Pulled over and cited for having some snow on my car, in winter time.

J

John90210

New Member
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Completely ridiculous, if you ask me -- I'm livid. I believe I was only pulled over to be harrassed, honestly. But that's neither here, nor there. I was just cited today (2/28) for having some snow on my rear windshield and some ice on my rearview mirrors. I believe his ultimate goal was to hit me with more but he was unable to, so he cited me for that. My ticket has a summons date for 2/9. 2/9 has already passed. Can I show up to court on 3/9, the obvious date he meant, and motion to dismiss for insufficiency of process based on the incorrect date on my ticket?

Moreover, the ticket said that I violated 4511.70 in the Ohio traffic code(Lawriter - ORC - 4511.70 Obstructing view and control of driver - opening door into moving traffic.). The ticket doesn't stipulate whether I violated A, B, C or D, but none of them apply, surely. Being that he pulled me over for having some snow on my REAR windshield and some ice on my REARview mirror, with comments "obstructed view". With remarks: "side mirror, back window". Any help or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
 
John90210 said:
Completely ridiculous, if you ask me -- I'm livid. I believe I was only pulled over to be harrassed, honestly. But that's neither here, nor there. I was just cited today (2/28) for having some snow on my rear windshield and some ice on my rearview mirrors. I believe his ultimate goal was to hit me with more but he was unable to, so he cited me for that. My ticket has a summons date for 2/9. 2/9 has already passed. Can I show up to court on 3/9, the obvious date he meant, and motion to dismiss for insufficiency of process based on the incorrect date on my ticket?

Moreover, the ticket said that I violated 4511.70 in the Ohio traffic code(Lawriter - ORC - 4511.70 Obstructing view and control of driver - opening door into moving traffic.). The ticket doesn't stipulate whether I violated A, B, C or D, but none of them apply, surely. Being that he pulled me over for having some snow on my REAR windshield and some ice on my REARview mirror, with comments "obstructed view". With remarks: "side mirror, back window". Any help or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
A typo on the ticket isn't going to cause it to be dismissed.
 
You obviously violated paragraph A because your view of the sides of the car (adjacent lanes) was obstructed by the ice on the mirrors potentially resulting in you changing lanes and hitting a vehicle that you couldn't see coming up along side of you.

Go to court and speak your piece and see how it goes.
 
You may have a point to argue. The language of the statute does not directly address your situation. It mentions the load and passengers in the vehicle obstructing view but does not address weather outside obstructing view. There could be a more appropriate statute.

As for the date discrepancy you will likely receive a letter in the mail correcting it. I would be surprised if it was intended to be 3/9... That seems way too soon, but maybe your area moves fast.
 
adjusterjack said:
You obviously violated paragraph A because your view of the sides of the car (adjacent lanes) was obstructed by the ice on the mirrors potentially resulting in you changing lanes and hitting a vehicle that you couldn't see coming up along side of you.

Go to court and speak your piece and see how it goes.
Click to expand...

But I can see the sides of the car out of the side windows? That wasn't obstructed at all. 4511.70 says nothing about the rear of the vehicle.
 
mightymoose said:
You may have a point to argue. The language of the statute does not directly address your situation. It mentions the load and passengers in the vehicle obstructing view but does not address weather outside obstructing view. There could be a more appropriate statute.

As for the date discrepancy you will likely receive a letter in the mail correcting it. I would be surprised if it was intended to be 3/9... That seems way too soon, but maybe your area moves fast.
Click to expand...


Are you of the opinion that I should mainly argue the point about the statute not mentioning weather, rather than arguing my view of the side of my vehicle was unobstructed? Or should I argue both?
 
John90210 said:
At the very least, it should reflect poorly on the officer, hopefully. But I have no real faith in the system, so I fully expect to lose.
Click to expand...


You get it, mate.

I OBEY all of their laws, especially their traffic laws.

If their speed limit is 70 MPH, I set my cruise control to 60 MPH.

I avoid using their Interstate highways (as much as I can), because that is one of THEIR most lucrative speed traps.

In their cities, I travel no faster than 30 MPH, even if the speed limit allows it.

You are wise to THINK that the deck is stacked against you.

Their traffic courts are but another revenue collection scheme.

To paraphrase Smoky the Bear, "Only YOU can prevent YOUR fleecing!"

OBEY all of their laws ALL of the time is but one way to keep their paws out of your wallet.
 
John90210 said:
rather than arguing my view of the side of my vehicle was unobstructed?
Click to expand...


You are free to argue anything, IF the judge allows it.

That said, PROVING your premise is the only way to convince the judge that your postulation is TRUE.

If your state allows traffic school, that works 100% of the time to your benefit.

If your state allows "deferred adjudication" (or deferred disposition), that is another cure for your dilemma.

It is a rare day that the court will take your word over the word of one of their law enforcement officials.

Your PROOF can alter that outcome, however.
 
John90210 said:
Are you of the opinion that I should mainly argue the point about the statute not mentioning weather...
Click to expand...

Sort of. If you choose to go to court I suggest you focus on the language of the statute which is specifically in regard to the load of the vehicle and passengers. Question the officer about the load of your vehicle (cargo) and extra passengers. Make him explain how your situation satisfies the requirements of the statute. Use his explanation to show the judge the statute is not applied properly.
As I see it, snow on the vehicle does not apply, although there could be another appropriate statute. I have not looked.
 
John90210 said:
But I can see the sides of the car out of the side windows? That wasn't obstructed at all. 4511.70 says nothing about the rear of the vehicle.
Click to expand...

(A) No person shall drive a vehicle or trackless trolley when it is so loaded, or when there are in the front seat such number of persons, as to obstruct the view of the driver to the front or sides of the vehicle or to interfere with the driver's control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say "of" the front or sides, it says "to" the front or sides. Seeing the side of your car isn't what the statute is concerned with. It's seeing cars coming up along side you that counts and with the outside mirrors covered with snow, you can't see that car with just looking out your side windows.
 
Still... It is specifically in regard to the load of the vehicle and front seat passengers. Neither of those are the issue here. Unless the violation is amended to something more appropriate there may be a reasonable argument to make against the citation.
 
John90210 said:
But I can see the sides of the car out of the side windows? That wasn't obstructed at all. 4511.70 says nothing about the rear of the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Well then, just rip the side mirrors off the car, since clearly they're unnecessary.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. There is a reason why all cars and trucks have side mirrors. They are legally required to have side mirrors. Since you chose not to use the scraper to clear your side mirrors, you were in violation.

Furthermore, snow on your rear windshield poses not just a visibility problem, but an additional risk of falling off and endangering another party. People have been severely injured, even *died* because of such negligence.

Grow up.
 
Update: Took it upon myself to go to the prosector's office and ended up getting the case thrown out. Was ridiculous to begin with, thank God she had some common sense.
 
John90210 said:
Update: Took it upon myself to go to the prosector's office and ended up getting the case thrown out. Was ridiculous to begin with, thank God she had some common sense.
Click to expand...

Good job.
It seemed pretty clear the statute listed did not apply to the scenario you described. Good for you for following through.
They said, keep an eye on the court date and confirm with the court that you are not due to appear.
Did you get anything in writing indicating the matter is resolved and you are no longer required to appear? Don't be a no show.
 
mightymoose said:
Good job.
It seemed pretty clear the statute listed did not apply to the scenario you described. Good for you for following through.
They said, keep an eye on the court date and confirm with the court that you are not due to appear.
Did you get anything in writing indicating the matter is resolved and you are no longer required to appear? Don't be a no show.
Click to expand...

Just gave them a call and made certain it was closed and it was. Thank you very much for your help, sir. Based on your advice, I really hammered home the point about it referring specifically to the load of the vehicle. She also saw it that way. Also didn't agree with issuing a ticket for merely having some snow on your vehicle in inclement weather. She was great.
 
adjusterjack said:
Great.

Now do you have enough common sense to keep your mirrors clear so you don't change lanes and hit the car next to you?
Click to expand...

That's the thing, I had a very easy 360 degree view despite having snow on the back windshield and some on the mirrors. I've also never been in an accident in my life. In any case, glad the prosecutor saw it my way.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top