Cop Personally Delivered Red Light Penalty to My House [SA]

mr-incredulous on 01/07/2022 - 17:46

A few days ago my wife ran a red light. I wasn't there but from what she described she was very lucky there were no injuries or property damage. It was caught on camera. She feels (rightly) terrible about it.

So we've been expecting a letter to show up when today a cop knocked on the door. I'm WFH but my wife isn't. He said he was looking for me (car registered under my name) and wanted to know who was driving. He had the photos printed out. Once I explained what happened and how we're not going to contest the fine he said to expect a letter and then left.

So… what the heck? Is that normal? The only reasons I can think of are:

  • He was going to give me a good talking to about reckless driving if I had said I was the driver.

  • He knew that I wasn't the driver based on photos that he didn't show me, and wanted to ask me who the driver is in a confrontational way to get the truth.

Anyway, that's my story. I hope you enjoyed it.

Automotive

Comments

  • Mechz on 01/07/2022 - 17:51
    +44

    I would have just not answered the door.

    Also
    https://youtu.be/FjvdHE1E5eI

    • b0rnwithabeard on 02/07/2022 - 08:21
      +1

      hahaha i knew what video that was going to be before i clicked it. I remember after that episode there was a story saying “don’t do this, it’s actually illegal”

      • Vote for Pedro on 02/07/2022 - 21:35

        What’s illegal? Not talking to the police?

        • b0rnwithabeard on 03/07/2022 - 08:40
          +1

          cops are well within their rights to ask you questions for the purpose of identifying who you are, so saying “i don’t answer questions” isn’t the perfect defense the show claims and will almost definitely come back to bite you on the arse

            • Vote for Pedro on 03/07/2022 - 14:17
              +1

              @Scantu: This isn’t entirely accurate either. There is no general obligation whether you are in public or not. The officer needs to suspect you of having committed an offence.

            • hunterhalo on 03/07/2022 - 14:27

              @Scantu: If an officer believe on reasonable ground that you commit a crime he could detains you. And the rest is what vote for pedro said

          • Vote for Pedro on 03/07/2022 - 14:16
            +6

            @b0rnwithabeard: Not true. You only need to provide name and address if the officer suspects you of committing an offence. Usually they also have to warn you that in that circumstance it is an offence to not provide your name and address.

            There is no general ‘give me your details’ requirement in Australia. Though as I said, there are some requirements in certain circumstances

            • b0rnwithabeard on 04/07/2022 - 09:28
              +1

              @Vote for Pedro: yeah of course - but that’s what that youtube clip is, that’s only why I said it. Never give them more information than is legally required, don’t freely hand over any possessions and more importantly never offer them to come into your house.

              The show makes the cops look way more inept than they usually are on a number of occasions, and Ray’s life choices a little more cavalier than is realistic (cos otherwise what a boring show it’d be)

          • caitsith01 on 04/07/2022 - 16:30

            @b0rnwithabeard: This is insanely bad advice. The police do not have a general power to force you to identify yourself, and there is no downside to exercising your right to silence.

            • b0rnwithabeard on 05/07/2022 - 10:07
              +2

              @caitsith01: is a cop suspects you’ve committed a crime (and most of the time they don’t have to do much to back their suspicion), they’re going to ask you for ID. If you say to them “i don’t answer questions”, then they’re almost definitely going to detain you. Why make things more complicated for yourself?

              • caitsith01 on 05/07/2022 - 15:10
                -3

                @b0rnwithabeard: You got any evidence to support that?

                The law reports are full of cases where people co-operated with the police and got screwed over, not aware of too many in Australia where someone exercising their right to silence got screwed over though.

      • Brick Tamland on 03/07/2022 - 09:51
        +6

        You are not legally compelled to answer questions

        • DrScavenger on 04/07/2022 - 00:30
          +5

          Except your name and your address. My name is X and I live in Y. That's all until/if you are detained. And if you are detained, shut up and get a lawyer before you speak.

        • raven492 on 04/07/2022 - 08:40

          Incorrect.

          SA has provisions for traffic offences where you're required to truthfully answer questions to identify the driver.

          As others have said, identifying yourself and answering those questions rely on an offence being committed, but as OP said, they were there about an offence…

          http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/soa1953189…

          • Jackson on 04/07/2022 - 18:21

            @raven492: technically, his wife committed the offence, he could have told the guy to come back later, at a time when his wife was supposed to be home, but would be conveniently (for her) out.

