My son was in a minor accident (he was stopped at a red light and rear-ended, 100% the other driver’s fault). He did not have his driver’s license with him, although he is licensed. He showed the officer (Henrico County, Va., police) a photo of his driver’s license on his phone, and the officer took his license number for the accident report.
The officer wrote him a ticket for no driver’s license. The ticket cites Va. code 46.2-300
No person, except those expressly exempted in §§ 46.2-303 through 46.2-308, shall drive any motor vehicle on any highway in the Commonwealth until such person has applied for a driver’s license, as provided in this article, satisfactorily passed the examination required by § 46.2-325, and obtained a driver’s license, nor unless the license is valid.
The cited law does not say you must carry your license on your person, just that you must have obtained one. There may be another law that says that, but that’s not the cite on the ticket.
It seems to me this is a slam dunk although an inconvenient one. I am assuming that my son just needs to show up for the court date, show his driver’s license, and say he was not in violation of the cited law.
Every person licensed by the Department as a driver or issued a learner’s or temporary driver’s permit who fails to carry his license or permit, and the registration card for the vehicle which he operates, is guilty of a traffic infraction and upon conviction punished by a fine of $10. However, if any person summoned to appear before a court for failure to display his license, permit, or registration card presents, before the return date of the summons, to the court a license or permit issued to him prior to the time the summons was issued or a registration card, as the case may be, or appears pursuant to the summons and produces before the court a license or permit issued to him prior to the time the summons was issued or a registration card, as the case may be, he shall, upon payment of all applicable court costs, have complied with the provisions of this section.
So he basically has to show the judge that he’s guilty of the law I cited and not the one he was ticketed under (which has much greater penalties). But it’s just traffic court and should be a slam dunk so long as junior is courteous, contrite, and prepared. Make sure he doesn’t try to evade responsibility altogether and he should be fine.
Helps alot if he has a lawyer. Judges tend to take lawyers citing codes over a juviniles. The right lawyer can make the right argument that your kid most likely will miss. I’ve seen kids try and fight a ticket, the follow up questions make them look like a deer in the headlights or they start ranting.
Or just pay the $10. Are there any points on his license for this? Is it worth fighting?
I figured there must be a law like that but didn’t know about it. Basically it sounds like the cop wrote the wrong cite on the ticket. My thinking is that he doesn’t have to show that’s he’s guilty of some other violation, just that he’s not guilty of the one he was ticketed for. The judge can’t try him for something the police didn’t ticket him for.
Not that I know of. The point is that my son provided his license number, for a currently valid license, even though it was not in his possession, and the officer wrote that on the ticket as his license number. I do not know what check he may have run on that number, for validity or past violations. The problem is that the officer did not ticket him for failing to have his license in his possession, he ticketed him for not having a valid license at all.
A picture of an ID is not the same as showing you have an ID. It only means that at some point he had something that looked a lot like one side of a driver’s license. Best I can tell, the cop wrote the right ticket for the evidence he was presented with.
I have no idea, but I wouldn’t recommend that he try telling the judge what he can’t do. Just go in and pay the ten bucks. Your son was absolutely in the wrong here. He should’ve had his license.
It all comes down to what the state defines as “driving with your license.” You can argue that he had his license with him, but it was a digital copy. Let’s see if that flies.
I think you’re missing the point. Look again at the law cited in the OP. His son was cited for not having a valid license, not just for not having his license with him.
There seem to be multiple points muddied together here, and people are responding without reading the cited laws.
My son indeed was in violation of 46.2-104. This requires you to have your driver’s license in your possession while driving. But that’s not what he was charged with. If that had been what was written on the ticket, he would send in proof of his license, pay court costs, and be done with it.
He was charged with 46.2-300, which means that to drive you must have “applied for a driver’s license, as provided in this article, satisfactorily passed the examination…and obtained a driver’s license, nor unless the license is valid.” This means you are not licensed to drive, at all, and is a misdemeanor. I do not want him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor just to “get on with his life.”
My expectation is that a judge will render a verdict based on what he was charged with, and not charge him with something else on the fly from the bench. He is clearly not guilty of what he was charged with. (Even if he had been charged with lack of possession, that would be dismissed upon presentation of a valid driver’s license and he would be liable for court costs. All of which would be fine if that’s how it indeed turns out.)
That is the whole point of this thread. I am assuming that he shows up with his DL, says he had a valid driver’s license at the time of the ticket, and case is dismissed. I am trying to confirm my assumption is correct, or at least rational.
It seems to me that “Your honor, I can prove I’m innocent of Crime A because I’m in fact guilty of Crime B, but I wasn’t charged with crime B at all” shouldn’t be a slam-dunk defense. But I’m getting rapidly out of my depth here.
Your assumption seems correct and rational, but anything can happen in front of a judge. I think someone suggested you at least talk to an attorney. That’s not a terrible idea if you intend to fight it.