CA Speed Trap Law Question

[JIMinCA]

Yes 22350. I'm just thinking in terms of an initial trial of winning based on safe and reasonable speed and not exceeding maximum speed law, in the likely event the trial judge doesn't dismiss based speed trap. Nothing wrong with having two defenses ready at hand.

The only way the judge could NOT dismiss the case would be if he simply ignored the law.... which, from my experience, is not too unlikely.

Present your case. You have the law on your side. If the judge has his head up his butt, you need to get the appellate court to pull it out for him.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

No "Speed Trap" when speedometer is used to estimate speed!!!

As I searched for information for another citation, I came across this:

The speed trap rules are not applicable to evidence of speed based on use of speedometer without any use of radar.

It also adds:

Statuary speed trap requirements may be appplied where enforcement involves use of radar, even where enforcement is not exclusively based on use of Radar.

> The case they cited under both notations is:
People v. Goulet (Super. 1992) 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 801.

This is from "West's Annotated California Codes". Under Section 40801.

I'm not really sure how this will play out in your proposed trial, still thought you should know. . .

 

[JIMinCA]

The case you quoted is over 15 years old. At that time, many speedometers were not electronic devices. However, the statute is clear when it says ANY electronic device.

 

[davew128]

It is true it says any electronic device. I've seen on other forums people have tried this and failed with the judge's reasoning being that it is an indirect method of measuring speed. Of course the flaw with that line of thinking is that the legislature doesn't allow for indirect measuring of speed by way of timing from one marked point to another and at no point in the statute does it reference measurement of speed directly or indirectly nor does make any inference regarding the matter.

A plain black letter reading of the law should prevail here, but then again this IS California which is why my secondary argument in my TBWD will be on the matter of 23350 itself with regards to 64 in a 45. Again, the survey indicates the speed limit should have been set at 50 not 45 and we're talking about a four lane DIVIDED road with no traffic late at night.

While I think either argument should prevail I think based on my observation here is that the second argument on prudent and reasonable speed is more likely to succeed than the first argument on speed trap at least in traffic court. Just my lay opinion.

 

[seniorjudge]

It is true it says any electronic device. I've seen on other forums people have tried this and failed with the judge's reasoning being that it is an indirect method of measuring speed. Of course the flaw with that line of thinking is that the legislature doesn't allow for indirect measuring of speed by way of timing from one marked point to another and at no point in the statute does it reference measurement of speed directly or indirectly nor does make any inference regarding the matter.

A plain black letter reading of the law should prevail here, but then again this IS California which is why my secondary argument in my TBWD will be on the matter of 23350 itself with regards to 64 in a 45. Again, the survey indicates the speed limit should have been set at 50 not 45 and we're talking about a four lane DIVIDED road with no traffic late at night.

While I think either argument should prevail I think based on my observation here is that the second argument on prudent and reasonable speed is more likely to succeed than the first argument on speed trap at least in traffic court. Just my lay opinion.

Make both arguments and post back with results.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

The case you quoted is over 15 years old.

And yet it still cited in the 2008 update to "West's Annotated California Codes" book. . . Which I found at the Law Library in downtown LA!
Disqualify it if you wish, but any Judge that has any knowkedge &/or experience of California's traffic laws and particularly the Speed Trap Law would be aware of it.

However, the statute is clear when it says ANY electronic device.

I'm not disputing that fact, but considering the citation I posted above, it makes even clearer as far as what it EXCLUDES.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

. . . A plain black letter reading of the law should prevail here, but then again this IS California which is why my secondary argument in my TBWD will be on the matter of 23350 itself with regards to 64 in a 45. Again, the survey indicates the speed limit should have been set at 50 not 45 and we're talking about a four lane DIVIDED road with no traffic late at night.

While I think either argument should prevail I think based on my observation here is that the second argument on prudent and reasonable speed is more likely to succeed than the first argument on speed trap at least in traffic court. Just my lay opinion.

A plain black letter reading of the law might mean that you exceeded the posted limit by 19 miles. Allow it a bit more flexibility and it might suggest that in the officer's judgment, and since handed you a citation, your speed was neither reasonable nor prudent otherwise he may have used another VC section to site you.
The same could apply even if the limit was 50.

Don't get me wrong; if you can beat it with a TBWD then more power to you... If not, then you still get another crack at it in court and yet another crack by way of an appeal. It should be interesting no matter how it turns out.

Keep us posted. . .

 

[I_Got_Banned]

it doesn't get any clearer than...

This should settle it once & for all... And this one is only 6 years old. I hope that's acceptable, Jim!

The people were not required to produce current traffic and engineering survey, in prosecution for speeding, where evidence of defendant's speed was obtained by pacing his car, not by radar. People v. Cooper, 2002, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 188, 101 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1.

