Street Racing Ticket update
03-23-2004, 04:42 PM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Street Racing Ticket update
For those of you interested. I went to court this morning by my self(without an attorney) just to see what I can do without an attorney.
got the charges down to an infraction(instead of misdermeaner speed contest) speeding. total fine of 400 and 2 year summary probation.
The DA originally wanted me to plead guilty to the misdermeaner charge w/ 400 fine and 2 year summary probation. Spoke to the judge and ask if it's possible to lower it to an infration. DA took 2.5 hours to consider it while I waited and waited and waited. I was the last one left in court when the DA lowered his offer to make the charges to an infraction ( althought not before he went on and on about what is on the police report such as 90mph on a local street and 2 cars side by side speeding, etc.... and I disputed everything he said.)
for those of you that don't remember the originall post.
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...=STREET+RACING
Peter
got the charges down to an infraction(instead of misdermeaner speed contest) speeding. total fine of 400 and 2 year summary probation.
The DA originally wanted me to plead guilty to the misdermeaner charge w/ 400 fine and 2 year summary probation. Spoke to the judge and ask if it's possible to lower it to an infration. DA took 2.5 hours to consider it while I waited and waited and waited. I was the last one left in court when the DA lowered his offer to make the charges to an infraction ( althought not before he went on and on about what is on the police report such as 90mph on a local street and 2 cars side by side speeding, etc.... and I disputed everything he said.)
for those of you that don't remember the originall post.
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...=STREET+RACING
Peter
03-23-2004, 05:49 PM
#4
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Homeless, Earth
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't reading this board until late Feb when I got my p-car, so missed your thread, but I think you did yourself a disservice by not getting a lawyer. Or you got some really bad advice. Personally, a decent lawyer should have gotten you off of this completely clean, no infraction.
Regarding your impounding, I refer you to CA Senate Bill SB 1489, which passed in Sep 2002 to amend CA VC 23109.2 (http://www.lacp.org/AskBill/AskBill-2b.html)
Specifically, taking things backwards from where you are today - contrary to some postings, the law is clear regarding the validity of impound. It's an ACLU nightmare, but this is one of those examples in which prior to proof of guilt, you are subject to loss of life, property, or freedom. So as far as seizing your vehicle just on the word of the officer, you have no immediate recourse (see storage hearing below though). There are a number of exceptions to serving the period of impound, for example stolen vehicle, but you qualify for none of them.
From VC 23109.2. (a) (1) Whenever a peace officer determines that a person was engaged in any of the activities set forth in paragraph (2), the peace officer may immediately arrest and take into custody that person and may cause the removal and seizure of the motor vehicle used in that contest in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650). A motor vehicle so seized may be impounded for not more than 30 days.
The minute you are charged with any of the four definitions under this code - including what you told us you were charged with, motor vehicle speed contest, the police officer may, at his discretion, impound your vehicle. Please note that this Senate Bill and approved vehicle code does not say must impound, but may impound.
However, I asked above about whether you paid the impound fees because based on what you said about getting the charge knocked down to a regular moving violation, you are liable for $0, repeat zero costs, for the impound towing, storage, and any other related fees. If you paid to get your car out of impound, you just got screwed.
To wit, 23109.2, section (e), para (4) - The owner shall not be liable for any towing and storage charges related to the impoundment if acquittal or dismissal occurs.
AND
23109.2, section 2(e), para (6) - The impounding agency is responsible for the actual costs incurred by the towing agency as a result of the impoundment should the registered owner be absolved of liability for those charges pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 23109.2. Notwithstanding this provision, nothing shall prohibit impounding agencies from making prior payment arrangements to satisfy this requirement.
Your motor vehicle speeding charge was dismissed in favor of the moving violation - you owe zero impound charges. Any suggestion to the contrary is just simply another case of a local municipality choosing to incorrectly interpret/enforce a quite clearly worded legislative act, because frankly they know most people don't bother to read the law, and that includes lawyers. They're just people - some are scum, some are dumb, and some are good. What you get without a good referal is as good as a shake of the Magic 8-Ball.