          • caitsith01 on 05/07/2022 - 15:07

            @raven492: The comment I was replying do did not specify traffic offences.

    • Sleeqb7 on 02/07/2022 - 10:12
      +3

      This is great, I'm disappointed in myself for not having seen it sooner.

      • askbargain on 03/07/2022 - 12:16
        +10

        Embassed yourswelf by making a reply and not a new comment?

        • gentlecrack on 04/07/2022 - 08:32
          -3

          Seriousloy, turn autocorrect on.

        • brad1-8tsi on 05/07/2022 - 16:28

          Talks like Elmer Fudd

    • lonewolf on 03/07/2022 - 16:30

      Great show, my favourite Aussie TV show by far. But sadly the last season sort of lost its way abit.

  • pegaxs on 01/07/2022 - 17:51
    -3

    This is why you don’t talk to the police and you seek information from a lawyer before you say anything. You confirm your name and address and nothing more. Thank them for their time and tell them you are happy to listen to them and take any information to your lawyer before you can commit to any information.

    Basically, what you have done here is given the copper the information they were on a fishing expedition for.

    • oscargamer on 01/07/2022 - 17:54
      +50

      The owner is required to nominate the driver…..there was no fishing here, just coppers doing their job.

      • pegaxs on 01/07/2022 - 18:20
        +31

        You don’t have to nominate shit until such time as you are issued with a fine. If the copper is not there to issue you with a fine on the spot, it’s a fishing expedition.

        The only thing you have to say to the copper is, “I am not sure who was driving the vehicle at that time. If you leave it with me, I will endeavour to get that information for you after I have spoken to legal representation”

        A copper could be operating on total hearsay or on partial evidence and you just nominated a driver and given them the information they required.

          • pegaxs on 01/07/2022 - 21:36
            +7

            @oscargamer: What are you talking about? I didn’t say “Don’t give them the information, ever”, what I said was “nominate at the time of the fine” or “after you have sought legal advice”.

            Neither of these are “failure to nominate” and both could be done within a reasonable time.

            • Jetstream on 01/07/2022 - 21:49

              @pegaxs: In Victoria (appreciate this is SA), you don’t get the option of waiting til the fine comes.

              The owner of the vehicle needs to make reasonable enquiries or they cop a different offence

              • MrTweek on 02/07/2022 - 20:29
                +4

                @Jetstream: No? The first letter you get is the fine and a snippet to nominate someone else. Before that, there's a good chance that you don't know anything happened have no reason to make any enquiries.

            • oscargamer on 01/07/2022 - 22:02
              +4

              @pegaxs: Your response /advice is simply wrong and if the OP was to take it / act on it, they would find themselves in a very awkward place, very very quickly.

              • MontyMacaw on 02/07/2022 - 18:13
                +1

                @oscargamer: @pegaxs knows EVERYTHING. Do not question the oracle 😜😜😜😜

          • Vote for Pedro on 02/07/2022 - 21:38
            -3

            @oscargamer: Wrong. You don’t have to answer any questions

            • oscargamer on 02/07/2022 - 22:48
              +1

              @Vote for Pedro: Pedro. How about you phone your local station tomorrow, or drop in and ask them.? They will even quote you the act and section number, if you ask nicely.

              • Vote for Pedro on 02/07/2022 - 23:13
                -1

                @oscargamer: Why don’t you since you’re giving free wrong information

                • oscargamer on 03/07/2022 - 09:41
                  +1

                  @Vote for Pedro: In Vic…Section 60 of the road safety Act

                  http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rsa198…

                  There are similar variants in each and every state, but you can google them yourself

                  Edit … Found the SA variant… Section 40V of the road traffic act

                  https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/a/road%…

                  • Vote for Pedro on 03/07/2022 - 10:16

                    @oscargamer: Edit: comment on Vic law. Apologies don’t have time to review SA law.

                    I stand corrected on the verbal request from a police officer to answers questions in relation to a minor motor vehicle offence. I always thought this was done via the penalty notice to the owner.

                    However, it is important to note that the police officer needs to provide a date and time and all the registered owner needs to do is commit to make reasonable enquiries at the time of the conversation.

                    Following enquiries, the owner is not required to provide anything beyond information to identify and locate the person.

                    So, while there is an obligation to provide the information, it does not mean you have to immediately answer questions.

