Criminal Lawyers in Speeding
Technical defense against radars. Verification of approvals, error margins, and lack of driver identification
The speeding offence of art. 379.1 CP consists of driving a motor vehicle or moped exceeding the permitted speed by 60 km/h on urban roads or by 80 km/h on interurban roads. The penalty is 3 to 6 months' imprisonment, or a 6 to 12 months' fine, or 31 to 90 days of community service, and in every case deprivation of the right to drive for more than 1 year and up to 4. Most proceedings start with a radar photo taken without stopping the driver, so the defence focuses on the metrological verification of the speed camera, the applicable error margins and the identification of the driver. At Alonso Sala we defend these cases before any court in Spain.
Dismantling Radar Infallibility
The speeding offence (Art. 379.1 CP) protects road safety as a collective legal interest and, mediately, the life and physical integrity of road users. The provision typifies as autonomous offence the driving of a motor vehicle or moped with speed exceeding the set thresholds: 60 km/h above the limit on urban roads and 80 km/h above the limit on interurban roads. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law clarifies it is an abstract-danger offence: the mere exceeding of objective thresholds consummates the type without need to prove concrete danger to specific persons, clearly distinguishing it from reckless driving (Art. 380 CP).
Measurement and Speed Cameras
The measurement technologies used determine the evidentiary margins. Fixed speedometers and section radars (which calculate average speed between two points) have a maximum permissible error (PEM) of 5% or 5 km/h at speeds below 100 km/h, under Order ITC/3699/2006 and European metrology control regulations. Mobile speedometers (mounted on patrol vehicles or tripods) raise the PEM to 7% or 7 km/h. The Pegasus helicopter of the DGT applies a PEM of 10%. Correct application of these margins is critical: a 201 km/h result on a road limited to 120 km/h approaches the criminal threshold of 200 km/h, but applying the correct PEM may place it below and exclude the criminal offence, leaving only a very serious administrative infraction (€600 fine and 6 points).
Penalties (Art. 379.1 CP)
The penalties in Art. 379.1 CP are alternative: 3 to 6 months' prison, or 6 to 12 months' fine, or community service of 31 to 90 days. In all cases the deprivation of the right to drive motor vehicles and mopeds is added for more than 1 year and up to 4 years, constituting the most relevant practical consequence for the convicted, especially for professional drivers. Vehicle forfeiture (Art. 385 bis CP) applies exceptionally in cases of multiple recidivism. The procedure is frequently processed by expedited trial when the requirements of Art. 795 Criminal Procedure Act concur in cases of in-flagrante stops, compressing deadlines for articulating effective defense but also allowing a one-third penalty reduction through guilty plea (Art. 801 Criminal Procedure Act).
Defence Strategy
Technical defense in speeding rests on four axes. First, the metrological audit of the speedometer: Order ITC/3699/2006 requires primitive verification, periodic verification and after every repair; the absence of valid certificate determines nullity of measurement; additionally, the antenna serial number must match the certificate, and the installation cabin must be approved for that radar model. Second, the correct application of PEM: the Prosecution usually applies the minimum margin; we fight for the maximum applicable according to technology; in zones bordering the offence threshold, the difference between 5% and 7% error can determine criminal or administrative qualification. Third, driver identification: the offence requires proving authorship of driving; in automatic radars without stopping, if the photo does not allow crystal-clear facial identification (night photo, visor helmet, motorcycle rear photo), the in dubio pro reo principle operates and acquittal proceeds. Fourth, the non-identification strategy: in some cases it pays to assume the elevated administrative sanction for non-identification (triple or double the original fine) to preserve criminal record and license, a strategic decision to be assessed case by case.
Current Forensic Practice
In current forensic practice, the intensification of speed controls by the DGT (campaigns, additional fixed radars, section radars, airborne Pegasus systems) has multiplied criminal proceedings. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency and procedural reforms have hardened the regime but also expanded guarantees on electronic evidence, demanding digital chain of custody of speedometer records. Constitutional case-law on presumption of innocence and Supreme Court doctrine on technical documentary evidence oblige rigorous control of metrological reliability. At Alonso Sala, our criminal lawyers specialized in speeding work with metrology expert engineers, traffic engineering and digital forensics specialists to articulate technical defenses that challenge measurement validity, demand complete metrological-file documentation, and build procedural strategies that preserve the driver's license, avoid criminal records, and where applicable substitute prison for work or fine.
The Non-Identification Strategy
In automatic radars without stopping (the majority), the police have the photo of the car, but they don't know who was driving. The law forces the owner to identify them. Here arises the strategic dilemma: if identified, the driver goes to criminal trial. If NOT identified, the company or owner receives a very high administrative fine (triple or double), but the criminal route is closed.
We analyze your case to determine if it pays to assume the administrative sanction for 'failure to identify' to save criminal records and the driver's license. It is a crucial financial and legal decision that must be made before responding to any requirement.
Speedometer Audit
We request the device's 'Periodic Verification Certificate'. Was it valid on the day of the photo? Does the antenna serial number match the certificate? Is the cabin where it was installed approved for that radar model? An error here voids the evidence.
The Battle of Margins
The Prosecution usually applies the minimum margin. We fight for the maximum applicable margin based on technology (fixed, mobile, section). In 80 km/h zones, the difference between applying a 5% or 7% error can mean the difference between a criminal conviction or a simple administrative fine.
