September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« ConvergeSouth journalism | Main | Fortunate Son »

May 27, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Fred Gregory

Here come da Judge( doing 90 mph) and makes Hunter look good.

Vote For Me Cuz You May Need My Help One Day


The problem with serial speeders is that they are not content with going 5-10 mph over the speed limit (as most of us have at times of inattention or just following the "flow of traffic") but that they will speed on any road at any time often at 20-30 mph over the posted limit. There are times when I travel to Raleigh that I mistake US 40 for the Autobahn. It concerns me that some Judges do not wish to uphold the law and it must disappoint the state police as well, because they have to pull over drivers who are often abusive and who may even have weapons.
Sure people have to get to work, go shopping and make it to appointments on time. But I have no sympathy for people who routinely drive aggressively just for the endorphin rush it gives them to have a powerful car - and I believe this is the case in most speeding infractions.

Wendell Sawyer

I have read Senator Tony Rand’s bill and I find it curiously interesting that his legislation only places limitations on the use of improper equipment reductions and PJCs in high-speed cases while it says nothing about dismissals in such cases. Considering this fact, I find it even more interesting that Sen. Rand represents Cumberland County in the General Assembly. Why?

Let me briefly recap the published findings of the N&O from the court records regarding high-speed cases:

Cumberland County: 64% of 90-plus mph speed cases were DISMISSED by DAs

New Hanover and Pender Counties: 50% of 90-plus mph speed cases were reduced to IMPROPER EQUIPMENT by DAs

Guilford County: 60% of drivers charged with 90 mph and over were given PJCs by judges

Of the three dispositions mentioned above, any good traffic court lawyer will tell you that a dismissal is the superior one because there are no driving or insurance points, no fines, no court costs and no posting of the offense on a DMV record. The second disposition of choice would be improper equipment since it accomplishes the same result except that the defendant has to pay a fine (usually) and court costs. Of the three, PJCs come in last place because the defendant has to pay court costs and, unlike dismissals and improper equipment, the offense and the notation of the PJC are posted on the driver’s DMV record. And, as I have mentioned before elsewhere, state law limits the use of PJCs for both driver’s license and auto insurance purposes.

So, if the purpose of Senator Rand’s legislation is to curb the alleged abuses of DAs and judges in being too lenient in the disposition of high-speed cases, why is there a glaring omission in the bill regarding dismissals, the disposition of choice in Sen. Rand’s hometown of Fayetteville? Was the omission the result of the hurried pace of the bill and its rash passage by the senate. Or, was Sen. Rand engaging himself in a little “home cooking?”

The comments to this entry are closed.