                • raven492 on 04/07/2022 - 08:43

                  @Vote for Pedro: here is the SA one

                  http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/soa1953189…

                  SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1953 - SECT 74AB

                  74AB—Questions as to identity of drivers etc

                      (1)         A police officer may ask a person questions for the purpose of obtaining information that may lead to the identification of the person who was driving, or was the owner of, a vehicle on a particular occasion or at a particular time.

    (2)         A person who—

        (a)         refuses or fails, without reasonable excuse, to answer a question under subsection (1); or

        (b)         in response to a question under subsection (1) gives an answer that is false or misleading in a material particular,

                  is guilty of an offence.

                  • Vote for Pedro on 04/07/2022 - 09:23

                    @raven492: I’m guessing a defence is ‘or make reasonable attempts to ascertain’.

        • Finde on 03/07/2022 - 15:33
          +1

          Maybe different from state to state, but that is false for Victoria.

          In Victoria, if an offence is committed in a vehicle, the registered owner is required to provide the details of who was driving the vehicle. Failing to disclose the details or failing to make reasonable enquiries carries a loss of licence penalty.

          http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/rsa198…

      • Vote for Pedro on 02/07/2022 - 21:37

        There was no fine. You need to receive a fine to the registered owner and then nominate the driver.

    • mr-incredulous on 01/07/2022 - 17:58
      +83

      OK look I have seen the "never talk to the cops" video. I get it. But 1. this is Australia not US. 2. he showed me a photo of my car in the middle of an intersection should I say "I can neither confirm nor deny that that is my car it just looks like a grey blob to me"? 3. a 10 minute conversation with a lawyer will cost more than the fine. 4. we have no problem paying the fine because she admits she did something wrong and has to pay the penalty.

        • mr-incredulous on 01/07/2022 - 18:51
          +101

          Must be thrilling for you living in a crime novel but sadly I live a rather simple and boring life. I hope that you are one day faced with the same situation so you can use your extensive training from watching youtube videos about how to talk to the police. Please update us on how you bravely stood at the locked screen door and said nothing while the mean man went fishing for evidence.

            • MontyMacaw on 02/07/2022 - 18:15
              +11

              @pegaxs: @pegaxs You WISH you lived in a crime novel. But you really think you live in Wikipedia, right?

            • juki on 02/07/2022 - 19:36
              +18

              @pegaxs: my rights my rights, what about duties as a responsible adult to just own up to doing things wrong rather than wanting to work the very system people accuse of screwing them ?

          • GrueHunter on 01/07/2022 - 20:32
            +7

            @mr-incredulous: I mean, what are you posting for? "My wife ran a red light. A police officer delivered the notice and made reasonable enquiries. I freely answered his questions of my own accord. We'll pay the fine."

            Cool story. What do you want us to say?

            • mr-incredulous on 01/07/2022 - 22:20
              +21

              @GrueHunter: I mean, its pretty clear in the post…

              1. Has anyone heard of this happening before?

              2. What is the reason they would do it?

              3. Enjoy the cool story.

              • elgrande on 02/07/2022 - 10:24
                +6

                @mr-incredulous: They dont need to do that for a camera offence. They must be fishing for more infomation to charge a separate offence.

                • HelpMeiCantSee on 02/07/2022 - 12:13
                  +3

                  @elgrande: I suspect they want to slap a reckless driving offence on too. Sorry expiation. SA Highway patrol suck nuts.

              • Vote for Pedro on 02/07/2022 - 21:41
                +2

                @mr-incredulous: The only reason a police officer speaks to anyone is to gather intelligence and potentially apply it to an offence. That’s literally their job. That’s what the officer was doing.

              • PopCounty on 02/07/2022 - 22:15

                @mr-incredulous: Lol. This looks like deja vu kind of response/post.

          • ThithLord on 04/07/2022 - 16:21

            @mr-incredulous: lol. Legend comment. GG. 10/10. Pegaxs is a true keyboard warrior

        • solidussnake on 03/07/2022 - 09:16
          +1

          Please get off the crack pipe before commenting on ozb

      • lgacb08 on 02/07/2022 - 13:20
        +1

        You obviously haven't got a red light ticket lately, it'll be more than an hour talk to a lawyer.

      • TightLikeThisx on 02/07/2022 - 20:20
        +5

        In that situation you basically have three options:

        1. You don't say anything and just let him ask questions till it gets too awkward and he leaves.
        2. You close your door in his face.
        3. You answer his questions.