Furthermore, a loophole of the law is that even if you were charged and an impound duration set, if your car was released prior to serving the full 30 days, you also owe no fees. 23109.2, section 2(c), para (3) - If, pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) a motor vehicle is released prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period, neither the person charged with a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 23109 nor the registered owner of the motor vehicle is responsible for towing and storage charges nor shall the motor vehicle be sold to satisfy those charges.
As far as your storage hearing, good news and bad news - good news is indeed you are right and will be legally owed the hearing. Bad news is that you are not owed this right until Jan 1, 2007. Specifically, the VC 23109 section 3 was ADDED to the code to include these refinements, but was specifically worded in SB 1489 that g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2007.
The somewhat inane reason this SB was based on - SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
Within the last two years, three deaths have occurred in one county alone as a result of persons engaged in reckless driving. Therefore, to ensure public safety, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.
p.s. even if there had been a radar gun, the beam dispersion is directly proportional to distance and angle of measurement. Given two cars side by side under a presumed speeding contest, or as in your stated case, two cars side by side only for the moment in which the CLK blazed past you, unless the officer was right behind you, the foundation to argue that the reading was from the CLK and not you is well placed assuming he was some distance behind you, and if you are alleged to have taken off from the light to reach 90mph, it would be self evident that you are some distance away when the speed measurement was taken. Same with laser but for different reasons - the angle of deflection is quite small, and a small amount of jostling can misinterpret who the tagged culprit was.
Given no physical evidence, your refutal as to tire tracks, or a positive match as to who laid them down even if there were, and no citation to speed on the ticket, a good lawyer would have had a field day with the police officer's testimony in court.
And by the way, it is your right to ask the officer to recite his police report from memory and not read directly from it when in court. The only reason officers routinely read back automatically what they wrote without having to really remember and therefore truly enter testimony as to what they personally recollected happened is because people and judges let them. However, if you exercise your right to have your accuser provide direct testimony, there are a lot of potential contradictions which you can bring to the court's attention.
All a moot point as you've now settled this, but again, I think you should have gotten a good lawyer and beaten it clean.
Regarding your impounding, I refer you to CA Senate Bill SB 1489, which passed in Sep 2002 to amend CA VC 23109.2 (http://www.lacp.org/AskBill/AskBill-2b.html)
Specifically, taking things backwards from where you are today - contrary to some postings, the law is clear regarding the validity of impound. It's an ACLU nightmare, but this is one of those examples in which prior to proof of guilt, you are subject to loss of life, property, or freedom. So as far as seizing your vehicle just on the word of the officer, you have no immediate recourse (see storage hearing below though). There are a number of exceptions to serving the period of impound, for example stolen vehicle, but you qualify for none of them.
From VC 23109.2. (a) (1) Whenever a peace officer determines that a person was engaged in any of the activities set forth in paragraph (2), the peace officer may immediately arrest and take into custody that person and may cause the removal and seizure of the motor vehicle used in that contest in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650). A motor vehicle so seized may be impounded for not more than 30 days.
The minute you are charged with any of the four definitions under this code - including what you told us you were charged with, motor vehicle speed contest, the police officer may, at his discretion, impound your vehicle. Please note that this Senate Bill and approved vehicle code does not say must impound, but may impound.
However, I asked above about whether you paid the impound fees because based on what you said about getting the charge knocked down to a regular moving violation, you are liable for $0, repeat zero costs, for the impound towing, storage, and any other related fees. If you paid to get your car out of impound, you just got screwed.
To wit, 23109.2, section (e), para (4) - The owner shall not be liable for any towing and storage charges related to the impoundment if acquittal or dismissal occurs.
