Criminal Lawyers in Speeding

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.