That, to me, says that a "speedometer" whether it be electronic or mechanical, is NOT considered as part of what ". . . radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects" is referring to.

Again, this is from West's Annotated California Codes.

 

[davew128]

I pulled up some bits of the case from another source (I couldn't get the whole thing) and I agree with your take on what it says. There was one very disturbing passage in it though where I do not agree with the opinion.

"Appellant's argument that the judgment must be reversed because of the failure to produce a current traffic and engineering survey is without merit because evidence of appellant's speed was not obtained through radar. The settled statement makes no mention of radar, and instead indicates the officer issued appellant a citation after conducting a pace of appellant's vehicle. The requirement of a traffic and engineering survey is unique to radar cases, and appellant has failed to cite any authority which would require a traffic survey in an unsafe speed prosecution based upon an officer's pace of the offender's vehicle."

Of course the statute says radar and other electronic devices capable of measuring speed, which even if we don't accept to include an electronic speedometer would include LIDAR, VASCAR, and theoretically GPS. According to the judge's opinon, only RADAR would ever matter for speed trap purposes which is flat out wrong on its face.

Do you have anything from the opinion or the case where an argument is made that the speedometer is an electronic device or did the appellant merely appeal on the issue of pacing and a speed trap? I'm guessing the appellant only argued that he was paced and didn't even mention the speedometer as an electronic device.

 

[JIMinCA]

Dave,

I imagine you are correct. I also imagine that the court (and the defendant) didn't even have enough mechanical knowlege to recognize that a speedometer is an electronic device.

 

[Maestro64]

Not that this will help the discussion, and this is a very good one.

However, there was a fed mandate that all cars made after certain date no longer have a mechanical speedometer/odometer, Mechanical at the time was a drive cable connecting the transmission to the speedometer/odometer. This was done to stop people form disconnecting this cable to falsify the mileage on the car or connecting the cable to a drill and turning back the millage.

Since that date, all car must use the an all electronic method to measure speed and miles, as it was point out, it is a magnetic pick up that measures pulses which it used to calculated speed and distance.

Now to the point about the speed trap law and maybe this will clear it up around whether the speedometer is electronic or not and whether it plays into the case. Since the method use was pacing, this alone will not allow the speed trap defense because the reason for the speed trap law was to prevent cities and towns form setting speeds artificially low then hide and wait with a radar unit (i.e. the electronic method) and catch unsuspecting citizens. The reason pacing is precluded is due to the fact they are out in the open and visible to you. So you have a chance to determine your speed and correct it if it was not where it should be. You at least had a chance of 3 tenth of mile to slow down.

The speed trap laws was set up to stop "entrapment" the argument is pacing is not entrapment, but low speed limits and hiding police and high tech detection is.

I believe this is the position of the state you will need to over come if you try and focus on the speed trap defense. Personally I do not think the court will listen to your defense along these lines without having lawyer involved.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I pulled up some bits of the case from another source (I couldn't get the whole thing) and I agree with your take on what it says. There was one very disturbing passage in it though where I do not agree with the opinion.
"Appellant's argument that the judgment must be reversed because of the failure to produce a current traffic and engineering survey is without merit because evidence of appellant's speed was not obtained through radar. The settled statement makes no mention of radar, and instead indicates the officer issued appellant a citation after conducting a pace of appellant's vehicle. The requirement of a traffic and engineering survey is unique to radar cases, and appellant has failed to cite any authority which would require a traffic survey in an unsafe speed prosecution based upon an officer's pace of the offender's vehicle."

Disturbing? Why is that disturbing? It is clear, concise, it shows that the appellant did a bad job of arguing his case... In fact he had no case to argue. He either misunderstood the Speed Trap law or he tried to misrepresent it to the appeals court and they would have nothing of the kind.
And in all honesty, this is the case here. You and Jim are both convinced that a speedometer should be included under the description of "electronic speed measuring devices"... and yes it is... But not in the scope of what was intended by the legistlature when the Speed Trap Law was enacted. Not because I said so, but because the authority on such matters of law that typically need to be clarified -that being the appeals court- concluded that it is not the case.
You have been presented with a number of different arguments, definitions and opinions that should leave no doubt that your argument is not only invalid but that it has been tried, tested and it failed!
If the legislature had really intended on including speedometers as part of the devices used to measure speed, do you think it would have been that difficult for them to include that one word in that one line?
Probably not!

I must say that it took some creativity there for a minute. But unfortunately, and as it turns out, it will not serve your purpose to use it. So rather than continuing to beat a dead horse, and if I were you, I would direct my energy at trying to find another way to make my case! But that's me!