AND
23109.2, section 2(e), para (6) - The impounding agency is responsible for the actual costs incurred by the towing agency as a result of the impoundment should the registered owner be absolved of liability for those charges pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 23109.2. Notwithstanding this provision, nothing shall prohibit impounding agencies from making prior payment arrangements to satisfy this requirement.
Your motor vehicle speeding charge was dismissed in favor of the moving violation - you owe zero impound charges. Any suggestion to the contrary is just simply another case of a local municipality choosing to incorrectly interpret/enforce a quite clearly worded legislative act, because frankly they know most people don't bother to read the law, and that includes lawyers. They're just people - some are scum, some are dumb, and some are good. What you get without a good referal is as good as a shake of the Magic 8-Ball.
Furthermore, a loophole of the law is that even if you were charged and an impound duration set, if your car was released prior to serving the full 30 days, you also owe no fees. 23109.2, section 2(c), para (3) - If, pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) a motor vehicle is released prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period, neither the person charged with a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 23109 nor the registered owner of the motor vehicle is responsible for towing and storage charges nor shall the motor vehicle be sold to satisfy those charges.
As far as your storage hearing, good news and bad news - good news is indeed you are right and will be legally owed the hearing. Bad news is that you are not owed this right until Jan 1, 2007. Specifically, the VC 23109 section 3 was ADDED to the code to include these refinements, but was specifically worded in SB 1489 that g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2007.
The somewhat inane reason this SB was based on - SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
Within the last two years, three deaths have occurred in one county alone as a result of persons engaged in reckless driving. Therefore, to ensure public safety, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.
p.s. even if there had been a radar gun, the beam dispersion is directly proportional to distance and angle of measurement. Given two cars side by side under a presumed speeding contest, or as in your stated case, two cars side by side only for the moment in which the CLK blazed past you, unless the officer was right behind you, the foundation to argue that the reading was from the CLK and not you is well placed assuming he was some distance behind you, and if you are alleged to have taken off from the light to reach 90mph, it would be self evident that you are some distance away when the speed measurement was taken. Same with laser but for different reasons - the angle of deflection is quite small, and a small amount of jostling can misinterpret who the tagged culprit was.
Given no physical evidence, your refutal as to tire tracks, or a positive match as to who laid them down even if there were, and no citation to speed on the ticket, a good lawyer would have had a field day with the police officer's testimony in court.
And by the way, it is your right to ask the officer to recite his police report from memory and not read directly from it when in court. The only reason officers routinely read back automatically what they wrote without having to really remember and therefore truly enter testimony as to what they personally recollected happened is because people and judges let them. However, if you exercise your right to have your accuser provide direct testimony, there are a lot of potential contradictions which you can bring to the court's attention.
All a moot point as you've now settled this, but again, I think you should have gotten a good lawyer and beaten it clean.
03-23-2004, 06:06 PM
#6
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
You broke the law, got caught, and got the charges diminished. What I am I missing here? I'm having a difficult time trying to relate or feel sympathetic. If you EVER happened upon a motor vehicle accident occurring at the speeds you indicated, I absolutely guarantee you would lose your lunch. I get tired of hosing down accident scenes.
Sorry,
Sorry,
03-23-2004, 06:42 PM
#7
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Homeless, Earth
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fred,
He broke a moving violation law, but that's not what he was charged with. Assuming the facts related are truthful and all there is, I'm always sympathetic to anyone falsely or undeservedly charged with a crime not committed.
If the police officer had charged him with speeding and he was arguing it, then sure, what's the point. He broke that law and got caught as you say. But it seems like what you're saying is if someone commits legal violation A, but is charged with legal violation B, you don't care because they're guilty of A?
Weren't you also the one riding shotgun in Tysons GT2 this weekend on our 'spirited' drive up to and back from SB? Are you saying you've never done or would condone anyone else hitting the 75mph speed admitted to by Peter? Whether street or highway, there are appropriate places where you can easily hit 75mph with no more or less inherent danger than if you were going the posted limit, in my opinion.
