This Blog was brought to you by the San Antonio Speeding Ticket Attorney Gordon Slade

Did You Get Stopped For Speeding?

Seeing flashing police car lights in your rearview mirror, especially when you are in a hurry to get where you are going, can be one of the most uncomfortable feelings. During the traffic stop, you may not even be sure of why you were pulled over. However, you may still find yourself driving away with a ticket in hand.

The first thing to do is to stay calm and contact a savvy traffic violations attorney who will fight your charges for you in traffic court. Our Law Firm has been helping drivers, like you, fight their traffic tickets for more than 25 years. We stay ahead of the curve when it comes to traffic laws and knows how to work with prosecutors in an effort to get clients’ charges reduced and, when possible, dismissed.

Contact us for a free consultation about your traffic ticket. The last thing you should do is toss the ticket in the glove compartment and forget about it. Paying the fine and pleading guilty won’t help you either. You need an aggressive lawyer who will get a full understanding of the circumstances that led to your ticket. After your consultation, we will get to work preparing your defense. We will protect your driving privileges, your wallet, and your driving record.

Common Traffic Violations
If you are facing any of the following traffic charges, you aren’t alone. One call to our Law Office and you will have the assistance of an experienced traffic ticket lawyer who will fight to protect your rights and driving privileges. If you are facing charges for any of the following motor vehicle violations, contact us for a free consultation about your charges:

Speeding Drivers to follow posted speed limit signs at all times. If you get stopped for speeding, depending on the number of miles per hour over the speed limit you were driving, you may be facing a ticket worth 2, 4, or 5 points.
Running a Red Light is a 2 point ticket.
Running a Stop Sign or Yield Sign is a 2 point ticket.
Reckless Driving is a 2point ticket.
Improper Passing is a 2 point ticket.
Careless Driving
A conviction of a ticket for careless driving is worth 2 points.
Following too Closely, also called Tailgating is a 2point ticket.

Driving Under the Influence: DWI is illegal in Texas pursuant to Texas Penal Code Section 49.04. Depending on the circumstances, it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony. The penalties you face if convicted of a DWI are quite serious. You will pay stiff fines, have your driver’s license suspended and you may even be facing jail time.
Distracted Driving (texting, talking on the phone, etc. ) This adds no points to your driver’s license. However, there are fines for this offense.

Driving with a suspended license, driving without a license, and driving without insurance are also serious charges that can cause your driving privileges to be suspended for a long time. You’ll also be facing stiff financial penalties and even possible jail time.
We will fight your charges. At the least, he will work hard to get your charges downgraded to a non-moving violation (no points. ) This may save you considerable money, since no points may mean no insurance surcharge.

Knowledgeable Traffic Ticket Lawyer Defends Drivers

Traffic ticket convictions lead to points on your driver’s license. Too many points can earn you a license suspension or revocation. Without driving privileges, getting around can be a difficult task. Don’t try to fight your traffic tickets without the assistance of a lawyer who knows how to get traffic violations downgraded and even dismissed in traffic court.

Contact our Law Office today for a free consultation about your ticket. We will ask you questions, get a full understanding of what happened during your traffic stop and review the evidence against you. We will then discuss the best defense strategy for you. We understand how important your driving privileges are to you; you can rely on our lawyers to fight for you every step of the way during your hearing in traffic court.

This Blog was brought to you by the San Antonio Traffic Ticket Attorney Gordon Slade

Traffic Infraction Tickets Can Be Very Costly If Not Paid

As if out of a Charles Dickens novel, people struggling to pay overdue fines and fees associated with court costs for even the simplest traffic infractions are being thrown in jail across the United States. Critics are calling the practice the new “debtors’ prison” — referring to the jails that flourished in the U.S. and Western Europe over 150 years ago. Before the time of bankruptcy laws and social safety nets, poor folks and ruined business owners were locked up until their debts were paid off. Reforms eventually outlawed the practice. But groups like the American Civil Liberties Union say it’s been reborn in local courts which may not be aware it’s against the law to send indigent people to jail over unpaid fines and fees — or they just haven’t been called on it until now. Advocates are trying to convince courts that aside from the legal questions surrounding the practice, it is disproportionately jailing poor people and doesn’t even boost government revenues — in fact, governments lose money in the process. “It’s a waste of taxpayer resources, and it undermines the integrity of the justice system,” staff attorney for the ACLU’s National Prison Project, told FoxNews.com. “The problem is it’s not actually much of a money-making proposition … to throw people in jail for fines and fees when they can’t afford it.
If counties weren’t spending the money jailing people for not paying debts, they could be spending the money in other ways.” Breaking down the cost to municipalities to jail debtors in comparison with the amount of old debt it was collecting. It doesn’t look like a bargain. For example, according to the report, one county collected $33,476 in debts in a year but spent $40,000 jailing 246 debtors — a loss of $6,524. Fines are the court-imposed payments linked to a conviction — whether it be for a minor traffic violation like driving without a license or a small drug offense, all the way up to a felony. Fees are all those extras tacked on by the court to fund administrative services. These vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with some courts imposing more than others. As states and counties grapple with shrinking budgets and yearly shortfalls, new fees are often imposed to make up the difference, though they can be quite overwhelming to individuals passing through the system — 80 percent of whom qualify as indigent (impoverished and unable to pay).
One state, for example, has added 20 new fees since 1996, according to the center. Another state imposes late fees on debt not paid and surcharges ofn payment plans. More and more, courts are dragging people in for fines and fees that have ballooned due to interest imposed on the initial sums. Some owe money to the public defender’s office for the representation they received during their time in court. Others incur hundreds of dollars in fees while they’re incarcerated — for everything from toilet paper to the beds inmates sleep on. The tab for the average offender could be as low as $250 or as high as $4,000.

