So, is anyone good with legal stuff?

[Automan2164]

Usually even with ordinances, you can look them up on the city's website. Being that its a college town, I bet the have a site, and would have a PDF of codes/ordinances.

 

Rob

[AMCJeepMJ]

Well, depending on how poor you are, you may be able to have the court appoint you a public defender for free. I can't comment on how good a public defender would be, but it's much better legal representation than none at all. I suspect that your public defender and the prosecutor will just have a little chat, and work out some kind of plea bargain to give you a lesser charge, but you'll still have to pay a fine. A private defender (although it will cost you money) may actually try to get the ticket dropped entirely, but would also more than likely get you a plea bargain.

 

Court appointed attorneys aren't always free- they sometimes they just have a list of attorneys for a court to throw defendants to (and you have to pay). Not all give a crap, but some do. Your best bet, even if you're poor, is to consult with an attorney who is familiar with the the local laws and ordinances, and pay the 100 dollar consultation charge (or however much it is) to see exactly where you stand with this antique vehicle. Obviously it was designed to carry firefighters per the standards when it was built new. Perhaps some digging on what the state laws were when the firetruck was manufactured would be time well spent, since the truck had to meet the laws/standards/regulations/etc of the time to be put to use. There very well may be an exception for firetrucks, but it may be seen as a parade or special occasion/event vehicle and have a fine to pay in the end. Remember, if you lose, you will have that reckless endangerment or whatever it was hanging over you next time you get pulled over and less slack will be cut when you are pulled over in the future.

 

Remember too, that the prosecutor's job other than to win, is to make you feel small, that everything you did was wrong, that you are a danger to society by your actions, what a horrible person you are, and to destroy your case. They go to law school for years to do this and it is nothing like Judge Judy or People's Court. Having an attorney on your side (paid or not) is better than going in by yourself and having a crash and burn (and a traffic conviction) as a result.

[kro10000]

The Pittsburg ordinance was G1099 section 115,

 

But I have a copy and can quote it here:

 

Sec. 115. Unlawful Riding on Vehicles; Persons 14 Years of Age and Older

 

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person 14 years of age or older to ride on any vehicle or upon any portion thereof not designed or

intended for use of passengers when the vehicle is in motion.

(B) It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to allow any person 14 years of age or older to ride on any vehicle or upon any

portion thereof not designed or intended for the use of passengers when the vehicle is in motion.

 

© This section shall not apply to:

 

(1) An employee engaged in the necessary discharge of the employee's duty within truck bodies in space intended for

merchandise or cargo; or

(2) When the vehicle is being operated in parades, caravans or expeditions which are officially authorized or otherwise

permitted by law

[Sir Sam]

The Pittsburg ordinance was G1099 section 115,

 

But I have a copy and can quote it here:

 

Sec. 115. Unlawful Riding on Vehicles; Persons 14 Years of Age and Older

 

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person 14 years of age or older to ride on any vehicle or upon any portion thereof not designed or

intended for use of passengers when the vehicle is in motion.

(B) It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to allow any person 14 years of age or older to ride on any vehicle or upon any

portion thereof not designed or intended for the use of passengers when the vehicle is in motion.

 

© This section shall not apply to:

 

(1) An employee engaged in the necessary discharge of the employee's duty within truck bodies in space intended for

merchandise or cargo; or

(2) When the vehicle is being operated in parades, caravans or expeditions which are officially authorized or otherwise

permitted by law

 

Nice, seems like the argument that "it was intended for use by passengers" is a valid one in this case.

[whowey]

If you are trying to find literature that supports your claim the bed was intended for transporting firefighters, there is one point noone mentioned. Even though the chassis is a Ford. The body is more likely than not, another manufacturer. These manufacturers would buy commercial chassis and put their own bodies on them, because they did not build the drivetrain.