Of course the statute says radar and other electronic devices capable of measuring speed, which even if we don't accept to include an electronic speedometer would include LIDAR, VASCAR, and theoretically GPS. According to the judge's opinon, only RADAR would ever matter for speed trap purposes which is flat out wrong on its face.

Dave, explain to me hoe they would use GPS to measure your speed? They would have to follow you (i.e. pace you) and look up the GPS information so might as well use the “electronic speedometer” that they already have to PACE you and notate your speed.
As for VASCAR, there’s an opinion on that… This is not an appeals case though. This is what’s called Opinions of the Attorney General… That means there is no case law on the matter and until one challenges the court and can prove otherwise, this will suffice. Here is what it says:

The “VASCAR” device does not constitute a “speed trap” prohibited by the Vehicle Code, and evidence obtained through its use would therefore be admissible. 52 Ops. Atty. Gen. 231, 11-14-69.

As for LIDAR, hey, there might be a case out there that mentions that… I haven’t seen any…
Lastly, the fact that the court only referred to RADAR and your stating its wrong on its face, you have to understand that Radar is the method most widely used in California. The court has already established and has taken Judicial notice of radar as a reliable, accurate, understandable and like I said, widely used method. And until someone can show fault to it or a downside to using it, why change it. In other words, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?

Do you have anything from the opinion or the case where an argument is made that the speedometer is an electronic device or did the appellant merely appeal on the issue of pacing and a speed trap? I'm guessing the appellant only argued that he was paced and didn't even mention the speedometer as an electronic device.

Like Jim said… you are correct… he didn’t argue that a speedometer is an electronic device… But obviously, that point is moot… it’s pointless… Well, I’ll answer that in my reply to Jim’s post.

Here you go… here why Mr. Cooper appealed. . . He got shut out on all 4 reasons. . . (Check out #2 and tell me what this guy was thinking… “two to three times the speed limit? So if they’re on the freeway, everybody is driving at 2 or 3 times the posted 65mph which would equal 195mph):

On appeal, appellant asserts the following contentions.
1. The trial court committed reversible error by violating appellant's statutory right to a trial by declaration.
2. Appellant was denied equal protection under the law because the officer admitted that everyone drives two or three times the posted speed limit.
3. The officer's admission that he lacked territorial jurisdiction in Beverly Hills precludes appellant's conviction.
4. The judgment should be reversed because the prosecution failed to introduce an engineering and traffic survey, and failed to establish the absence of a speed trap.

Here’s the part that is related to #4 above…

Finally, we address appellant's contention that the judgment should be reversed because the prosecution failed to introduce an engineering and traffic survey, and failed to establish the absence of a speed trap.

Where a defendant is charged with violating the basic speed law based on evidence that he exceeded a prima facie or posted speed limit and evidence of that speed is obtained through radar, the People are required to produce a current traffic and engineering survey, even in the absence of a request by the defendant. ( People v. DiFiore (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d Supp. 26, 28 [243 Cal.Rptr. 359].) A certified copy of the engineering and traffic survey taken within the past five years, justifying the speed limit imposed on the section of the highway, must be lodged with the court, or judicial notice of the survey must be taken, or a copy of the survey must be produced in open court. ( People v. Peterson (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d Supp. 7, 10 [226 Cal.Rptr. 544].) "Whenever radar is used in conjunction with the enforcement of a posted speed limit on a nonlocal roadway, the speed trap laws are invoked, giving rise to the need for a current engineering and traffic survey that justifies the posted speed. Absent the survey . . . the officer is incompetent to testify as to the speed of the defendant's vehicle, even if his testimony is confined to his visual determination of that speed." ( People v. Conzelman (1994) 33 Cal.App.4th Supp. 6, 8, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 156 fn. omitted.)

Appellant's argument that the judgment must be reversed because of the failure to produce a current traffic and engineering survey is without merit because evidence of appellant's speed was not obtained through radar. The settled statement makes no mention of radar, and instead indicates the officer issued appellant a citation after conducting a pace of appellant's vehicle. The requirement of a traffic and engineering survey is unique to radar cases, and appellant has failed to cite any authority which would require a traffic survey in an unsafe speed prosecution based upon an officer's pace of the offender's vehicle.

The judgment is affirmed.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Not that this will help the discussion, and this is a very good one.

However, there was a fed mandate that all cars made after certain date no longer have a mechanical speedometer/odometer, Mechanical at the time was a drive cable connecting the transmission to the speedometer/odometer. This was done to stop people form disconnecting this cable to falsify the mileage on the car or connecting the cable to a drill and turning back the millage.

Since that date, all car must use the an all electronic method to measure speed and miles, as it was point out, it is a magnetic pick up that measures pulses which it used to calculated speed and distance.