Driver Identification
If the radar didn't stop you (automatic photo) and the image isn't crystal clear, the prosecution has a problem. Being the car owner doesn't make you criminally guilty. Without positive facial identification, we defend acquittal due to lack of proof of authorship (in dubio pro reo).
Why Alonso Sala for Speeding?
Precision legal engineering Art. 379.1 CP: Metrological File audit + error margins. 1 km/h difference
- Speedometer audit Periodic Verification Certificate: valid photo day + antenna serial number matches certificate + installed cabin approved radar model. Error = voids complete evidence.
- Technology error margins battle: Prosecution minimum margin. We maximum applicable (fixed/section 5%, mobile 7%, helicopter 10%). 80 km/h zones: 5% vs 7% error difference = criminal conviction vs administrative fine.
- Non-identification strategy automatic radar: car photo but does NOT know who drove. Owner NOT identify = very high admin fine (triple/double) but closes criminal route. Save record + license vs financial cost.
- Photo facial identification: radar did NOT stop (automatic) + image NOT crystal clear (night, visor, motorcycle rear) = prosecution problem. Car owner NOT criminally guilty. Without positive identification = acquittal lack authorship proof in dubio pro reo.
Road Safety Offences in Spain: DUI, Reckless Driving and Traffic Crimes — Defence Guide
Road safety offences (Arts. 379-385 CP) are among the most prosecuted in Spain. Driving under the influence (DUI), dangerous driving, unlicensed driving, and driving while disqualified carry not only prison sentences and fines, but also driving licence disqualification that can last up to 10 years.
Penalty Table: Road Safety Offences
| Offence | Article | Threshold | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| DUI (alcohol) | Art. 379.2 | > 0.60 breath / 1.2 blood | 3-6 months prison or fine + 1-4 yr disqual. |
| DUI (drugs) | Art. 379.2 | Any detectable amount | 3-6 months prison or fine + 1-4 yr disqual. |
| Excessive speed | Art. 379.1 | +60 km/h urban / +80 km/h interurban over the limit | 3-6 months prison or fine + 1-4 yr disqual. |
| Reckless driving (Art. 380) | Art. 380 | Manifest disregard for life | 6 months – 2 years + 1-6 yr disqual. |
| Unlicensed driving (never held) | Art. 384 | No licence ever held | 3-6 months prison or fine |
| Driving while disqualified | Art. 384 | Lost by judicial/admin order | 3-6 months + 1-4 yr further disqual. |
| Hit and run (Art. 382 bis) | Art. 382 bis | Leaving accident scene | 6 months – 4 years |
Key Defence Strategies
Challenge the Breathalyser Result
Breathalyser devices must be calibrated and certified. Challenge: calibration records out of date, device malfunction, improper administration protocol (required 15-minute observation period before test).
Drug Test Challenge (Saliva/Blood)
Roadside saliva tests are presumptive, not conclusive. Request the blood confirmatory test. If the confirmatory test was not performed or the result is contested, the evidence may be insufficient.
Reckless Driving: subjectivising the risk
Art. 380 requires manifest, concrete endangerment of road users. Driving fast on an empty road at night may not constitute the 'manifest danger to life' required.
Disqualification Computation
If the accused drove believing the disqualification had expired (administrative error, incorrect notification), the subjective element of Art. 384 may be absent.
How we defend an excessive-speed charge
The offence only arises above 60 km/h over the limit in built-up areas or 80 km/h on other roads, so the defence begins with the speed device’s margin of error and its metrological verification being in force. Next comes the actual signposting of that stretch and the correct identification of the driver. We act before the court from the first summons, requesting the verification certificate before any statement is made.
Specialized Speeding Practice
Radar Challenge
Technical defense against fixed and mobile speed cameras. Metrological verification and measurement errors.
Driver Identification
Defense when the driver cannot be identified. Art. 77 requirement and consequences.
Urban Speeding
Defense in speeding in 30 zones and residential areas. Criminal and administrative limits.
Other Road Safety Offenses
DUI / Drunk Driving
Breathalyzer challenges, error margins, and alcohol curve defense. Art. 379.2 CP.
Drug Driving
Defense in saliva test positives. Difference between presence and influence.
Reckless Driving
Defense in reckless driving, kamikaze, and hit-and-run offenses. Art. 380 CP.
Driving Without License
Strategies for license invalidity, judicial withdrawal, or non-obtainment. Art. 384 CP.
Test Refusal
Defense for refusing breathalyzer or drug detection tests. Art. 383 CP.
Speeding
Can I go to jail for speeding?
What if the radar photo isn't clear?
What margin of error applies?
Is it worth challenging the radar calibration?
Is it a crime to warn about a checkpoint on WhatsApp?
Do I lose points if I go to criminal court?
What is a section radar?
If it's a company car, who pays?
Can I drive abroad if my license is withdrawn in Spain?
Does it affect my insurance?
What is a speedy trial?
How much does a lawyer for a speeding offence cost?
Do you act throughout Spain?
Need urgent criminal defence?
Contact our specialist criminal defence lawyers. We evaluate your case confidentially.
Tools for your case
Do you need specialised legal assistance?
The judicial system is complex. We have the criminal-law specialisation and technical resources required to take on the defence.