[Dechion]

The Pittsburg ordinance was G1099 section 115,

 

But I have a copy and can quote it here:

 

Sec. 115. Unlawful Riding on Vehicles; Persons 14 Years of Age and Older

 

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person 14 years of age or older to ride on any vehicle or upon any portion thereof not designed or

intended for use of passengers when the vehicle is in motion.

(B) It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to allow any person 14 years of age or older to ride on any vehicle or upon any

portion thereof not designed or intended for the use of passengers when the vehicle is in motion.

 

© This section shall not apply to:

 

(1) An employee engaged in the necessary discharge of the employee's duty within truck bodies in space intended for

merchandise or cargo; or

(2) When the vehicle is being operated in parades, caravans or expeditions which are officially authorized or otherwise

permitted by law

 

Actually it could be argued that the firefighters originaly riding in the back were not covered by the design clause (B) but were actually covered by the exception in (C-1) as they were employees engaged in activity necessary discharge of the thier duty.

 

Not trying to shoot you down, but if I was the prosecuter that would be my argument.

[jpnjim]

The Pittsburg ordinance was G1099 section 115,

 

But I have a copy and can quote it here:

 

Sec. 115. Unlawful Riding on Vehicles; Persons 14 Years of Age and Older

 

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person 14 years of age or older to ride on any vehicle or upon any portion thereof not designed or

intended for use of passengers when the vehicle is in motion.

(B) It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to allow any person 14 years of age or older to ride on any vehicle or upon any

portion thereof not designed or intended for the use of passengers when the vehicle is in motion.

 

© This section shall not apply to:

 

(1) An employee engaged in the necessary discharge of the employee's duty within truck bodies in space intended for

merchandise or cargo; or

(2) When the vehicle is being operated in parades, caravans or expeditions which are officially authorized or otherwise

permitted by law

 

Actually it could be argued that the firefighters originaly riding in the back were not covered by the design clause (B) but were actually covered by the exception in (C-1) as they were employees engaged in activity necessary discharge of the thier duty.

 

Not trying to shoot you down, but if I was the prosecuter that would be my argument.

 

They could also say that fire fighters are specially trained to ride back there. :doh:

 

 

But since the manufacturer designed it to hold people (assuming they didn't offer special training to ride back there in the 1930's), I think you can still argue it's for passenger use.

[kro10000]

Yeah, I think I am going to try to find a lawyer. I think if law experience was equal there are many better points to be made on my side than the city's, but unfortunately I don't speak law.

 

Thanks for the advice guys

 

If nothing else I could prove that I was negligent seeing as any time we were ever pulled over before about it, the cop would say everyone needs to be sitting down, or everyone needs to be standing up, or no one can ride on the water tank. We never got a ticket as far as I know, and it has been almost 30 years. Also I was just elected fire chief this semester, so all I knew about the truck was from the previous one.

 

Hopefully I can either find a Pike that is a lawyer, or one of our alumni willing to offer the use of his lawyer.

 

If I can't I am considering conceding, and just pleading no contest :(

[SubSonic]

Yea, no need for an attorney in this situation it is not the time or place, nor will they even consider giving you a public defender because it is a Class C Misd. (i.e. nothing)

 

I'm a 4th year CJUS Major and have more than my fair share of dealings with the court, oxymoronic, yes, I know... but this should be an easy win for you.

 

I have a 67 Mustang, in my state I am grandfathered into not having to wear seatbelts, (although I have since installed shoulder belts), this was an easy win.

 

Simply state that the vehicle is of age __, designated for the purpose of carrying passengers, and is not bound by todays safety laws, but, instead, only the laws that applied at the time of manufacture.

 

Also, I recently beat a registration/inspection ticket on an XJ I had purchased the same night by writing a letter to the judge, call/visit, and see if this option is available, if so, you will not have to make the drive back up for the court date.

 

You should have no problem winning this, people are expected to represent themselves in traffic cases, (most, but not all, do), and in the worst case, you lose and your out the same $35. So there is no advantage to pleading no contest now. That option is simply there to make you feel better.