Source: http://www.fairfaxcriminallawyer.com/reckless-driving-legal-primer/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:01:54+00:00

Document:
What is commonly referred to as Reckless Driving is actually a compilation of nineteen different laws. By far the two most commonly charged are 46.2-852 (Reckless general) and 46.2-862 (Reckless by speed). However, each one of these laws carries the same potential consequences, so this analysis will address each one individually.
– Under this section a driver is required to slow down when reaching a populated area. Particularly under circumstances where children were likely to be playing. Where driver fails to keep his vehicle under sufficient control as to evade a potential sudden emergency, he is guilty of reckless driving as defined in this section.
– Just because an accident has taken place doesn’t automatically mean reckless driving has occurred. Powers v. Commonwealth. This is one of the most cited cases in reckless driving practice. Often police and even more so, Virginia State troopers will write a ticket based on whoever was at fault in an accident. This is improper logic. As this case clearly demonstrates a person has to have made some willful, dangerous act to be guilty of reckless driving. Sometimes an accident is just an accident.
– Where two drivers approach and neither yield both are guilty of negligence Via v. Badanes.
– Falling asleep while driving is negligence below the standard of ordinary care. Allowing oneself to doze off shows a lack of regard for life, liberty, and property of others. This driving behavior is sufficient to support a conviction. Kennedy v. Commonwealth. This case also demonstrates how falling asleep can be Reckless. In Conrad v. Commonwealth the Defendant had been awake for more than 20 straight hours. He caught himself dozing off multiple times. The court thought it could assume that was sufficient behavior and the appeals court upheld that decision.
– Reckless and improper driving are technically criminal violations. To sustain a conviction under either section requires the Commonwealth to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt. Bacon v. Commonwealth.
– It is ok for an officer to stop a car without jurisdiction or justification. If the behavior cited is a separate and distinct offense that takes place after the unlawful stop.
– “Where the Commonwealth’s evidence leaves much to speculation and conjecture as to what cause the Defendant to lose control of the car, and the trial court cannot say that the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and is consistent only with the quit of the change, the evidence is in sufficient to support the conviction of reckless driving within the meaning of this section. Hence reckless driving cannot be inferred from evidence that a car left the road and hit a tree. Powers v. Commonwealth.
– Intoxication may be a factor but it doesn’t automatically mean someone was driving recklessly. Where there is no driving behavior, reckless driving doesn’t exist. Hall v. Commonwealth.
– It is not sufficient for a witness sees a vehicle, says it was going fast, and collides with another vehicle. Spencer v. City of Norfolk.
This statute makes a wide range of driving behavior illegal. By law, that behavior must be such that a reasonable person would know that the behavior by itself jeopardizes the life, limb, or property of others. Behavior found to be regulated under this section is distinct and is not subject to double jeopardy. So multiple convictions are possible if the behavior so warrants. Behavior that meets this statute may include: driving on the wrong side of the road, driving fast over a hill and getting into an accident, or falling asleep while driving. Obviously this list isn’t exhaustive and circumstances control every instance.
However, merely having alcohol on one’s breath or even intoxication doesn’t establish reckless driving in and of themselves. The crux of behavior addressed in the statue relates to actual driving behavior, not the mentality or statues of the driver.
Finally, sometimes an accident is just that. Reckless under 852 is a willful act subject to criminal definitions of intent. Without a further explanation for why the accident happened, a violation of this section cannot be sustained.
– Driver who doesn’t keep his car under proper control fails his responsibility and is violation of this section. Meeks v. Hodges. Kennedy v. Commonwealth.
– Double jeopardy doesn’t apply to Reckless and involuntary manslaughter. This is because they have elements exclusive to each other. Delawder v. Commonwealth.
– A driver has a responsibility to repair or at least compensate for known vehicle defects. A conviction is sustainable where a driver ignored a known defect which later caused an accident. The defect in question was a steering problem. Kennedy v. Commonwealth.
46.2-854 Passing on or at the crest of a grade or on a curve.
– The statute is designed to keep cars from hitting each other when they are approaching from opposite sides of a hill. Peteosky v. Bowman.
– A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who, while driving a vehicle, overtakes and passes another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, on or approaching the crest of a grade or on or approaching a curve in the highway, where the driver’s view along the highway is obstructed, except where the overtaking vehicle is being operated on a highway having two or more designated lanes of roadway for each direction of travel or on a designated one-way roadway or highway.
46.2-855 Driving with driver’s view obstructed or control impaired.
A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives a vehicle when it is so loaded, or when there are in the front seat such numbers of persons, as to obstruct the view of the driver to the front or sides of the vehicle or to interfere with the driver’s control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle.
An attorney general opinion from 2010 defines abreast under the common usage which is to mean side by side.
There is only one relevant case, Barbour v. Commonwealth. In that case the defendant passed few stopped vehicles in a travel lane that was usually reserved for parking. The court found that was sufficient to support a conviction under this section.
– The defendant quickly overtook a vehicle and consequently part of his peripheral vision was blocked. The court ruled he could still be found liable. Mills v. Wells.
– Defendant was guilty where he changed lanes, but failed to properly return before entering an upcoming intersection. Loving v. Mason.
