Car collision but no damage: Call the police? Recently one of my friends was involved in a bumper related collision during a rainy day. The collision resulted in no damage to either car. Would my friend at, this point, have been able to: 1. Drive away without legal ramifications (designated hit and run) 2. Drive away after no damage was agreed by drivers and information was exchanged. After inspecting damage, the other person then called the police to file a report. I learned in our drivers ED that the police do not need to be contacted for collisions resulting in 1000$ or less damage.** Once the police come to file a report, they are also forced to designate one of the drivers as the cause of the collision and charge that person with a traffic violation (really anything possible). Given that there was no damage and both drivers had exchanged information, could my friend have driven away before/after the police were called, thus dodging the fine that the police would be forced to give? ** May not be exact/reliable or misinterpreted. This is in Wisconsin.
Some states allow you to just exchange information and then each party files their own accident report with the police and the DOT within an allowed amount of time, so long as the cars are only minimally damaged and nobody is hurt. If one party wants the police there, it is standard to wait. If both decide it not necessary, it is fine to leave. Either way, leaving or staying does not give rise to the avoidance of a finding of fault against one party or another. The state of Wisconsin is a Tort State (as opposed to a no-fault state). These are insurance related issues as opposed to legal issues, but utterly intertwined. The accident reports filed by each party, any police reports and other relevant data will be submitted to the DMV and the insurance, and the insurance companies will assign fault if the DMV or police haven't, either by agreement or inter-company arbitration. Relating to your question, however, you will see the processes required HERE. In part, it states the following: REPORTING AN ACCIDENT TO THE WISCONSIN DOT In some situations, you must report an accident to the Wisconsin Police. If the police were unable to file an accident report, you must complete and submit a Driver Accident Report within 10 days of an accident, if any of the following apply: The accident caused injury or death. Property damage to at least one person's property amounted to $1,000 or more. Damage to government property, other than vehicles, amounted to $200 or more. If you fail to report an accident to the Wisconsin DOT, you may have your license suspended. In the event that another driver offers to pay for damages and asks you not to report an accident, you are still required to file the report in any of the situations outlined above. Your report must include detailed and current information regarding your insurance coverage. The DOT will cross-check this information with the insurance company shown on the report. If you did not have liability insurance when the accident occurred and were unable to provide restitution for injuries or damages sustained due to your negligence, your driving privileges will be suspended. You will be required to file proof of future financial responsibility (SR-22) in order to have your driving privileges reinstated. Make a copy of the accident report form for your personal records. You can mail the original directly to: Traffic Accident Section, Wisconsin Department Of Transportation, Po Box 7919, Madison, WI 53707-7919 As you can see, from your interpretation/description, you were not technically required to deal with the police, but you were required to exchange information, assess and give aid to the extent possible to the other driver, and so if the other called for emergency intervention it may be the other driver disagreed w/ one of these assessments (damage or injury).** If you did exchange information, took photos, etc., you are probably ok. If not, certainly that will be problematic. **I know you are saying there was no damage or injury. However, while you are saying this is what the other driver acquiesced to, it may be that it is not the case either afterward or he/she wanted to avoid (potentially dangerous) interaction at the scene. That said, while you can clearly see the situations by which the police are necessitated, you also indicate the other driver called the police. In that case, you probably should have stayed once you were alerted to that fact, as leaving puts you in the precarious position of only the other driver's side being documented by the police, and your absence may lead the officer to find you at fault or with something to hide. The officer will file a report, either way, of which you must get a copy. If he disagrees with your assessment of the damage/injury and feels you left in the face of those situations proscribed, you will know because you will be arrested or summoned for leaving the scene. That is to be determined by the reporting officer. In the future, if there is an accident and one driver explicitly states the police have been called, you should wait. You don't have to say anything at all to the officer, if you don't want to. In most states, all you need to do is give the officer your driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. It always looks worse to leave the scene knowing they are coming, since it may lead to a determination that it was illegal to do so. Whereas, no additional harm can come from remaining present. So far, I cannot find a state statute there whereby it is explicitly illegal to leave once one driver calls for emergency assistance. If I find this I will amend my answer and cite it.
Say I build myself a faraday cage/wave screen around my house, potentially resulting in poor nework coverage for my neighbours. Questions about land property and constructing permits apart, can I be sued for that? By the network operator? by the neighbours? In most countries, the use of the radio spectrum is regulated (who may send what on which frequency, at which power, etc.). As part of these regulations it is usually forbidden to interfere with the reception of radio waves. So if what you do causes your neighbours to have reception problems, then yes, that will most likely be illegal. In France, the government agency responsible for these problems is ARCEP (Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes). If someone notices reception problems, they can complain to ARCEP, as explained for example on the page Le traitement des plaintes en brouillage ("Handling of complaints about jamming"). While you will probably not go to prision for jamming reception, you could have to pay a significant fine. This article on cell phone jamming mentions a penalty of "up to six months in prison or a 30,000 € fine" for "selling or installing" a cell phone jammer. In addition to that, anyone harmed by the reception problems could sue you in civil court and try to collect financial damages (how much that would be will be up to a judge to decide). That said, note that a faraday cage around your house should not hinder reception outside your house. A faraday cage only influences reception inside the cage, not outside. However, that is off-topic here :-).
(Converting comment into an answer) You could sue for criminal damage, if any actual damage is caused during the removal of those notices - however, that will cost you an initial outlay in solicitors fees and court costs and isn't guaranteed to have a successful outcome. You could also just take this as a learnable event and not park in other peoples spots? The owner of the parking spot may have the legal right to have your car removed at your expense, and/or issue you with a penalty charge if suitable notices have been posted, so you might consider yourself to have got off lightly here perhaps?
