Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/traffic-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:49:03+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Hoskin on Monday, September 26, 2016.
Statutory Interpretation—Due Process—Traffic Infraction—Sufficiency of the Evidence.
A county court judge found that Hoskin committed a traffic infraction in violation of Colorado’s speeding statute, C.R.S. § 42-2-1101. The district court reversed and held that the county court judge had impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to Hoskin by requiring him to prove that his speed was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances after the People presented evidence that Hoskin was driving in excess of the posted speed limit. The supreme court reversed the district court’s judgment, holding that the plain language of Colorado’s speeding statute creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption. Specifically, if the People prove that Hoskin was driving in excess of the posted speed limit, the burden of proof going forward shifts to Hoskin to prove that his speed was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances. The court further held that the speeding statute’s mandatory rebuttable presumption does not violate due process. Finally, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the county court’s judgment against Hoskin for speeding.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Salas on Tuesday, July 1, 2014.
Defendant Salas was driving through Oklahoma on his way from Arkansas to Texas when he was pulled over by Deputy Gragg for erratic driving. Salas had crossed the fog line on the right side of the lane twice, forming the basis for the traffic stop. Gragg issued Salas a warning for the traffic violations and told him he was good to go, but when Salas shook Gragg’s hand, the deputy asked him if he would mind answering more questions. Gragg asked Salas if he could search the vehicle and Salas consented. The dash cam in the patrol car recorded this interaction. Gragg’s search revealed nine one-gallon ziploc baggies of methamphetamine, weighing nearly 20 pounds. Salas was arrested and charged with one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Salas moved to suppress the contents of the search, arguing that Gragg lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Salas and that he did not validly consent to the search.
The district court denied suppression, finding that Gragg had reasonable suspicion to stop Salas based on just one of the two fog line violations. After his motion to suppress was denied, Salas entered a guilty plea. The district court accepted the presentence report’s base offense level and sentenced Salas to 151 months’ imprisonment with three years’ supervised release. Salas challenged both the search and the imposed sentence.
The Tenth Circuit determined that the initial traffic stop was lawful based on the fog line violations, one of which would have been enough to raise reasonable suspicion in the officer. Although Salas’ initial fog line violation occurred near a curve in the road, it would not have been enough to cause a driver to veer halfway over the fog line, and the vehicle he was driving was a four-door sedan that would not have been susceptible to light winds. Because the initial stop was lawful, the Tenth Circuit did not need to apply a heightened standard to the legality of Gragg’s search. Salas had consented to the search after the traffic stop had ended and the encounter became a consensual one, and his consent was recorded on the officer’s dash cam. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit determined that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation.
Salas also argued that his sentence should be reduced because of his acceptance of responsibility. However, the purpose of the sentence reduction is to mitigate trial preparation costs, and Salas did not enter the guilty plea until the day the government filed its trial brief. The government was not required to offer the sentence reduction and did not do so in this case, since it had already begun trial preparation and there was no cost mitigation. The Tenth Circuit determined no error in the government’s failure to offer the sentence reduction.
The district court’s order denying suppression and the sentence were affirmed.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in In re Petition of R.C. on Thursday, May 30, 2013.
Petition to Seal Records—Traffic Offenses—Non-Traffic Offenses.
Petitioner appealed a district court’s order denying his petition to seal records of non-traffic offense charges brought against him that were subsequently dismissed. The Court of Appeals reversed the order and remanded the case with directions.
Petitioner was charged with possession of marijuana (a class 2 petty offense), possession of drug paraphernalia (a class 2 petty offense), and unsafe lane change. After successful completion of a juvenile diversion program, all of the charges were dismissed with prejudice.
Petitioner argued that the court erred when it denied his petition to seal his records after all of the charges against him were dismissed with prejudice. Although CRS § 24-72-308 specifically prohibits the sealing of traffic infractions, the statute does not appear to contemplate petitions to seal records for cases that include both traffic offenses and non-traffic offenses. Therefore, if the district court “finds that the harm to the privacy of the petitioner or dangers of unwarranted adverse consequences to the petitioner outweigh the public interest in retaining the record” as to the drug offenses, it should seal the criminal records as to those charges. Therefore, the order was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Cox v. People on Thursday, May 9, 2013.
Seal Records of Non-Traffic Offense Charges—CRS § 24-72-308.