I agree speeding accidents are bad, but come on - you're automatically linking 75mph to hosing down accident scenes without adequate context to this specific 75mph occurence. A lot of people believe any speeding above posted limit = accidents and that's fine, statistics would say you're completely right. But we're not the average collection of a statistical data point - presumably we're better, more aware drivers. A lot of other people would say good/bad in this case would be all in context to vehicle involved, driving skill, condition of the road/weather, and relevant surroundings like how much traffic, etc.
You seemed like a nice guy on the run and it was enjoyable meeting and talking with you. I think you'd certainly want our sympathy if you were doing 47mph in a 45 zone and was charged with 'Exhibition of Speed' under this same vehicle code Peter was charged with and had your p-car impounded for 30 days before proof of guilt was even established. For that matter, even if you say you've never exceeded the legal limit, that's irrelevant. 'Exhibition of speed' can be charged even if all you got up to was 30mph in a 45 zone but in the officer's sole opinion "too fast" or "with intent to display speed".
He broke a moving violation law, but that's not what he was charged with. Assuming the facts related are truthful and all there is, I'm always sympathetic to anyone falsely or undeservedly charged with a crime not committed.
If the police officer had charged him with speeding and he was arguing it, then sure, what's the point. He broke that law and got caught as you say. But it seems like what you're saying is if someone commits legal violation A, but is charged with legal violation B, you don't care because they're guilty of A?
Weren't you also the one riding shotgun in Tysons GT2 this weekend on our 'spirited' drive up to and back from SB? Are you saying you've never done or would condone anyone else hitting the 75mph speed admitted to by Peter? Whether street or highway, there are appropriate places where you can easily hit 75mph with no more or less inherent danger than if you were going the posted limit, in my opinion.
I agree speeding accidents are bad, but come on - you're automatically linking 75mph to hosing down accident scenes without adequate context to this specific 75mph occurence. A lot of people believe any speeding above posted limit = accidents and that's fine, statistics would say you're completely right. But we're not the average collection of a statistical data point - presumably we're better, more aware drivers. A lot of other people would say good/bad in this case would be all in context to vehicle involved, driving skill, condition of the road/weather, and relevant surroundings like how much traffic, etc.
You seemed like a nice guy on the run and it was enjoyable meeting and talking with you. I think you'd certainly want our sympathy if you were doing 47mph in a 45 zone and was charged with 'Exhibition of Speed' under this same vehicle code Peter was charged with and had your p-car impounded for 30 days before proof of guilt was even established. For that matter, even if you say you've never exceeded the legal limit, that's irrelevant. 'Exhibition of speed' can be charged even if all you got up to was 30mph in a 45 zone but in the officer's sole opinion "too fast" or "with intent to display speed".
Trending Topics
03-23-2004, 07:30 PM
#9
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moz, I agree with everything you've said in response to Fred's post. With regard to Peter's situation, you are right, the first thing to do was to hire a lawyer, especially given the gravity of the charges. Anyways, I thought you were a software hacker, not a litigator...? 
Sunday was a fun drive, I'd never been through Ojai. I didn't get to enjoy the scenery as much as I may have liked given the "spirited" driving
Sunday was a fun drive, I'd never been through Ojai. I didn't get to enjoy the scenery as much as I may have liked given the "spirited" driving
03-23-2004, 07:43 PM
#11
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mozhacker
Did you end up having to pay the impound fees for whatever number of days your car was impounded up to the maximum of 30 days?
Did you end up having to pay the impound fees for whatever number of days your car was impounded up to the maximum of 30 days?
Yes, that was $1100 bucks.
Peter
03-23-2004, 08:01 PM
#12
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mozhacker
However, I asked above about whether you paid the impound fees because based on what you said about getting the charge knocked down to a regular moving violation, you are liable for $0, repeat zero costs, for the impound towing, storage, and any other related fees. If you paid to get your car out of impound, you just got screwed.
