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood what I said. The prosecutor would (should) have to prove that the establishing authority made such a determination in order to succeed.
 
Zigner said:
The prosecutor would (should) have to prove that the establishing authority made such a determination in order to succeed.
Click to expand...

Only if the defendant raised that as a defense.

And if the defendant did raise it as a defense it wouldn't be the prosecutor's first rodeo and shouldn't take more than a few minutes to present the case law upholding that determination.

In other words, that kind of defense is often touted by the "beat the ticket" services advertised on the internet and it isn't going to work.
 
adjusterjack said:
Only if the defendant raised that as a defense.
Click to expand...
Of course.

And if the defendant did raise it as a defense it wouldn't be the prosecutor's first rodeo and shouldn't take more than a few minutes to present the case law upholding that determination.
Click to expand...
Case law? The prosecution would need to prove that such a determination had been made. I was just pointing out what the state would have to prove.

In other words, that kind of defense is often touted by the "beat the ticket" services advertised on the internet and it isn't going to work.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I've never needed those services, so my knowledge of their tactics is somewhat limited. ;)
 
Zigner said:
Honestly, I've never needed those services, so my knowledge of their tactics is somewhat limited. ;)
Click to expand...

Decades ago I got a photocop speeding ticket in an uppity speed trap town and explored the possibility of using one of those services. In the end it was more prudent to just pay it, though I had the urge to smack the snotty judge (but refrained).

People in Phoenix know the town of which I speak. AKA Snobsville, AZ.

:D
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top