Do You Know the Rules of the Road?

That is: an examiner, an interrupted exam, the police, and the regulations

Life can surprise us – the simplest and most obvious matters sometimes grow to the rank of problems involving serious people and institutions. Hundreds of times over the years, we perform actions in accordance with the law—as we understand it. I too thought that I knew the regulations well. And if you think you know them, read on…

Examiner AB (fictitious initials) interrupted an exam in June 2017, got behind the wheel, and was returning to the WORD center. A typical occurrence. Unfortunately, what happened next was no longer normal. He was pulled over by police officers driving an unmarked patrol vehicle.

The examiner was charged with an offense under Article 97 of the Code of Petty Offenses, in conjunction with Article 55(2) of the Road Traffic Act, for driving a car with an “L” roof sign that, according to the officers, should have been removed or covered. The police officers offered the examiner a fine of 100 PLN, with no penalty points. Naturally, the examiner refused the ticket. The case was referred to court. In a penal summary order (wyrok nakazowy), the District Court in (the examiner’s request not to disclose location) found the examiner guilty of the alleged offense. It imposed a fine of 100 PLN and charged him with court costs. The defendant AB filed an objection against this judgment.

The Precedent

Hearing the case in standard proceedings, the district court held a different view from its predecessor. It ACQUITTED the examiner of the alleged offense. In its statement of reasons, the court emphasized that the legislator clearly distinguishes the purpose of examination vehicles from driver training vehicles. It noted, quote: “the legislator’s intention was to formulate the regulations regarding covering or folding the ‘L’ sign in such a way that the examiner, upon concluding an exam in road traffic, would not have to cover or remove this sign, especially since this situation most often takes place in hazardous areas (intersections, pedestrian crossings, heavy traffic roads). The examiner stops the vehicle, swaps seats with the examinee, and drives away, thereby calming traffic” – end of quote. Furthermore, the court noted that removing, covering, or folding the “L” sign in live road traffic is impossible and dangerous.

Knowing the Road Traffic Act, such a verdict was to be expected. I emphasize: knowing the applicable regulations.

A Few Questions

An analysis of this incident necessitates posing a few rhetorical questions. Should police officers know the provisions of road traffic law in detail? Do they know them? Why did the court in summary proceedings share the police officers’ stance, explicitly stating in the reasoning for the verdict, quote: “in such a situation, the examiner should first fold the sign or cover it and secure it against slipping off and being lost” end of quote! Should the conclusion be drawn from the above that one must appeal every single time against verdicts issued in summary proceedings?

Why did one of the WORD directors, whom the court approached with an inquiry in the above case, agree with the police officers’ view?

In Summary

Everyone suffered losses. The examiner had to attend several court hearings—the verdict was finally reached after a year. The State Treasury: court costs and reimbursement of the examiner’s legal representation fees (the State Treasury, meaning US taxpayers). The police: undermining public confidence in the professionalism of the officers, their knowledge, and command of the law. The court issuing the summary verdict—as above.

Pursuant to the Act on Vehicle Drivers, the voivodeship marshal cooperates in exercising supervision over the conduct of state examinations with, among others, the police (Art. 67(10)(1)). I refrain from commenting on this provision in light of the described incident. And yet one would think that in this particular aspect the regulations are unambiguous.

Reporter