Open Carry Specific > OC Experiences
Open Carry on a Moped
#1Gunner:
--- Quote from: CitizensHaveRights on July 27, 2015, 04:36:23 PM ---Unless I'm seriously mistaken, failure to signal a lane change is not a traffic offense in Michigan.
Oops, my bad. It wasn't considered an offense by my teacher (or, IIRC, the pamphlet "What Every Driver Must Know") when I took driver's ed, but interpretations can change over time, and MSP says it's an offense now, and references a 2007 court decision (30 years after I was taught that signaling lane changes was optional)
I think the law is poorly worded and we all got screwed because the Court of Appeals didn't want a drunk driver to get off on a technicality.
https://cases.justia.com/michigan/court-of-appeals-published/20071129_C278053_40_187O.278053.OPN.COA.PDF?ts=1323898271
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1586_27094-73839--,00.html
Question: When are turn signals required to be used and does this include changing lanes?
Answer: MCL 257.648states in part. "The driver...before stopping or turning from a direct line, shall first see that the stopping or turning can be made in safety and shall give a signal as required...". Common sense and state law agree that whenever you are turning, a signal is required, however, much debate has occurred over whether that language required the use of turn signals when simply changing lanes.
The Michigan Court of Appeals has finally clarified the language in MCL 257.648 requiring the use of a signal when changing lanes, or "turning from a direct line." Their decision--published, and therefore binding on lower courts--states in summary "...a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence is not required to speculate about the phrase's meaning, and MCL 257.648 provides fair notice of what conduct is proscribed. We hold that MCL 257.648 requires drivers to use a turn signal when changing lanes on a highway and is not unconstitutionally vague."
--- End quote ---
Precisely, I have read it several times trying to break down all the elements, its a total scam and he pulled it from thin air. Shame...
#1Gunner:
--- Quote from: #1Gunner on July 27, 2015, 05:10:08 PM ---Precisely, I have read it several times trying to break down all the elements, its a total scam and he pulled it from thin air. Shame...
--- End quote ---
I am going to fight it so I will let you know what happens. I am not sure if I want to take it to trial or just cut a deal...
CitizensHaveRights:
In most jurisdictions, demanding a formal hearing will get you a pre-trial conference with a prosecuting attorney.
The prosecutor's job seems to be to negotiate a deal that avoids tying up a courtroom over an alleged civil infraction.
Both times (two different counties/courts) I demanded a formal hearing without an attorney, the court clerk went ahead and scheduled an INformal hearing. Had to call them and make them fix it, while they claimed it was an honest mistake.
Just remember that if it comes to trial, the standard for civil infractions is 'preponderance of evidence', and to a copsucking judge, a cop saying you did it while you say you didn't is about 90% preponderance when they only need 51%. (even the fairest of judges will probably give the cop's word 60% if your word is the only opposing evidence)
I'd want to subpoena the dash cam if I were you.
If you can do it before pre-trial conference, it might help convince the prosecutor that's it's easier to just drop it than to go chasing evidence for your discovery demands.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version