This is weird

[Night Elf]

In my area, a man caused an accident on a highway that left the driver of the other car dead. He fled the scene and changed rental cars to elude police. He was convicted and his attorney appealed, which didn't work out for him. One of their arguments is that it's unconstitutional to expect that someone who caused an accident actually stay at the scene because it violates the rights of self-incrimination. I find that most bizarre. Couldn't that make it more difficult to pursue the person and the possibility of them getting away with it be fairly high? Then again, I would like to know the percentage of people who create accidents that actually do stay at the scene. Do you think staying at the scene is unconstitutional? How does that work?

[MyThreeSons]

My first thought was what a clever attorney this guy has! My next thought was that surely someone else has thought of this, and I was right.

 

It appears that this has already been addressed by the US Supreme Court:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Byers

 

There are many other references to this particular case online, but this was the most readable I found.

[Matryoshka]

I thought that fleeing the scene of an accident was something you could be charged with over and above the actual causing of it...  that "hit and run" is a more serious offense than just "hit" from a legal sense...

[Night Elf]

I thought that fleeing the scene of an accident was something you could be charged with over and above the actual causing of it...  that "hit and run" is a more serious offense than just "hit" from a legal sense...

 

That's what I was thinking too. That's why I was stumped at why they think people should leave the scene.

[elegantlion]

How insipid. If you run then you can't assume responsibility for the accident, which is a tad higher on the list of things responsible adults do. 

[SKL]

I think it depends on how they word the law.  The reason for hit-and-run laws is because if you stayed, you might be able to render assistance and mitigate the damage.  Having caused harm, there should be (and probably is - been a long time since law school) a duty to mitigate the harm you caused.  Failing to do that would be negligence.  So why not just call it criminal negligence (on top of vehicular homicide) instead of whatever they are calling it?

[Laurie4b]

I think the super-majority of people who cause accidents stay at the scene. The right to avoid self-incrimination defense is interesting. Reading the link of the Supreme Court ruling on this and the dissents was really interesting. It was apparently only a 5-4 ruling in the Supreme Court. Two very renowned justices agreed that it did violate right to avoid self-incrimination and that someone in that situation who stayed should either have the info be inadmissible or should be given immunity in exchange for the testimony.

[Lolly]

I can see that argument being correct. (Going off total mental exercise, leaving emotional out of it.) Just because the Supreme Court did not find it that way, doesn't mean it actually isn't true.

[elegantlion]

The one thing drilled into my head as a new driver was not to admit fault in any accident, especially at the scene. I was in a wreck when I was 19. The other lady was at fault and her first words to me afterward were "I'm so sorry..." Two years later the court took that as an admission of guilt. 

 

So yes, staying on the scene is the responsible thing to do. Not admitting fault is what your insurance company wants you to do. Car insurance would skyrocket should we all start leaving the scene of accidents. Can you imagine the chaos? Who pays for what? The manpower required to track down hit and run. 

 

Keep your mouth shut (that's not incriminating yourself) and allow the evidence to speak for you. 

[Word Nerd]

How insipid. If you run then you can't assume responsibility for the accident, which is a tad higher on the list of things responsible adults do. 

 

I was going to reply to this thread, but then I saw your avatar and all thought except :001_tt1:  went right out of my head.

 

What a couple of jerks—the lawyer and the irresponsible driver.

[OH_Homeschooler]

The one thing drilled into my head as a new driver was not to admit fault in any accident, especially at the scene. I was in a wreck when I was 19. The other lady was at fault and her first words to me afterward were "I'm so sorry..." Two years later the court took that as an admission of guilt. 

 

So yes, staying on the scene is the responsible thing to do. Not admitting fault is what your insurance company wants you to do. Car insurance would skyrocket should we all start leaving the scene of accidents. Can you imagine the chaos? Who pays for what? The manpower required to track down hit and run. 

 

Keep your mouth shut (that's not incriminating yourself) and allow the evidence to speak for you. 

 

Yes, I think you should stay at the scene, and merely being there is not a form of self-incrimination. What about witnesses who stay at the scene? They're not considered guilty just because they're there.