A young man named Mikhail (name changed) came to our law firm. He was accused of clipping a neighboring parked car while pulling out of a parking spot and then fleeing the scene. The police summons for questioning described the place and time of the incident. The young man, however, categorically denied doing this and disputed everything.
To get to the bottom of the situation, our attorney requested the case file from the police. Once obtained, it turned out the incident had happened toward evening. Eduard (name changed), the victim who later filed the police report against Mikhail, had parked his car that evening and gone to have dinner at a pizzeria across the street. Nothing suggested trouble — the street was quiet and calm. But as Eduard finished his meal and left the pizzeria, he saw a small car, pulling out of its parking spot, clip his own parked car. A few seconds later came a second, brief knock from the cars touching.
Eduard immediately approached the driver behind the wheel, told him it was his car, and suggested calling the police or otherwise resolving the matter on the spot. Assuming the at-fault driver would get out of the car to sort things out, and fully confident of that, Eduard turned away from the driver for a moment to look at his own car and inspect the dents more closely. But at that very moment he heard the engine start, and when he turned back around he saw the car driving away. Caught off guard and in a highly agitated state, he wasn't able to take in many details. When he called the police, he could only give an approximate description of the driver and a license plate number — while noting that he wasn't entirely sure he had read the plate correctly. Police later traced our client through that license plate and summoned Mikhail for questioning.
Of course, there are situations where a driver, for various reasons — loud music in the car, for example — might simply not hear a bump and fail to realize an accident has occurred. But Mikhail, during his very first discussion of the situation with the attorney, said he had already inspected his own car and found no trace of any collision whatsoever: no scratches, no dents, no other damage. According to him, he had indeed been in that location, but had not clipped anyone's car and, moreover, had not spoken to anyone. We always take our clients at their word, so the attorney built the defense strategy entirely around this account — all the more so since the case file contained no solid evidence that our client had actually been the driver in question.
Nevertheless, the offense Mikhail was accused of was fairly serious. He was charged under §142 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB) — unlawfully leaving the scene of a traffic accident, which carries a penalty of up to three years' imprisonment or a fine. He was therefore facing a genuine criminal charge and a serious potential penalty.
Besides a description of the place and time of the incident, the case file also contained photographs of the victim's car.
The photographs clearly showed deep scratches and small dents on the driver's side of the vehicle. There was also testimony from one witness — the pizza maker working at the pizzeria where the victim had eaten. He stated that he had indeed heard a bump and had seen some car clip another while pulling out of a parking spot, but once he noticed the victim was at the scene and already talking with the at-fault driver, he stopped paying attention and didn't follow what happened afterward.
To establish our client's legal position, the attorney filed a petition to close the case under §170 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung – StPO) for lack of a criminal offense. The petition set out all the circumstances in detail and presented the following arguments.
First, there was not the slightest trace, anywhere on our client's car, of the alleged collision. Nor did the police find anything on the accused's vehicle during their inspection that would match marks from a collision with another car. Second, the victim was not only unsure whether he had correctly noted the accused's license plate — he could not recall the car's color or make at all, despite having stood next to the driver and spoken with him. And third, both witnesses — the victim and the pizza maker — stated they would be unable to identify the driver in a lineup. The pizza maker had never actually seen him, and the victim, due to his agitation, couldn't recall the driver's facial features.
On these grounds alone, it was already clear that, given the circumstances, proving our client's guilt was simply not possible. The public prosecutor's office, having reviewed the attorney's petition and its supporting arguments, granted it in full, and the case was closed under §170 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung – StPO) for lack of a criminal offense.
It's worth noting that our client never gave any statement to the police, and our argument rested entirely on challenging the accusation based on the case file itself. This defense method is effective and pays off, since it shields the client from making a statement — one that might inadvertently say too much — and instead seeks to have the charge dropped for insufficient evidence based purely on the case file. This case was no exception. The matter was resolved quickly and with the best possible outcome for our client: no criminal record, no need to give a statement, and no need to meet the victim.
Traffic accident cases are one of the key focus areas of our law firm's practice. With extensive experience in this field, we are glad to help you navigate all kinds of situations and minimize the legal consequences of an offense you may have committed.
All rights reserved. Copying or republishing this article requires a link to the original source.