The ACLU has been targeting big states with multiple jurisdictions they say are flouting U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 1970, 1971, and 1983. Those rulings essentially say courts cannot extend or impose a jail sentence for unpaid fines and fees if individuals do not have the ability to pay. At the very least, according to the high court, the courts must inquire and assess whether a person is indigent and might benefit from an alternative method of payment, like community service, before sentencing. Even though a lot of jurisdictions do have statutes on the books that allow judges to waive fines and fees, it doesn’t always happen. Much of the time, probation or the conviction itself will hinder individuals from finding employment. But another incarceration over debt could either ruin the job they managed to get or make it even harder to find one.

Many jurisdictions have taken to hiring private collection/probation companies to go after debtors, giving them the authority to revoke probation and incarcerate them if they can’t pay. Research into the practice has found that private companies impose their own additional surcharges. Some 15 private companies have emerged to run these services in the South. A Circuit Judge in Alabama shut down what he called the “debtors’ prison” process there, echoing complaints that private companies are only in it for the money. He cited them in part for sending indigent people to jail. Calling it a “judicially sanctioned extortion racket,” Hw said many defendants were locked up on bogus failure-to-appear warrants and slapped with more fines and fees as a result. Defenders of the collection programs say the money is owed to the state and it’s the government’s right to go after it. When, and only when, an individual is convicted of a crime, there are required fees and court costs. If the defendant doesn’t pay, law-abiding taxpayers must pay these costs.

Meanwhile, there’s evidence that groups like the ACLU are prompting reforms. For example, the ACLU found that seven out of 11 counties they studied were operating de facto debtors’ prisons, despite clear “constitutional and legislative prohibitions.” More recently, one state ACLU completed a report on “pay or serve” programs throughout the state. The penalty was one day in the clink for every $50 owed; every offender got an automatic 10 days in jail. The report also found that one jail racked up more than $70,000 in costs for incarcerating 154 people over a five-month period — and only managed to collect $40,000 in overdue fines and fees in that time. Judges in these courts never assess the defendants’ ability to pay before sentencing them to jail, which would be unconstitutional. One Municipal Court judge told FoxNews.com he agreed with the tenets of the ACLU investigation, but added that the practice of the automatic 10-day jail sentence was already scrapped. “It was because we had jail space problems and beds needed to be limited to actual criminals,” he said. He complained that local coverage of the ACLU report “makes it sound like we’re putting everyone in jail.” He said he asks everyone who comes before him if they have the ability to pay. He acknowledged, however, that his court is working with the ACLU and will be instituting formal “show cause” hearings to determine indigence. “Maybe the ACLU did some good, they brought it to my attention. Maybe they just should have done it in a better way,” he said. The reform movement is proceeding, albeit slowly in tough fiscal times. “A lot of the jurisdictions are still using fines and fees and passing legislation to add more fees and fines,” she said.

Truck Accident Attorneys – Part Of the Research

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation (FMCSR) requires diligence on the part of a trucking company, not only when it employs a driver, but also after he/she begins operating one of its vehicles. In previous entries, we have discussed mandatory pre-employment background checks which must be conducted by trucking companies.

Section 391.25 of the FMCSR requires as well that a trucking company conduct a review of each of its driver’s driving records for the preceding 12 months. A motor carrier must also obtain reports from each of its drivers with a list of all violations of motor vehicle traffic law and citations of which the driver had been convicted and/or forfeited a bond or collateral during the preceding 12 months. More information here

A trucking company must not only obtain such reports of employee/driver accidents or violations but must also analyze these reports to determine whether any of the violations are such that the driver must be disqualified from driving for a period of up to one year. As an example, a disqualifying offense would be driving a trucking rig while under the influence of alcohol.

In addition, a trucking company’s supervision obligations include the duty to monitor the actual hours being logged by its drivers to make sure that they are not operating their rigs more than is allowed by law. The failure to monitor driver logs can be grounds for liability against a trucking company, particularly in situations where a fatigued driver causes a collision.

Thus, among the many duties imposed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, a trucking company must diligently supervise all of the drivers in its employ, not only checking out their background thoroughly before employing them but also during the period of their employ, constantly monitoring their activities to make sure they are in compliance with all applicable safety regulations.

Failure to properly supervise a driver can be an independent basis for liability against a trucking company – as it should be.

The applicable regulation is reprinted below:

Background and character

§391.25 Annual inquiry and review of driving record. (a) Except as provided in subpart G of this part, each motor carrier shall, at least once every 12 months, make an inquiry to obtain the motor vehicle record of each driver it employs, covering at least the preceding 12 months, to the appropriate agency of every State in which the driver held a commercial motor vehicle operator’s license or permit during the time period.

(b) Except as provided in subpart G of this part, each motor carrier shall, at least once every 12 months, review the motor vehicle record of each driver it employs to determine whether that driver meets minimum requirements for safe driving or is disqualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle pursuant to §391.15.
(b)(1) The motor carrier must consider any evidence that the driver has violated any applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations in this subchapter or Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR chapter I, subchapter C).

(b)(2) The motor carrier must consider the driver’s accident record and any evidence that the driver has violated laws governing the operation of motor vehicles, and must give great weight to violations, such as speeding, reckless driving, and operating while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, that indicates that the driver has exhibited a disregard for the safety of the public.

(c) Recordkeeping. (1) A copy of the motor vehicle record required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be maintained in the driver’s qualification file.

(c)(2) A note, including the name of the person who performed the review of the driving record required by paragraph (b) of this section and the date of such review, shall be maintained in the driver’s qualification file. More on this website
Credit:http://www.federalregister.gov/select-citation/2015/04/23/49-CFR-391.25