In 2011, a Fairfax Reckless Driving lawyer came up with a creative way to get a case dismissed under this section. The argument was widely dismissed, and is very unlikely to be successful any longer. The buses reason for the stop has to be to let kids off. This section doesn’t apply if the bus has stopped for another reason, even if a child happens to be getting off. County School Board v. Thomas.
– Conviction valid where pace established a 105 mile per hour speed. The pace was conducted over a one mile area and the officer was able to establish the accuracy of his cruiser’s speedometer.
Any person who engages in a race between two or more motor vehicles on the highways in the Commonwealth or on any driveway or premises of a church, school, recreational facility, or business property open to the public in the Commonwealth shall be guilty of reckless driving, unless authorized by the owner of the property or his agent. When any person is convicted of reckless driving under this section, in addition to any other penalties provided by law the driver’s license of such person shall be suspended by the court for a period of not less than six months nor more than two years. In case of conviction the court shall order the surrender of the license to the court where it shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of § 46.2-398.
Racing is rarely charged because it requires the Commonwealth to prove the intent of both drivers. However, a conviction under this statute can be significant. In addition to a 6-24 month loss of license, a vehicle involved can be seized by the government.
Causes the death of another person is guilty of a felony punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than one nor more than 20 years, one year of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.
Upon conviction, the court shall suspend the driver’s license of such person for a period of not less than one year nor more than three years, and shall order the surrender of the license to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of § 46.2-398.
A person is guilty of aggressive driving if (i) the person violates one or more of the following: § 46.2-802 (Drive on right side of highways), § 46.2-804 (Failure to observe lanes marked for traffic), § 46.2-816 (Following too closely), § 46.2-821 (Vehicles before entering certain highways shall stop or yield right-of-way), § 46.2-833.1 (Evasion of traffic control devices), § 46.2-838 (Passing when overtaking a vehicle), § 46.2-841 (When overtaking vehicle may pass on right), § 46.2-842 (Driver to give way to overtaking vehicle), § 46.2-842.1 (Driver to give way to certain overtaking vehicles on divided highway), § 46.2-843 (Limitations on overtaking and passing), any provision of Article 8 (§ 46.2-870 et seq.) of Chapter 8 of Title 46.2 (Speed), or § 46.2-888 (Stopping on highways); and (ii) that person is a hazard to another person or commits an offense in clause (i) with the intent to harass, intimidate, injure or obstruct another person.
Aggressive driving shall be punished as a Class 2 misdemeanor. However, aggressive driving with the intent to injure another person shall be punished as a Class 1 misdemeanor. In addition to the penalties described in this subsection, the court may require successful completion of an aggressive driving program.
This law was initially drafted to address road rage. The crux of this law is that someone who commits one of the enumerated offenses in response or relating to an attempt to bother another driver has committed a violation. In reality, the charge is a class 2 misdemeanor as opposed to a class 1 for standard reckless driving. Additionally, the law has the extra intent element which makes it harder to prove. Because of these difficulties the statue is charged relatively rarely.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this article, upon the trial of any person charged with reckless driving where the degree of culpability is slight, the court in its discretion may find the accused not guilty of reckless driving but guilty of improper driving. However, an attorney for the Commonwealth may reduce a charge of reckless driving to improper driving at any time prior to the court’s decision and shall notify the court of such change. Improper driving shall be punishable as a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $500.
This statute is frequently used in plea negotiations, but never charged on the street. The biggest advantage to a Defendant is that it is an infraction as opposed to a misdemeanor. Additionally it carries 3 points as opposed to six, and it will be removed from a driving record in three years as opposed to eleven.
– The Bacon logic applies to this statute as well in that the mere fact an accident occurred is insufficient to prove a violation. Bacon v. Commonwealth.
– Defendant was guilty where he drove at night with bad eyesight and rolled through a stop sign and down a hill. Hale v. Commonwealth.
The law regulates and defines a large number of dangerous behaviors as reckless driving. The most commonly cited are any speed 20 miles or more over the limit, driving in a way to endanger life, limb, or property, racing, or driving dangerously as a result of road rage. There are many cases that further define what is and what isn’t punishable as reckless driving. These cases universally establish that a driver is responsible for keeping their car under control and protecting other driver’s from potentially dangerous or even deadly collisions on the nation’s highways.
– A ticket with a false or inaccurate codes section provides sufficient notice of the allegation where it also states the speed alleged. Williams v. Commonwealth.
– 46.2-870 is not intended to make it illegal for a driver to be unable to stop within the range of view based on his vehicle’s lights when driving at night. Tunyam v. Aakins.
– A driver does not have to be able to always stop within his range of vision. This behavior is not regulated under this section. Yates v. Potts.
– Just because a speed limit is posted, a truck driver can still be cited if he drives at a manner and under circumstances that indicate the speed is dangerous. Brown v. Damron.
– A driver is not necessarily not guilty of speeding simply because the speedometer on his vehicle fails to give an accurate reading of his vehicle’s speed. Williams v. Commonwealth.
– Reckless driving and speeding are separate and unique offenses. While v. Commonwealth.
– Even federal employees are required to follow state speed limits. Even if conducting official federal business. Hall v. Commonwealth.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.