I AGREE, HOWEVER, THE 30 DAYS WAS UP LAST MONTH AND I COULD EITHER WAIT FOR MY COURT DATE WHILE MY CAR IS POTENTIALLY PICKING UP MORE STORAGE FEES OR JUST PAY OF IT AND GET IT OUT OF IMPOUND YARD.
Furthermore, a loophole of the law is that even if you were charged and an impound duration set, if your car was released prior to serving the full 30 days, you also owe no fees. 23109.2, section 2(c), para (3) - If, pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) a motor vehicle is released prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period, neither the person charged with a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 23109 nor the registered owner of the motor vehicle is responsible for towing and storage charges nor shall the motor vehicle be sold to satisfy those charges.
I TRIED TO GET A IMPOUND HEARING FROM THE SHERIFF STATION AND BASICLY THEY BLINDLY SAY TO ME THAT THE 30 DAY IMPOUND IS MANDATORY EVEN WHEN I PULLED OUT THE V.C. AND SHOW THEM THAT IT IS NOT MANDATORY.
As far as your storage hearing, good news and bad news - good news is indeed you are right and will be legally owed the hearing. Bad news is that you are not owed this right until Jan 1, 2007. Specifically, the VC 23109 section 3 was ADDED to the code to include these refinements, but was specifically worded in SB 1489 that g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2007.
Given no physical evidence, your refutal as to tire tracks, or a positive match as to who laid them down even if there were, and no citation to speed on the ticket, a good lawyer would have had a field day with the police officer's testimony in court.
YEAH, BUT THEN I THOUGHT THE OFFER WAS SEMI-FAIR TO THE POINT THAT I DON'T WANT TO RISK "MY WORD AGAINST THE POLICE" SITUATION
And by the way, it is your right to ask the officer to recite his police report from memory and not read directly from it when in court. The only reason officers routinely read back automatically what they wrote without having to really remember and therefore truly enter testimony as to what they personally recollected happened is because people and judges let them. However, if you exercise your right to have your accuser provide direct testimony, there are a lot of potential contradictions which you can bring to the court's attention.
THANK YOU, VERY GOOD POINT THAT I WILL REMEMBER IF (KNOCK ON WOOD) SOMETHING SIMILAR HAPPENS AGAIN.
However, I asked above about whether you paid the impound fees because based on what you said about getting the charge knocked down to a regular moving violation, you are liable for $0, repeat zero costs, for the impound towing, storage, and any other related fees. If you paid to get your car out of impound, you just got screwed.
I AGREE, HOWEVER, THE 30 DAYS WAS UP LAST MONTH AND I COULD EITHER WAIT FOR MY COURT DATE WHILE MY CAR IS POTENTIALLY PICKING UP MORE STORAGE FEES OR JUST PAY OF IT AND GET IT OUT OF IMPOUND YARD.
Furthermore, a loophole of the law is that even if you were charged and an impound duration set, if your car was released prior to serving the full 30 days, you also owe no fees. 23109.2, section 2(c), para (3) - If, pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) a motor vehicle is released prior to the conclusion of the impoundment period, neither the person charged with a violation of subdivision (a) of Section 23109 nor the registered owner of the motor vehicle is responsible for towing and storage charges nor shall the motor vehicle be sold to satisfy those charges.
I TRIED TO GET A IMPOUND HEARING FROM THE SHERIFF STATION AND BASICLY THEY BLINDLY SAY TO ME THAT THE 30 DAY IMPOUND IS MANDATORY EVEN WHEN I PULLED OUT THE V.C. AND SHOW THEM THAT IT IS NOT MANDATORY.
As far as your storage hearing, good news and bad news - good news is indeed you are right and will be legally owed the hearing. Bad news is that you are not owed this right until Jan 1, 2007. Specifically, the VC 23109 section 3 was ADDED to the code to include these refinements, but was specifically worded in SB 1489 that g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2007.
