In most states, a speeding violation is a criminal offense, or, at the very least, a "quasi-criminal offense," that is, an act that can be punished by the courts as though it is a crime.

In either event, some standards that apply to purely criminal matters usually apply to prosecutions for speeding.

Burden of Proof and Speeding Violations

Typically, a speed law names a number of miles per hour at which a car can be driven and contains a general ban against driving at a speed greater than what is "reasonable and proper under the circumstances," such as weather conditions.

Under these typical laws, the State does not have to prove the exact speed of the driver's vehicle, as long as there is enough evidence showing that the driver was speeding. In addition, the State is not required to prove the exact location of where the speeding violation took place.

In many states, the prosecution must prove a driver's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the facts and evidence make it so clear that the driver committed the crime that the presumption of innocence- "innocent until proved guilty"- no longer applies.

However, in some states, the burden of proof for speeding is clear and convincing evidence. That is, the facts and evidence show that it is substantially more likely than not that the driver was speeding.

When confronted with a charge of speeding, therefore, it is important that you understand the speeding laws in your area and the burden of proof that State must meet in order to get a conviction.

Intent

Because speeding is a strict liability offense- that is, you can violate the law without being at "fault" or "careless"- the State doesn't have to prove that you intended to speed in order to convict you. Rather, driving in excess of the speed limit, by itself, establishes a prima facie case of a speeding violation- that is, simply by exceeding the speed limit, you have broken the law and can be punished unless you can show some valid defense.

However, the State needs to show that the driving at an excessive rate of speed was a voluntary act. So, the malfunction of the gas pedal or throttle, for example, might be sufficient to show that a driver's speeding was involuntary and was not a violation of a speeding law.

Procedural Rules and Constitutional Rights

As in all criminal cases, a defendant in a speeding prosecution is entitled to receive notice of the charges. An "accusatory instrument" is a document that tells a defendant which laws he supposedly broke. In speeding cases, a simple traffic information is usually sufficient, and it normally comes in the form of a traffic citation or "speeding ticket." The State can't take a speeding violation to trial without a valid "accusatory instrument" notice.

For example, if an officer signs a speeding ticket, but it is not "sworn to" or made under oath, there is no valid accusatory instrument and the driver cannot be convicted of speeding.

In addition, in many states, a person stopped for speeding who undergoes "custodial interrogation," which usually consists of questioning by officers at the police department, must be given Miranda warnings, which are the familiar warnings to a person regarding their Constitutional rights. These warnings are that:

• The defendant has the right to remain silent
• Any statement made by the defendant can be used as evidence against him or her
• The defendant has the right to an attorney, and
• If the defendant cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed, before the interrogation, if he or she requests one

Miranda warnings are not required in the usual case of roadside questioning, however, since such questioning does not constitute "custodial interrogation" unless the officer treats the driver in such a way that he feels as though his freedom to leave is restricted and that he is "in custody" for practical purposes.

Judicial Notice

Judicial notice is a method under which a court will accept as true a fact of common knowledge, or the existence of various laws or regulations, all without requiring either party to present evidence or proof of the fact or law.

In some states, a court can take judicial notice of the state laws and local ordinances along with the type of area where a speeding offense allegedly occurred, such as whether it was a school district or a residential zone, or to determine if a lower speed limit than the statewide maximum speed limit was applicable in the area in question.

In other states, a court can't take judicial notice of a local ordinance. In these states, in order to convict a driver of violating a local speed limit, the prosecution must prove not only the fact of excessive speed by the driver, but also the words used in the ordinance and that the ordinance itself is valid and enforceable.

For example, in a state where the prosecution has the burden of proving that a reduced speed limit applies in business or residential zones, a court can't take judicial notice of the type of area where the alleged speeding took place, and so a driver cannot be convicted of speeding without proof that the area was in fact a business or residential district.

In addition, as a general rule, courts cannot take judicial notice of a government's compliance with the law. So, for example, a court will not take judicial notice of the fact that a town posted signs that warned of a speed limit in a certain area that was lower than the maximum speed otherwise allowed under a statewide law. Rather, the town has to prove that signs were posted, and if it doesn't do so, the lower local speed limit will not be enforced.

Related Resources on Lawyers.com^sm

- Defenses to Speeding Violations
- Traffic Violations
- Speeding Laws
- Criminal Law articles and information
- Selecting a Good Criminal Lawyer
- Find a Criminal Lawyer in your area
- Visit Our Traffic Citations Message Board or Criminal Law Message Board for more help