Reckless Driving

Statutes vary by state but the core element remains the same: the driver must have been aware of the risk and chose to take it anyway. This is known as the willful and wanton standard.

It implies an attitude of indifference to the consequences. For example, driving 5 mph over the limit is negligent. Driving 50 mph over the limit while weaving through heavy traffic is wanton. We force the prosecution to provide evidence of this mental state. If the driver was simply unfamiliar with the road or made a panic maneuver, the element of willfulness is missing. We use witness testimony and dashcam footage to show that the driver was in control and attempting to drive safely (even if they failed to follow a specific traffic law).

A common legal battleground is whether speed alone constitutes reckless driving. In many jurisdictions, speed by itself is insufficient to support a reckless driving conviction unless it is grossly excessive (often defined as 20 mph or more over the limit or over 80 mph total).

However, officers often charge reckless driving for lower speeds by alleging "speed plus" factors. This means speed plus weaving, speed plus tailgating or speed plus poor weather conditions. We dissect these additional factors. If the road was dry, traffic was light and the car was mechanically sound, we argue that the speed (while illegal) was not reckless because it did not pose an imminent danger to the public.

Criminal law generally requires a guilty mind or mens rea. We focus on the driver’s intent. Did the driver intend to drift into the other lane or was it a result of a medical emergency or a mechanical alignment issue?

By introducing evidence of the driver’s lack of criminal intent, we attack the foundation of the charge. We often present evidence of the client’s clean driving history to demonstrate that the alleged conduct was an aberration inconsistent with a willful disregard for safety.

Speeding contests are treated with extreme severity by the courts. Mere participation in a race (even if you did not exceed the speed limit significantly) can trigger reckless driving and vehicle impoundment statutes.

In these cases, the officer’s observation is critical. We challenge whether the drivers were actually racing or simply accelerating from a light. We look for evidence of pre-arrangement or signaling. If two cars just happened to accelerate quickly at the same time, it is not a race. We also scrutinize the method of speed calculation (Lidar, Radar or Pacing) to find technical errors that invalidate the officer’s conclusion.

Road rage incidents often lead to reckless driving charges. This includes brake checking, cutting off other drivers or using a vehicle to intimidate another motorist.

The prosecution will rely on the testimony of the other driver involved. This creates a he-said-she-said scenario. We investigate the credibility of the complaining witness. Often, the other driver was also driving aggressively. We use the doctrine of mutual combat or self-defense to argue that our client was attempting to escape a dangerous situation created by the other motorist (rather than acting recklessly themselves).

When an accident occurs, officers frequently issue a reckless driving citation as a default response, assuming that if a crash happened, someone must have been reckless. This is a logical fallacy known as res ipsa loquitur which does not apply in criminal law.

We bring in accident reconstruction experts to prove that the accident was caused by factors beyond the driver’s control (such as a sudden tire blowout, a hidden road hazard or the unpredictable action of a pedestrian). We demonstrate that the accident was a civil misfortune rather than a criminal act.

In many jurisdictions, a "wet reckless" is a specific plea deal where a DUI charge is reduced to reckless driving involving alcohol. This is often advantageous because it may carry lower fines, no mandatory jail time and a shorter probation period than a DUI.

However, it is not a complete exoneration. It typically counts as a prior DUI if the driver is arrested again within a certain timeframe (usually 7 to 10 years). We evaluate whether accepting a wet reckless is in the client’s best interest or if the case is strong enough to push for a full dismissal or a "dry reckless" (which has no alcohol enhancement).

Prosecutors often charge both DUI and reckless driving for the same incident. They argue that the impairment caused the driver to operate the vehicle recklessly.

This can lead to double punishment problems. We file motions to dismiss duplicative charges. We argue that the reckless driving is a lesser included offense of the DUI or that the conduct is part of a single act that cannot be punished twice. This strategy aims to reduce the total exposure the client faces.

Reckless driving is generally a misdemeanor which means it carries a potential jail sentence (often up to 90 days or 6 months depending on the state). While first-time offenders rarely serve significant time, judges may impose weekend jail or community labor as a deterrent.

The existence of a criminal record can bar you from employment in education, law enforcement, transportation and healthcare. We work to secure diversion agreements where the charge is dismissed upon completion of a driving safety course (keeping the client’s record clean).

A conviction triggers a mandatory suspension of driving privileges in many states (typically 30 to 90 days). Even if suspension is not automatic, reckless driving adds a significant number of points to the driver’s license (often 2 to 4 points).

This can push a driver over the limit for a negligent operator suspension. We represent clients at DMV administrative hearings to fight for restricted licenses that allow them to drive to work and school during the suspension period.

Insurance companies view reckless driving as a major risk indicator. Premiums can double or triple upon conviction and some carriers may drop the policy entirely.

For commercial drivers (CDL holders), a reckless driving conviction is a career-ending event. It is considered a serious traffic violation by the FMCSA. Two serious violations within three years result in a mandatory disqualification. We aggressively defend CDL holders because we know that a plea to reckless driving is essentially a resignation letter.

Officers often exaggerate the danger of a situation to justify the citation. They might claim traffic was heavy when it was light or that a maneuver was erratic when it was controlled.

We use GPS data from the client’s phone or vehicle telematics to reconstruct the drive. If the data shows the client maintained a steady lane position and speed, it contradicts the officer’s testimony of weaving and erratic braking. We also cross-examine the officer on their vantage point. If they were observing from a distance or through traffic, their ability to judge the safety of the maneuver is compromised.

The law recognizes that strict adherence to traffic rules is sometimes impossible in an emergency. If a driver speeds up to avoid being hit by a tailgater or swerves to miss an animal, the conduct is justified by necessity.

We must prove that the defendant chose the lesser of two evils. We present evidence of the emergency (such as 911 calls or photos of the road hazard) to show that the driving was a rational response to an immediate threat rather than a reckless act.

In cases involving red light cameras or reports from other citizens, the prosecution must prove who was driving. Owning the car is not proof of driving the car.

We demand proof of identity. If the officer did not pull the vehicle over and identify the driver at the scene, the case is weak. We challenge photographic evidence that is blurry or inconclusive. If the state cannot place our client behind the wheel beyond a reasonable doubt, the case must be dismissed.