A related post is here. Are police required to record in car dashcam video for traffic tickets in NJ, USA? Probably not. Is there any way to find out if they aren’t telling the truth? Ask and hope you are not lied to. Can I contact the police chief, mayor, or municipal judge? You can contact the police chief or mayor if you can get through to them. They are not required to answer you unless you make a formal discovery request or public records request. You cannot make ex parte contact with a judge when the other side's lawyer (in this case, the city's lawyer) is not present. How can I defend myself in court trial if the judge always believes highly credible police officers over defendants if I don’t have video? You can tell your side of the story under oath with any details that makes your story believable. You are correct that the judge will usually believe the police officer and not you. So, usually you will lose. This is one reason that most people try to plea bargain their traffic tickets, rather than going to trial. Due process rights give you an opportunity to tell your side of the story when contesting a ticket, but it doesn't give you a right to win (even if you are actually in the right) if the judge or other trier of fact doesn't believe what you have to say. It does not appear that you have a right to a jury trial in a traffic case in New Jersey, although this depends to some extent on the kind of violation being charged, so you are probably stuck with the beliefs of the municipal court judge about who is the more credible witness.
I've contested many of my own traffic tickets in a state where traffic tickets are also considered misdemeanor criminal violations. I would appear in court before the time limit on your ticket. I'd plead not guilty, and I would not waive any rights- which means I would request a trial by jury. Under Georgia law you do have the right to a jury trial IF your ticket is not considered a petty offense. Otherwise you can have a bench trial. If your case starts in a Municipal Court and you request a jury trial, the case will be sent to the State or Superior Court of that county. Jury trials on traffic citations are rare, but it is probably a good tactic because you might be able to work out a better solution than you can in Municipal court. Once the court accepts your plea, then I would make sure the court set a pre-trial hearing. At this hearing make a motion to the judge that you would like the dash-cam video of the officer and the vehicle he stopped you in. If the prosecutor argues that it's not relevant (and they might) explain to the judge why they are relevant (the officer didn't realize exactly what intersection you were at). IMPORTANT: Introduction of your own evidence requires that you 'lay the foundation' of the evidence. This usually means that you must declare officially in court, in front of the prosecution, that your evidence (pictures you take, etc.) are taken by you, and that they are 'true and correct' representations of the location where the alleged offense took place, and that the date and time was (whatever it was). You usually must state this while under oath. OTHERWISE, the prosecution will object to your evidence most likely on the grounds of no foundation. Please read up on how to lay the foundation in either a trial or in a pre-trial setting. For something like this you might need to just present the evidence and lay your foundation at trial. So you'll need to read up on how to lay foundation and present your evidence at trial. You could get lucky and the officer won't show up at trial. So in that case I would make a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (you can't cross examine a witness that didn't show up) You'll get to choose jurors, etc. in a process called Voire Dire. So read up on that too. You will not be forced to testify if you don't want to (because of the constitutional right to not incriminate yourself) but if you do choose to testify, the prosecution can ask you questions).
I couldn't find any decisions on CanLII where someone was punished for a fictitious or out-of-province front plate in Alberta, however the Traffic Safety Act states the following: 1(1)(s) “licence plate” means a licence plate that is issued under this Act and includes an object that is recognized under this Act as a licence plate; (9) For the purposes of sections 1(1)(rr) and 11.1 and Part 8, licence plate includes a licence plate issued in another jurisdiction. 53(1) Except as otherwise permitted under this Act, a person shall not do any of the following: (b) display on a motor vehicle or trailer a licence plate other than a licence plate issued or authorized for use on that vehicle; (c) operate or park a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway with an expired licence plate displayed on it; (Part 8) 168(1) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe (a) that a vehicle is displaying licence plates that (i) were not issued for that vehicle . . . the peace officer may seize and take possession of the licence plates displayed on that vehicle. 169(1) A peace officer may arrest a person without warrant if the peace officer, on reasonable grounds, believes . . . (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the following are the provisions for which a person may be arrested without a warrant: (c) section 53(1)(b) relating to the displaying of a licence plate other than one authorized under this Act; While the connection of the extended definition in s.9 to s.53(1) is a little vague, the connection to Part 8 is not, and therefore I can confidently say that the Act clearly states it is a violation to use out-of-province plates on the front of a vehicle. The plates can be seized and you may be arrested. It may further be a violation of the BC Motor Vehicle Act if/when you travel there.
He is mistaken. The statute of limitations for suing someone for a car accident, and for enforcing an oral promise, are both far longer than 3-4 months. You could get an estimate of the damages, report it to his insurance company, and, if the insurance company does not cooperate promptly, bring suit in a court of limited jurisdiction or a small claims court. Even if you don't retain a lawyer to take on the case for you fully, if you need to sue, you should hire a lawyer to coach you on the high points of how to represent yourself in this case, particularly with regard to how to fill out the Complaint, how to serve the other driver with process, and what evidence you need to present in what manner a trial.
You have the right to notify the owner of the car of their vehicular trespass and the consequences of that. You do not have the right to damage the car in giving said notice. You have the right to offer to clean the gum off whatever part of the car you stuck the notice to. If you succeed in cleaning it,the other party will not have a legal cause of action, in all likelihood, since there is no damage (though with a bit of imagination they might come up with some 'missed business opportunity' loss). The court would probably find your choice of sticker to be negligent (put the notice under the wipers? use painter's tape -get some if you don't have any). The rationale 'we had no other choice' holds no water: there are alternatives. 'Criminal Damages' is a concept in UK law, but it relates to willful damage such as vandalism, not accidents. It would be an issue if you had planned to cause damage, but that seems not to be the case here.