Page 1 of 6

No proof of insurance ticket is STEEP

Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 11:03 pm
by Luke
I got pulled over by some jerk cop the night before my birthday and got a ticket for having no proof of insurance and no proof of registration. The cop said it was no big deal and that I simply had to go down to the court and show them I had these things, so I was like OK, whatever. So... today I get the ticket in the mail and it says I owe like $750 if I don't show proof of insurance and $250 if I do. I find this to be a little excessive, don't you? I do have proof of both, but even though I have the proof, I still owe $250?? Does anybody in CA know if I am reading the ticket wrong? If not, I find this unconstitutional. I remember clearly reading "No excessive bail or fine will be instated" or something to that degree in the constitution. $250 for forgetting a piece of paper at home is definitely excessive! 8O :evil:

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 3:08 am
by shiznatix
don't worry, when you go to complain and tell them how wrong it is you will get this response: "If you have any problems with the current process, please contact your elected representative"

same thing happened to me when my license plate was 1 day expired. I had bills on that ticket for an ambulance, emergency services, and a load of other things that where not involved in any way shape or form. There is nothing you can do but get an expensive lawyer and take it to court and then you will be stuck with lawyer fees. The system is broken but it is designed so that if you try to fix it, you are worse off than if you had just taken your original punishment.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 5:37 am
by Chris Corbyn
That's harsh man 8O :( In the UK it's not even a requirement to carry your license with you, nor your other documents. You just have to show them within 48 hours or something like that.

It might be worth a shot threatening legal action, not with the intent of pursuing it but because they probably have enough paperwork as it is and could waive the fine if they see it as a big hassle. That said, if that's the law in black and white then I'm not sure what grounds you'd have to complain on. Can these fines be paid in installments if they are issued to people who simply cannot produce $250 on the spot?

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 5:54 am
by Jenk
Seems we are indeed fortunate enough to not have such a drastic system in place.. sounds as if you are being penalised just for being pulled over :\

We (UK'ers) get upto 14 day "producers" where we must provide what we can't show on the spot, at the station within those 14 days, but it's at the officers discretion and they will normally only issue you one if you are being cocky etc. or have something like tyres that are borderline illegal.

I think I set a new record when I received 14 producers in one month :| not been pulled once since I sold that car.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:38 am
by feyd
Well.. it's the law in California... and there are sooooo many idiots driving around without insurance that get in accidents and cost everybody a lot of money.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 6:55 am
by shiznatix
feyd wrote:Well.. it's the law in California... and there are sooooo many idiots driving around without insurance that get in accidents and cost everybody a lot of money.
not to get too political, but i can't stand the mentality that because one person screws up the rest of society must pay for it. the person who screwed up should pay, not the innocent.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:07 am
by feyd
shiznatix wrote:not to get too political, but i can't stand the mentality that because one person screws up the rest of society must pay for it. the person who screwed up should pay, not the innocent.
I hate it too, but if they can't pay... we pay for them anyways.. they may lose their license or whatever.. it doesn't mean they likely stop driving however.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:44 am
by Jenk
feyd wrote:Well.. it's the law in California... and there are sooooo many idiots driving around without insurance that get in accidents and cost everybody a lot of money.
Is it law that you must carry the documents with you, or just law that you must be insured?

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:47 am
by feyd
Jenk wrote:Is it law that you must carry the documents with you, or just law that you must be insured?
Proof of insurance. i.e. documents. They, along with a valid drivers license (or state/federal ID) are supposed to be in the car or on your person at all times.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:21 am
by Charles256
$250 is far from excessive.... everyone can afford it (they more than likely do payments) so calling it unconstitutional sounds more like you being <span style='color:blue' title='I'm naughty, are you naughty?'>smurf</span> off for being fined ;)

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 9:54 am
by dreamscape
If you keep your vehicle registration and insurance cards in the glove box, then you never have to worry about not having them when you drive the vehicle.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:03 am
by pickle
Same law in Canada. You've got to have the documents readily available or you get a fine.

Doesn't seem that excessive. You want to see excessive - don't go down to the courthouse ;)

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:01 am
by RobertGonzalez
Was it a 16020(a) or a 16028(a)? I am assuming the second one. In any event, the fees associated with the citation are dependent upon the municipality issuing the citation. If a city officer wrote the citation, it could carry with it a totally different fee than if a county sheriff issued. Same applies for if the CHP issued it. Each represent their own municipality when issuing citations, and each can issue the citation for any of the other municipalities that it chooses (which means that a police officer could in fact issue you a higher priced ticket by citing you on a different vehicle code - Cal Vehicle Code versuse Butte County Vehicle code versus Chico City Code). There are also Municipal Code and Penal Codes, each carrying varying fees.

For California, $250 bucks seems about par for a Failure to provide financial responsibility. A few years ago, they would have impounded your car and issued you two citations which would have totalled a little over $1200 in this situation.

Who issued the citation?

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:07 am
by RobertGonzalez
Jenk wrote:
feyd wrote:Well.. it's the law in California... and there are sooooo many idiots driving around without insurance that get in accidents and cost everybody a lot of money.
Is it law that you must carry the documents with you, or just law that you must be insured?
California states that you must have valid liability insurance for any vehicle that is being operated on a California roadway along with valid registration and a valid driver license. All three are asked for when you get pulled over, and in the event you fail to produce even one of them, the police have every right to impound your vehicle and issue you a citation. This applies to all vehicles driven in California, even if from out of state, though out of state driver licenses are allowed as long as they are valid and as long as you have not established residency in California within the last 30 days.

Most officers do not impound vehicles because it requires a hell of a lot of paperwork on their part back at the station. A citation, however, brings them much joy as they are able to successfully hit their citation targets as well as bring in municipal funds through the citation.

Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:50 am
by Jenk
I gathered that much, we have the same - everyone must have Insurance, valid MOT (Ministry of Transport test) certificate for the vehicle, and valid Tax, but it's not compulsory to carry proof of insurance and ownership of vehicle with you :)