        Police don't come knocking on your door to issue fines. They are investigating and are probably going to charge her with reckless driving.

        Police have limited time and resources and will generally go after the lowest hanging fruit. By answering their questions you are increasing the probability that she will end up in court. You could choose not to answer their questions and they might identify her from her mobile phone or another road camera anyway or they just might not bother.

        I'm not sure if this is the case in SA but in NSW it is an offence for the owner not to identify the person driving the vehicle if a driver or passenger has committed an offence.

        If you believe that your wife needs to be punished for her actions and that the legal system will give your wife a just punishment for her actions then you did the right thing.

        • xavster on 02/07/2022 - 20:56
          +1

          Reckless requires intent, and can be difficult to prove unless they can demonstrate consistent behaviour that endanger other road users. Most likely it will be negligent driving.

          The police was definitely conducting an investigation, AS THEY SHOULD, because it is their job and a crime was allegedly committed.

          edited to add 'allegedly'

          • TightLikeThisx on 02/07/2022 - 21:21

            @xavster: Hard to say what she could be charged with without seeing the video. Maybe she actually did hit someone or cause damage.

            This site lists the various traffic offenses in SA.

            "Driving without due care" looks to be the SA equivalent of negligent driving.

        • Vote for Pedro on 02/07/2022 - 21:44
          +3

          100%. Police only talk to people to gather information. This was a fishing expedition for god only knows what

      • burningrage on 02/07/2022 - 22:54
        +1

        I feel like Pegaxs is trying to help as an informant to people other than OP who is already stated that he is happy that the family "has to pay the penalty". I don't think he should be negged for this but for some, the urge to crucify is stronger then a well-wish that OP's wife should be spared as I am sure it was inadvertent.

        Recently my wife was booked with a 1 pointer 3km above limit (yes, this is ridiculous - well within ADR +/- 10% tolerance) and because the car was registered to me, I took the hit even though I know the penalty should be hers to take but I would never wish for her to "pay the penalty" other than let her know to be more mindful.

        That's just me. I am not saying OP or OP's should or should not have admitted the offence, that's not for me to say but just to point out I would never wish for my OH to "pay the penalty".

        • lgacb08 on 03/07/2022 - 08:04
          -2

          If your wife was booked for over 3km then she didn't check her speedo much. Unless it's around 40km/h, it's hard to get booked if keep speed around the limit on your speedo, going 5km over is still safe in most case. It's only when you exceed that 5km above then things get tricky. In my mazda for example doing 105 in my speedo is still around 99km/h according to gps.
          there's nothing called 10% tolerance, vicroads is known to book people 2-3km over.

          • Domingo on 04/07/2022 - 00:35

            @lgacb08:

            there's nothing called 10% tolerance

            Yes there is. The ADR for speedometers states (or used to last time I checked, haven't checked the specific one recently) that it must be accurate to within plus or minus 10%. Speed limits on roads are enforced tighter than the rules for the equipment that informs the driver what speed they are doing. Luckily nearly all speedos read over so this rarely a practical issue, while still being a ridiculous position for the government to take.

            More info:

            The Australian Design Rules (ADRs) are national standards for vehicle safety, anti-theft and emissions. The ADRs are generally performance based and cover issues such as occupant protection, structures, lighting, noise, engine exhaust emissions, braking and a range of miscellaneous items.

            https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-v…

            • pegaxs on 05/07/2022 - 09:48

              @Domingo:

              must be accurate to within plus or minus 10%

              This is incorrect. A speedo can never read under what the vehicle is going (ie: It cant read 100 when your actual speed is 110)

              I have outlined the relevant ADR from this post about 3 years ago.

              • Domingo on 05/07/2022 - 10:18

                @pegaxs:

                This is incorrect.

                Not entirely, as spaceflight mentions in that post. The ADR applies to new vehicles after 1 July 2007, which does not apply to all cars on the road

        • SteveBuscemi on 04/07/2022 - 00:57

          How old's the car?

          The ADR rules, which are in line with the EU's, changed over 15 years ago. +/- 10% has not been allowed on any new car sold since 2006.

          Specifically, under clause 5.3, no ADR 18/03-compliant speedometer can under-report and indicate you as travelling slower than your actual speed, but can indicate +10%+4km/h faster than your true speed.

          Meaning if you were clocked at 103km/h, your speedo could have legally displayed anywhere from 103 to 117 but not even a fraction under 103. -0, +10%+4.