Petitioner appealed a district court’s order denying his petition to seal records of non-traffic offense charges brought against him that were subsequently dismissed. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with directions.
Petitioner was charged in the Douglas County Court with possession of marijuana (a class 2 petty offense); possession of drug paraphernalia (a class 2 petty offense); and unsafe lane change (a class A traffic offense). He successfully completed a juvenile diversion program and all charges were dismissed with prejudice.
Petitioner then filed a verified petition requesting that the records of the case be sealed. The prosecution objected, relying on Clark v. People, 221 P.3d 447 (Colo.App. 2009). At the hearing, both parties agreed that Clarkwas controlling, but petitioner argued the dissent in that case was a better-reasoned approach to interpreting CRS § 24-72-308. The district court disagreed and petitioner appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Judge Russel’s dissent in Clark agreed with the majority that the court cannot seal “records pertaining to” traffic infractions. However, he did not agree that it foreclosed relief, because (1) he saw no practical impediment to offense-specific sealing; (2) he believed that offense-specific sealing would further legislative policy; and (3) he concluded that the statute does not prohibit offense-specific sealing.
The Court stated that the purpose of the statute is to relieve a very limited number of persons charged with criminal offenses from the stigma that comes with having been charged with an offense but not convicted of it. Here, petitioner requested sealing of the entire criminal record, and the Court found that the statutory purpose could be satisfied by sealing records of non-traffic offenses in a criminal record that contained both. Petitioner lost one job and was denied another based on his criminal record, and the Court did not believe it was because of the routine traffic offense.
Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment. On remand, the district court must determine, as to the drug offenses, whether “the harm to the privacy of the petitioner or dangers of unwarranted adverse consequences to the petitioner outweigh the public interest in retaining the record” and, if so, whether the court should seal the criminal record as to those charges.
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013, Sen. Kevin Lundberg introduced SB 13-049 – Concerning an Exemption Within a Roundabout from the Rule Requiring a Vehicle to Signal an Intention to Leave the Current Lane of Travel. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.
Currently, a person must signal an intention to turn when intending to change lanes or turn while driving a vehicle. The bill exempts motor vehicles that are within a roundabout. The bill is assigned to the Transportation Committee.
On January 11, 2012, Sen. Scott Renfroe and Rep. Randy Baumgardner introduced SB 12-050 – Concerning the Elimination of the Use of Automated Vehicle Identification Systems for Traffic Law Enforcement. This summary is published here courtesy of the Colorado Bar Association’s e-Legislative Report.
The bill repeals the authorization for municipalities to use automated vehicle identification systems to identify violators of traffic regulations and issue citations based on photographic evidence, and creates a prohibition on such activity. The bill is assigned to the Transportation Committee; the bill is scheduled for committee review on Tuesday, February 21 at 2:00 p.m.
Criminal charges and traffic citations have collateral consequences that can be detrimental to the holder of a commercial driver’s license (CDL). Most of the consequences to commercial drivers convicted of traffic-related offenses are based on federal law, and the criminal/traffic practitioner must be aware of many such rules and consequences to properly advise his or her client.
Penalties for the above Major Offenses range from the automatic loss of the CDL for one year to the loss of the license for life and other penalties stemming from felonious activity.
Beyond these Major Offenses, there are many other regulations, rules, and penalties that the criminal or traffic practitioner must understand. Great caution must be exercised in representing a client who maintains a CDL to prevent the loss of the client’s license—a loss that can be devastating to the client’s livelihood and employment.
Commercial drivers are prevalent in the United States. According to the Colorado Department of Revenue, there currently are 227,219 commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders in Colorado and 14,032,524 nationwide. . . . Practitioners must ensure that their commercial driver clients are properly advised of . . . collateral consequences associated with criminal or traffic violations. The failure to do so may render the representation constitutionally ineffective and expose counsel to a potential malpractice suit. 40 The Colorado Lawyer 23 (February 2011).
CBA-CLE will be hosting a one-hour CLE to discuss the relevant Colorado law and provide an overview of the federal statutes and regulations affecting CDLs, presented by Jonathan M. Abramson, Esq. Whether you just need a refresher of existing and updated CDL laws or you would like to learn more about tapping into this large legal market, join us in the classroom or via live webcast on Monday, January 16, 2012!
This CLE presentation will take place on Monday, January 16. Participants may attend live in our classroom or watch the live webcast.

References: v. 
 § 42
 v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 § 24