Can You Get Failure To Control On Private Property

Location:
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS; TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS;
Scope:
Connecticut laws/regulations; Court Cases;

OLR Research Report


Jan 4, 2012		2012-R-0012
MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

Past: Paul Frisman, Master Analyst

You lot asked about a motor vehicle accident that occurred in a convenience store parking lot. The responsible driver did not have insurance and was operating under suspension. The police said they could not bring charges against the driver because the blow occurred on private property. Yous asked what constabulary governs in that situation. The Office of Legislative Research is not authorized to issue legal opinions, so the post-obit data should not exist considered one.

SUMMARY

A number of motor vehicle laws limit police enforcement authorisation to highways and public roads, but there is no such statutory brake preventing constabulary from charging a driver on private holding with operating under intermission or operating without insurance.

ENFORCING MOTOR VEHICLE LAWS ON PRIVATE Belongings

A number of state motor vehicle laws specify the roadways on which they utilise. For example, CGS � 14- 222 prohibits reckless driving on public highways; roads of specially chartered municipal associations and certain fire, sewer, and other districts; parking areas for 10 or more than cars; private roads with speed limits; and schoolhouse property. CGS � xiv-219 bans speeding on highways; roads; parking areas for 10 or more cars; and multiple lane, limited access highways. Past police, a "highway" is whatsoever state or public highway, road, street, avenue, aisle, driveway, parkway or place, nether the control of the country or a political subdivision, dedicated, appropriated, or opened to public travel or other use (CGS � 14-i (40) ).

Dozens of similar motor vehicle laws limit police force enforcement potency to the specified roadways. But other motor vehicle laws, including the two to which y'all refer, impose no such restrictions, allowing police to enforce them on either public or individual property.

CGS � one 4-213b prohibits motor vehicle owners from operating or permitting the performance of a motor vehicle that is registered in Connecticut, or required to exist registered, without the legally required insurance. The statute does not limit its applicability to particular roadways. Similarly, CGS � 14-215 prohibits anyone whose driver'south license has been refused, suspended, or revoked from operating a motor vehicle during the catamenia of the refusal, suspension, or revocation without limiting the types of roadways where the statute applies. Police therefore can charge people with these violations whether they are driving on public or private belongings.

State v. Hackett

A 2002 state Appellate Courtroom example (Land v. Hackett, 72 Conn. App. 127) specifically held that police tin can enforce violations of CGS � 14- 2 fifteen that occur on private belongings. The defendant argued unsuccessfully that he did not violate CGS � 14-215 considering (i) he was driving in a individual parking lot and (2) the constabulary does non require a license to drive on private property where there is no posted speed limit.

The court rejected his arguments, belongings that "i whose operator's license is under suspension violates � 14-215 whenever he operates a motor vehicle, regardless of whether it is operated on public or private property." The court noted nearly four dozen laws that limit police jurisdiction to particular roadways, and pointed out the lack of such a restriction in CGS � 14-215 . "Because � 14-215 contains no such limitation," the court stated, "we conclude that it was meant to utilise admittedly to operation of a motor vehicle."

In issuing its ruling the courtroom specifically overruled an earlier example, (Land 5. Haight, 194 A.ii^nd 718 (1963)) in which the court had reversed a conviction for operating under suspension because the commuter committed the violations on private holding.

In Haight the accused was charged both with driving nether the influence (DUI) and operating under suspension. He argued that neither statute applied because he was driving in a individual parking lot. Although both statutes bar the operation of a motor vehicle regardless of whether it is driven on public or private property, the Haight court affirmed the DUI accuse "every bit consequent with precedent," but reversed the confidence for operating nether suspension. The Hackett court declined to follow this ruling, finding that the "plain language [of CGS � 14-215 ] is more disarming than the Haight analysis."

OLR Study 20 11-R-0144 addresses a related question on whether a public school parking lot is individual belongings and therefore not subject to land traffic laws.

PF:ro