@ Sinaptic. You are correct re; post 4. (at least as I understand it). I can find no legal requirement that I provide information to the ticket send company.
Let me add a few more facts.
The Snitch ticket does NOT come from the police department. It comes from a private company that runs the camera service. The return address is “Traffic Enforcement Office” with an out of state address. The information they request is to be sent to their address, not the police department. The form provides three options when responding.
I sold the car on such and such a date, it wasn’t me.
I was the driver of the car. My name is etc. etc. etc.
The person driving the car is. Name, address, DL number, etc.etc.
They obviously realize there is a problem identifying the driver and are seeking my help.
I guess it’s not exactly the same thing, but my wife got a camera ticket a few months ago, and on that there were only two options on the first mailing: Your choices numbers 1 and 3. If you WERE the driver of the car you were instructed to do nothing, a second notice directly from the court would arrive later. And that’s what happened.
I guess in that case what she received is not what you guys are calling a “snitch” ticket? This was in the San Francisco area.
This website is mainly about California red light cameras, however, they do link to court decisions from around the country.
It appears as if the snitch tickets don’t carry any legal weight. Also, there has been at least one case where a judge dismissed the ticket due to a blurry photograph (not a snitch ticket).
I’m not licensed in your jurisdiction. And I’m not your lawyer, and you’re not my client. Since you’re asking me a question about a specific set of facts you’re dealing with, the best answer I can give you is: consult a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.
@ Sinaptics. I saw that site too. However, I’m really leery about internet advice.
@ Bricker. Sorry, it was meant as a general question, not a specific one. Let me see if rephrasing it helps any. Do 5th. amendment rights only apply to misdemeanors and felonies?
I think Bricker was commenting on the implication of the post that copping to the ticket may incriminate you in other crimes (i.e. I was on my way back from robbing a liquor store). In this instance you can’t just say that I refuse to answer because I may incriminate myself without the court having an idea of what you don’t want to incriminate yourself of. In other words, you can’t just cite a nebulous “I don’t want to incriminate myself” to avoid answering questions.
I’m still not clear on what happens if you ignore the snitch ticket. If they send you a real ticket and put the fine on you, I’d take it to court with the blury photo and would assume it would be dismissed. I certainly wouldn’t feel any moral obligation to have the (absurdly high) fine paid.
No, fifth amendment rights are generally applicable to “violations,” as well. They are always not applicable to civil liability, so you can’t claim count on the Fifth to avoid making damaging admissions as the defendant in a lawsuit. But if the damaging admission would also expose you to criminal liability, you may claim the Fifth even in a civil proceeding. But the finder of fact is allowed to use that claim against you… in a criminal trial, the jury can’t use the fact that you didn’t testify against you. In a civil trial, they are allowed to conclude that you were hiding something damaging to your case.
Remember that this is general information, and some specific fact about your specific set of factual circumstances may drastically alter what I said. That’s why your best bet is to consult a lawyer, who can talk to you, develpo a complete picture of all relevant facts, and offer the best advice from those facts.
I mean, take a look at the picture. Do you recognize the blob? Probably not. Do they really expect you to play detective, and track down which one of your many friends or relatives may have borrowed your car that day? You’re very busy. If they can’t figure out who was driving, I can’t see how they can expect you to do their work for them.
Also, if you have clearly stated that it was not you driving (it was an Unknown person), I can’t see them having much success dragging you into court, where you simply need to point at the blurry picture and say “That is not me.” They have no proof that it is you. They have no case.
I don’t think there is a law that compels you to act as a detective for this private company.
Well, just to avoid complications for the OP. If he does no’t respond, the private company may simply assume that he admits he is the driver, and then he’ll have to go to court to say “I cannot tell who is the driver in this blobby photo.”
If the OP responds with UNKNOWN, then he his clearly stating that he is not the driver. He can’t tell who the blobby photo is any better than they can. And the case should be closed.
Just to be devil’s advocate – is that really going to work? Is the court really going to buy the argument that he doesn’t know who was driving his own car, just becasue the picture is blurry?
What’s he going to say? “Maybe someone stole it that day and then returned it my garage.” Judges are a little smarter than that.
I’m certainly not going to lie if I go to court on this. The black blur driving the car does not fit my physical description and I can honestly state that I can not identify the driver from that picture. I hope that would be enough. That’s as far as I can go and remain honest with the court.
The moral dilemma I faced and posted about is whether not snitching is acceptable behavior.
Thanks Bricker for the answer above. I understand you’re not offering me advice with respect to this matter,etc.