          And as you say, "nearly all speedos read over" for this very reason; you would have very likely been around the 107-110 range on the dash.

        • Jackson on 04/07/2022 - 18:35
          +1

          OP's wife should be spared as I am sure it was inadvertent

          OP's wife needs a real man, like @pegaxs

      • Scantu on 03/07/2022 - 13:05

        Absolutely hate it when you people say "UhG this IsNt ThE USa" as if it makes it ok to not stand by what rights you do have

      • Jackson on 04/07/2022 - 18:30

        But hang on mate, what are you here for if it's not to work out how to get off the fine? I mean, this is the forums not the deals section!?!

    • JimmyF on 01/07/2022 - 18:34
      +2

      Basically, what you have done here is given the copper the information they were on a fishing expedition for.

      It was a red light camera…. No fishing needed, pictures of the car running the light already there for all to see.

      • pegaxs on 01/07/2022 - 18:38
        -1

        Doesn’t matter. They can literally have video footage of you murdering someone with a chainsaw while yelling your own name… you still do not have to answer their questions.

        If they are not there to hand you a fine/arrest you… it’s a fishing expedition. They want information, that is the only reason they are there without a fine.

        If they have all the evidence they need, they mail the fine out… if a copper has to be dispatched to ask questions, they are on a fishing expedition.

        • mboy on 01/07/2022 - 19:57
          +34

          If the OP had made a thread asking how to get out of a red light fine, the response would have largely been "your fault, pay the fine".

          But here the OP has made a thread about taking accountability and a willingness to pay the fine, and the response is "your fault for answering the cop's questions, you could have got off".

          You really can't win on the OzBargain forums.

          • Heaps for Cheaps on 01/07/2022 - 20:16
            +4

            @mboy: He didn't take accountability. He tattled on his wife.

            • CanadaAye on 03/07/2022 - 17:14

              @Heaps for Cheaps: He didn't dodge accountability.

              Tattle is a matter of opinion and it sounds as though his wife was owning her mistake. So what are you suggesting he should have done? Engaged in some sort of pegaxs brinkmanship with the police officer, dodging questions?

              To me it sounds like the O.P. is a responsible member of a society. His wife made a mistake and accepts that it will come with some punishment. It's a valid question to wonder why the police would visit in a scdnario like this, perhaps it is to persue a further charge against his wife.

          • pegaxs on 01/07/2022 - 20:19

            @mboy: If OP's wife feels they want to pay the fine, I am not suggesting otherwise. Have at it, the wife deserves it for doing the wrong thing. What OP should "not" be doing is doing the police officer's job for them.

            Not talking to the police is not the same as trying to get out if a fine. At no time I was suggesting that OP try to get out of paying. OP's wife is still able to admit they were driving the car by paying the fine, but the burden to prove this is on the police, and not the person receiving the fine to just willingly give this information.

            you could have got off

            I never said this, nor suggested it. But yet again, the but hurt neggers have read what they want to read into what I said and not what I actually said.

            • mboy on 01/07/2022 - 20:41
              +2

              @pegaxs: I didn’t neg anything, I’m just having a go.

              I don’t disagree with most of what you’re saying but..

              If they are not there to hand you a fine/arrest you… it’s a fishing expedition. They want information, that is the only reason they are there without a fine.

              Yeah but at this point, if OP’s intention is to cop it on the chin, particularly when they’ve got photos, why not just say “Yeah that’s my wife, send the fine”. It’s a very reasonable thing to do.

              • pegaxs on 01/07/2022 - 21:02
                +7

                @mboy: OP or OP’s wife can cop it on the chin and they should if they are guilty of the offence. What they shouldn’t be doing is just giving this information to police who are out fishing. The time to nominate a driver is at the time the fine has arrived.

                I am happy to call out drivers who break the law and tell them to “PaY tHe FiNe.” but this is usually after they have received the fine. In this case, the copper appears to be trying to build some sort of case, and if that is the case, say only what you are required to say. Name, address, confirm your license details. You may also be required to answer a question about who was driving your vehicle, but this is usually done at the time of issuing the fine (Nominate driver on the back of the fine) or for more serious crimes like hit and run and they are looking to arrest the driver.

                I have a feeling that if a copper is coming to your house to ask questions about who was driving the car, this is a little more serious than a simple red light camera fine.

                • Hardlyworkin on 01/07/2022 - 23:21
                  +4

                  @pegaxs: So never help someone doing their job? Sounds a lot like a former prime minister.

                • bulletbill88 on 03/07/2022 - 18:39

                  @pegaxs: The ‘lawyer up, don’t tell the cops nothing’ crowd sound like wanna be mobsters. It’s a traffic offence, not a meth lab raid.

            • burningrage on 02/07/2022 - 23:00
              +1

              @pegaxs: "He didn't take accountability. He tattled on his wife."

              Yes. This is what I am trying to say above.

        • MontyMacaw on 02/07/2022 - 18:18
          +1

          @pegaxs you picked the wrong numbers today buddy. You lose. Oh dear how sad never mind.

        • gromit on 02/07/2022 - 19:54
          +5

          I used to know a few cops and no offense but they loved people like you, they get paid regardless of outcome and someone that is polite and respectful will often just get a warning, someone that "knows their rights" and wants to stick to them to make their job difficult will get zero leniency and they enjoy returning the favour making it difficult for you.

          • Yola on 03/07/2022 - 16:09
            +1

            @gromit: I think this is the case with most people dealing with the public. Why would you want to be helpful to someone being difficult? In regards to the police specifically, a relative of mine was in this situation and received an infringement that was far less than what could have been given for that offence.

          • [Deactivated] on 03/07/2022 - 20:02

            @gromit: That's right feelings over fact - don't inconvenience the public servant because it will upset them and they will use the power the PUBLIC grants them to project their anger - how is this not a tyranny? How does just doing their job extend to arbitrary application of the law? Narcissists, sociopaths and the generally lazy and incompetent prosper in such environments.
            They may have a job to do however you have the opportunity to:
            a. not incriminate yourself, or
            b. seek representation, or
            c. dog your wife and post to ozbargain

            • gromit on 03/07/2022 - 21:03
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: No it is don't be a prick to someone that is just trying to do their job. It isn't tyranny for them to execute their job, however they often have some ability to be lenient and if you want that then don't be a prick. This isn't the USA, every Cop is not out to get you and screw you over and an ounce of politeness and honesty can go a long way. That doesn't mean abandoning your rights, but in the OP's case they understand what they did was wrong and are happy to own up to it and cop the penalty (as they should).

              FYI you are actually required by law to answer certain questions, like who was driving the car etc if it is your car.

              • Jackson on 04/07/2022 - 18:51
                +2

                @gromit: This cop totally isn't "just trying to do their job", if he was the fine would be in the mail. There's some whaky story behind this, like his own Mrs was in the car which nearly got hit, he lives in the LAC where he works, and he's heard the story, looked up the ticket, and is following up on it because his Mrs got to him.

                No cops got the time to do stuff like this, unless it's personal.

          • Jackson on 04/07/2022 - 18:47

            @gromit: I've had run ins before, usually I just pay the fine, but there's a couple where the cops were being complete aholes, I took those fines to court and the judge was happy to waive them. In one case I had to take the stand, as did the officer, and the judge was ok to say that it was my word against theirs so case closed.

            I get this is different with him having photographic evidence, but again it's uncalled for for someone to come to your house for a simple traffic fine, that caused no damage. For all we know cop thought OPs wife looked like a good sort and wanted to put it on her. We just don't know. Even if they wanted to ping her for a bigger fine, why not just do it and send the fine to the owner?

    • roozmik on 04/07/2022 - 10:42

      you have a lawyer on retainer? if you've ever spoken to one, you'd know they charge through the roof.

      this is a minor matter.. just deal with it and move on.

  • CodeXD on 01/07/2022 - 17:54
    +10

    Maybe he thought the car was stolen and someone took it for a joy ride?

  • oscargamer on 01/07/2022 - 17:54
    +2

    As the registered owner of a car, you are required to nominate the driver when requested to do so by a member of the police force. You complied with the legislation and the person you nominated will now likely get a ticket.

  • Drakesy on 01/07/2022 - 17:57
    +7

    Geez, Weren't cops just complaining there wasn't enough of them?
    Looks like they can reassign a few.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/07/2022 - 18:09
      +1

      no but who is going to personally deliver my red light penalty ???

      We need more!!

  • bobbified on 01/07/2022 - 18:08
    +33

    He knew that I wasn't the driver based on photos that he didn't show me

    Maybe your wife looked hot in the pics…. ?

    • tharlow on 01/07/2022 - 18:16
      -1

      We have a winner. Men are so predictable

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join