Given no physical evidence, your refutal as to tire tracks, or a positive match as to who laid them down even if there were, and no citation to speed on the ticket, a good lawyer would have had a field day with the police officer's testimony in court.
YEAH, BUT THEN I THOUGHT THE OFFER WAS SEMI-FAIR TO THE POINT THAT I DON'T WANT TO RISK "MY WORD AGAINST THE POLICE" SITUATION
And by the way, it is your right to ask the officer to recite his police report from memory and not read directly from it when in court. The only reason officers routinely read back automatically what they wrote without having to really remember and therefore truly enter testimony as to what they personally recollected happened is because people and judges let them. However, if you exercise your right to have your accuser provide direct testimony, there are a lot of potential contradictions which you can bring to the court's attention.
THANK YOU, VERY GOOD POINT THAT I WILL REMEMBER IF (KNOCK ON WOOD) SOMETHING SIMILAR HAPPENS AGAIN.
03-23-2004, 08:05 PM
#13
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Fred R. C4S
You broke the law, got caught, and got the charges diminished. What I am I missing here? I'm having a difficult time trying to relate or feel sympathetic. If you EVER happened upon a motor vehicle accident occurring at the speeds you indicated, I absolutely guarantee you would lose your lunch. I get tired of hosing down accident scenes.
Sorry,
You broke the law, got caught, and got the charges diminished. What I am I missing here? I'm having a difficult time trying to relate or feel sympathetic. If you EVER happened upon a motor vehicle accident occurring at the speeds you indicated, I absolutely guarantee you would lose your lunch. I get tired of hosing down accident scenes.
Sorry,
Nothing to be sorry about. I agree w/ you if I was going the 90mph that the police claimed, but I was going somewhere in the 70's and even 60's on a 7 lane major road. And I defintely was'nt racing w/ the CLK, I did'nt even notice him until he blast passed me at which point, I actually slowed down more. I have no problem w/ the charges if I was in fact guilty.
It's the fact that I am not guilty of that charge" speed contest " that pissed me off.
Peter
03-23-2004, 08:12 PM
#14
Range Master
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Pepsie Lite
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Cogent arguement Moz............very cogent. Nice to have such clear thinking here on what is otherwise often an emptional subject.
my compliments
my compliments
03-23-2004, 08:18 PM
#15
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mozhacker:
One finall point I like to make is that I've spoke to several lawyers regarding this case. And the general reaction is that " okay, what would you like to plead this down to???" or " I can plead this down to ????" for 1500 to 1800.
2 would actually consider taking this to the trial but the fee's they're talking about range from 9g to 11g.
I decided to go to court and see if I can do what they say they were going to do for 1500 bucks which is plead it down to an infraction and I did that. If I was'nt happy w/ what the DA was offering, I can always ask for an continuonce to get an attorney at that point. My thoughts are I am guilty of speeding anyways and I am fine w/ the penalty that comes w/ that.
If I would have try to fight this to get off it clean, I would've racked up a 10g lawyer fee which would seriously **** off my wife.
I guess it's just the matter of how much justice can you afford to buy, and this is a fair resolution for in this case for me. Other then the impound that is.
Peter
One finall point I like to make is that I've spoke to several lawyers regarding this case. And the general reaction is that " okay, what would you like to plead this down to???" or " I can plead this down to ????" for 1500 to 1800.
2 would actually consider taking this to the trial but the fee's they're talking about range from 9g to 11g.
I decided to go to court and see if I can do what they say they were going to do for 1500 bucks which is plead it down to an infraction and I did that. If I was'nt happy w/ what the DA was offering, I can always ask for an continuonce to get an attorney at that point. My thoughts are I am guilty of speeding anyways and I am fine w/ the penalty that comes w/ that.
If I would have try to fight this to get off it clean, I would've racked up a 10g lawyer fee which would seriously **** off my wife.
I guess it's just the matter of how much justice can you afford to buy, and this is a fair resolution for in this case for me. Other then the impound that is.
Peter