My name is Scott Gerhardt. I am not a lawyer and neither is Stephanie (the woman to whom I am married). I do not call her 'my wife' because 'my' is a possessive pronoun and I do not consider her to be my possession, I consider her presence a gift; although she does refer to me as "my husband", but I digress...
I have argued and won cases in court over property law issues as the plaintiff and have argued and won cases as a defendant. But the other day an odd legal issue passed us by and I would feel doubly derelict and negligent in allowing it to occur without sharing the possibilities and processes for the benefit of you, the reader. As Maya Angelou has been quoted as saying: “There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.” Stephanie and I co-wrote this blog post from my perspective, just for a sense of consistent context, content, and clarity.
The hearing or arraignment happens as the first court appearance which is all the further Stephanie made it before pleading no contest. After the first appearance the process can take many directions, dependant on what happens, how the law is or is not interpreted, pleas, and the judge’s decision. I did not go to court with my wife because I consider Stephanie to be a capable, cognizant, confident person who I have faith in and trust.
Stephanie was in court for having expired tags and what the officer on the scene considered not proof of insurance. We had no money for registration or for printer ink to produce proof, or for the fines levied. Stephanie is and was resourceful enough to use her smart phone to access the servers at GEICO; providing a digital proof of insurance that I consider not only more difficult to forge but which is more current than any insurance card. If this wasn’t the case then: Why do the police have access to double check with their squad car communication equipment laptops, and intranets?
Furthermore ORS 742.447 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 742 or any series therein by legislative action requiring a 'card form' of insurance proof.
ORS 806.011 Insurance card required; rules. An unexpired card issued as provided in ORS 742.447, or other current proof of compliance with financial or future responsibility requirements approved by rule by the Oregon Department of Transportation, shall be carried in each motor vehicle that is operating in this state and that is not exempt from compliance with financial or future responsibility requirements. Failure of the driver of a motor vehicle to show a valid card or other proof of compliance when asked to do so by a police officer is reasonable grounds for the officer to believe that the person is operating the vehicle in violation of ORS 806.010 was violated although 806.012 was not violated. The judgement as to what constitutes 'other proof of compliance' was delegated to ODOT, their lack of action has allowed jurisdiction to fall to the officers of the peace on patrol.
There is a gray space for digital proof that is fulfilled under the letter of the law despite not being directly addressed by the statute. ORS 806.011 Insurance card required; rules. An unexpired card issued as provided in ORS 742.447, or other current proof of compliance with financial or future responsibility requirements approved by rule by the Department of Transportation, shall be carried in each motor vehicle that is operating in this state and that is not exempt from compliance with financial or future responsibility requirements. Failure of the driver of a motor vehicle to show a valid card or other proof of compliance when asked to do so by a police officer is reasonable grounds for the officer to believe that the person is operating the vehicle in violation of ORS 806.010. Therefore ORS 806.010 was violated although 806.012 was not violated. ORS 806.012 was what was written on the ticket. From these facts it could be considered that there is a gray space for digital proof that is fulfilled under the letter of the law despite not being directly addressed by the statute.
Don’t get me wrong, I acknowledge the necessity of society and civilization to enforce subscription to insurance companies in order to protect each and every one of us from each other fostering a culture capable of supporting mutual faith and trust. I also acknowledge the security provided by digital means to ensure that insurance is carried by al drivers. These facts are structured so as to also acknowledge that the officer on the scene who stopped Stephanie knew she had insurance but chose to write her up under ORS 806.012. ORS 806.012 does not specify what proof of insurance is or is not other than being current, which digital proof always is.
I thought I had conveyed this idea to Stephanie clearly, but in her misunderstanding of both the ticket and the court process, led to her pleading no contest. Stephanie claims the judge also did not allow her to show that we had since printed proof of insurance and that vehicle had been registered. Both tasks our children partook in to help them learn how to function on their own someday. Paxton is still proud of putting the registrations stickers on the license plate.
The problem now is that despite my belief, and the courts belief that Stephanie knew what to do, why, and how; she plead no contest. Stephanie is book smart, and I assumed we watched law and order because she knew what was going on. She graduated Magna Cum Laude in three years with a degree in psychology from WOU. But she did not understand what was happening and now we have over $450.00 in fines. Stephanie explains what happened as this:
“The ticket that I received was for having expired tags and not carrying proof of insurance. I attempted to show the officer my phone with the insurance information on it but he refused to look at it. Instead he told me that he had written me a ticket for the two things, but that the insurance was a correctable violation. He informed me that I could take the ticket and this piece of paper (which he tossed at me along with my license and registration) to the police station with my printed proof of insurance and the fine would be dismissed and I would have to pay $35. Scott and I both went down to the police station to talk to them about my digital proof, and got nowhere. We did not even have the $35 to pay for the ticket to be dismissed. Now, in my previous experience with traffic court, I had witnessed such “correctable violations” be dismissed in court with no fees, so I thought that would be my answer. I decided to plead no contest because while I was not guilty, I also did not want to contest the charge because I believed that the judge would see that I had printed the proof and would dismiss it. That is not what happened. She asked me if I had gotten insurance, and I told her that I had always had insurance, and that I was currently holding the printed proof that the officer was asking for. She did not allow me to say anything further, and instead imposed close to the maximum penalty even though I have a very clean driving record. I realize now the implications of pleading no contest, however at the time I did not have a clue. I left the courthouse feeling sick to my stomach knowing that I was now responsible for fines that I knew my family can not afford to pay, and for something that I did not do wrong in the first place.”
Personally, I was excited that the possible legal interpretations and distinctions that could be made to improve the function of legalism, simplify procedures for officers of the peace, and improve citizens’ lives by simplifying processes/procedures/policies. I failed my wife and the people of the community I live in by not communicating the problem with my wife. We discussed the solution and I assumed this meant Stephanie understood the problem. But when faced with the problem in court she panicked and now the people who are truly punished are our children.
UPDATE: GEICO and Oregon's legislature have made some unanimous changes, other states might follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment