Do cops lay HTA charges based on 3rd party evidence?

**Brian P** · 01-11-2012, 03:44 PM

The cops are arguing with the lawyers LOL!

**Brian P** · 01-11-2012, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by fastar1

This is f****** fantastic. I'm just going to start blowing through red lights now. Most of the time there isn't any cross traffic anyways!

From what I see on the roads, plenty of people do that already.

Not stopping at a red light when making a right turn is pretty darn common. Newsflash, even though a right turn on red is permitted unless signed otherwise, you DO have to stop and look first ...

**Cat13** · 01-11-2012, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by PLau

Anyways in the example you provided, there could always be a I got into an accident at a previous time. Probably would still be able to talk his/her way out of it in court.

Not correct me if I am wrong but aren't you legally supposed to report all accidents in a time frame? If buddy claims he got into an accident and it wasnt on the police information highway couldnt they give him a ticket or something for not reporting it.?

**caboose483** · 01-11-2012, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Cat13

Not correct me if I am wrong but aren't you legally supposed to report all accidents in a time frame? If buddy claims he got into an accident and it wasnt on the police information highway couldnt they give him a ticket or something for not reporting it.?

He could say that a buddy was over visiting recently and hit his car in the driveway.

Not much proof unless you bring in the CSI crew with their fancy purple lights and silly camera angles.

**Cat13** · 01-11-2012, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by caboose483

He could say that a buddy was over visiting recently and hit his car in the driveway.

Not much proof unless you bring in the CSI crew with their fancy purple lights and silly camera angles.

But if the person who reported the issue had a gopro video that could be considered evidence and I am sure they could check it to see if it was doctored.

**fastar1** · 01-11-2012, 04:04 PM

There was no accident! When I wrote that the cops should ask the owner about accident damage, it was only as a ruse to get him to reveal which car he had been driving that night.

**fastar1** · 01-11-2012, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Brian P

From what I see on the roads, plenty of people do that already.

Not stopping at a red light when making a right turn is pretty darn common. Newsflash, even though a right turn on red is permitted unless signed otherwise, you DO have to stop and look first ...

Yeah I got pulled over for that once, a rolling right turn. When he told me he pulled me over for "running a red light" I was puzzled and about to object until he said "at the intersection" and I was like ohhhhh, that. Right.

Anyways I guess I had a clean record and I was cooperative so he let me off with a warning, which is cool since creeping through a right turn on a red light isn't exactly going to hurt anybody, it's only a technical infraction.

**nobbie48** · 01-25-2012, 06:51 AM

While not in context with the original question a cop can and will lay charges based on what he sees after a collision. He didn't witness the crash so can't say that he saw car "A" slam car "B". Skid marks, nature of damage and driver & witness statements all come into it.

One of the reasons they do the CSI bit when the crash is fatal or near fatal.

**Rob MacLennan** · 01-25-2012, 07:16 AM

Though that isn't third party evidence, it's just plain evidence.

**mikem** · 01-25-2012, 07:57 AM

There's the great thing about a stunting charge, if you get the right cop he could track the guy down, charge him with stunting. The cop would no doubt forget to come to court but the damage is already done via long suspensions and impound fees etc. I know cops that tack stunting charges on to guys they charge with drunk driving because as they put it "drunk driving charges seldom stick so this will at least cost them more money"