Blog

Driving Without Tires and an Important Limit to Pennsylvania's Vandalism Law: Intent

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | May 08, 2019 | 0 Comments

A Philadelphia driver is in hot water after he apparently drove for several miles on Interstate 95 with no tires on his vehicle. While he has been arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI), the incident raises the question of whether he would also be charged with vandalism, as well.

Driver Goes Miles on Highway With No Tires, Tearing Up Road

The incident happened on the morning of May 7, 2019. According to the initial reports, a driver in a BMW convertible was going southbound on Interstate 95 through the Port Richmond area with no tires on his vehicle.

The friction from the vehicles speed and the metal rims on the roadway was spitting up debris and concrete. When police pulled the car over near exit 25, they arrested the driver on suspicion of drunk driving.

Vandalism and the Question of Intent

A first reaction to the story is that the vast majority of the damage would have been done to the driver's BMW. Driving on the rims of a car is almost guaranteed to cause serious damage to the wheels – often enough to require a complete replacement.

However, as the other drivers on I-95 can attest to, driving on a car's rims can also damage the roadway, as well.

We only just covered a similar situation in our blog involving an off-roading Jeep that damaged a walking trail at a local nature preserve. In that case, we discussed how Pennsylvania's vandalism law was so broad that it might be used by law enforcement to prosecute the driver of the Jeep.

Here, though, we may have come to the limit of Pennsylvania's exceptionally broad vandalism law.

The meat of our state's vandalism law is Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3304(a)(5), which prohibits conduct that “intentionally damages real or personal property of another.”

The breadth of this language has made it a favorite of Pennsylvania police. When faced with confusing but also potentially criminal conduct, they often make an arrest for vandalism in the knowledge that the law reaches far enough that they are probably right.

However, one of the only limitations in the law is that it requires intent. Accidentally or even recklessly damaging someone else's property does not rise to the level of vandalism.

That is an important detail for this particular case. The driver of the BMW without tires might be damaging “property of another,” but it is far less clear whether he had the intention to do it. Perhaps counter-intuitively, the fact that he is being charged with DUI could actually be used to defend against a potential charge for vandalism: Inebriation makes it more difficult to form the intent necessary to commit vandalism.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Joseph D. Lento

Joseph D. Lento is a criminal defense lawyer who represents the accused in and near the city of Philadelphia. Call his law office at (215) 535-5353 or contact him online if you have been accused of committing a crime and want to challenge the prosecutor's case against you.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Joseph D. Lento has more than a decade of experience fighting for the futures of his clients in criminal courtrooms in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, as well as New Jersey. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!

Footer 2

Attorney Joseph D. Lento has more than a decade of experience successfully resolving clients' criminal charges in Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania counties. If you are having any uncertainties about what the future may hold for you or a loved one, contact the Lento Law Firm today! Criminal defense attorney Joseph D. Lento will go above and beyond the needs of any client, and will fight until the final bell rings.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania and New Jersey attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations – the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster, Lehigh, and Northampton County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, Outside of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance is educational advice, and does not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.

Menu