Now to the point about the speed trap law and maybe this will clear it up around whether the speedometer is electronic or not and whether it plays into the case. Since the method use was pacing, this alone will not allow the speed trap defense because the reason for the speed trap law was to prevent cities and towns form setting speeds artificially low then hide and wait with a radar unit (i.e. the electronic method) and catch unsuspecting citizens. The reason pacing is precluded is due to the fact they are out in the open and visible to you. So you have a chance to determine your speed and correct it if it was not where it should be. You at least had a chance of 3 tenth of mile to slow down.
The speed trap laws was set up to stop "entrapment" the argument is pacing is not entrapment, but low speed limits and hiding police and high tech detection is.

I believe this is the position of the state you will need to over come if you try and focus on the speed trap defense. Personally I do not think the court will listen to your defense along these lines without having lawyer involved.

I agree with all you said Maestro... And let me add another reason to the part I underlined in your post...
it is a well proven fact that if an officer is visible on the road, people try their absolute best to drive within the limits of the law. So lets have those officers out there pacing everybody and if that stops people from exceeding the limits which are assumably set oproperly (like you eluded to) then so be it. It would not make sense to restrict the officer's ability to pace if in fact the officer's presence/visiblity benefit the public's safety.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Dave,

I imagine you are correct. I also imagine that the court (and the defendant) didn't even have enough mechanical knowlege to recognize that a speedometer is an electronic device.

Jim…

I think you meant to say that the court (and the defendant) didn’t even have enough ELECTRONIC knowledge to recognize that a speedometer is an electronic device. Because if it requires “mechanical knowledge” might suggest that it is a mechanical device… which it isnt!

The point is, establishing a speedometer as an “electronic device” only qualifies it as.. just that… an “electronic device” and one that measures the speed of the vehicle in which it is installed. It does not by any means or description qualify it as being an electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. Whereas a radar gun, and if pointed at a moving car, baseball, bird, snowball or even spitwad, chances are, it will return some sort of reading estimating the speed of such an object.

Fact of the matter is, when it comes to speed measuring devices, and for the purposes of deciding whether vehicle Code Section 40802 is applicable to a particular case/citation, a speedometer is NOT considered part of what is described as radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects; and obviously by the way the appeals court has interpreted that statement) it certainly is not what the legistlature had intended for that statement/description to mean.

 

[davew128]

Disturbing? Why is that disturbing? It is clear, concise, it shows that the appellant did a bad job of arguing his case... In fact he had no case to argue. He either misunderstood the Speed Trap law or he tried to misrepresent it to the appeals court and they would have nothing of the kind.
And in all honesty, this is the case here. You and Jim are both convinced that a speedometer should be included under the description of "electronic speed measuring devices"... and yes it is... But not in the scope of what was intended by the legistlature when the Speed Trap Law was enacted. Not because I said so, but because the authority on such matters of law that typically need to be clarified -that being the appeals court- concluded that it is not the case.

Your abbreviated notes and my posted text only indicate the appellant argued against pacing in terms of a speed trap. In that regard, yes he was going to lose. Pacing in and of itself doesn't constitute a speed trap. What the officer uses to determine speed while pacing does. From what little we've seen, that issue wasn't addressed. The judge was clearly wrong based on black letter law in regards to what the law says.

You have been presented with a number of different arguments, definitions and opinions that should leave no doubt that your argument is not only invalid but that it has been tried, tested and it failed!

I see nothing to indicate it has been tried at an appellate level. There is no case argued that I can find where anyone argued that a speedometer is an electronic device and therefore the speed trap law comes into play.

If the legislature had really intended on including speedometers as part of the devices used to measure speed, do you think it would have been that difficult for them to include that one word in that one line?
Probably not!

Electronic speedometers didn't exist when this law was originally written. That they do now probably constitutes what I would consider a loophole. An exploitable one at that.

Dave, explain to me hoe they would use GPS to measure your speed? They would have to follow you (i.e. pace you) and look up the GPS information so might as well use the “electronic speedometer” that they already have to PACE you and notate your speed.
As for VASCAR, there’s an opinion on that… This is not an appeals case though. This is what’s called Opinions of the Attorney General… That means there is no case law on the matter and until one challenges the court and can prove otherwise, this will suffice. Here is what it says:


As for LIDAR, hey, there might be a case out there that mentions that… I haven’t seen any…
Lastly, the fact that the court only referred to RADAR and your stating its wrong on its face, you have to understand that Radar is the method most widely used in California. The court has already established and has taken Judicial notice of radar as a reliable, accurate, understandable and like I said, widely used method. And until someone can show fault to it or a downside to using it, why change it. In other words, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?

There actually is or was a case pending where a kid called in the manufacturers of his car's GPS system as a rebuttal to the officer's RADAR. I know from my own experience that my GPS typically shows me at 2-3 MPH less than what my digital speedometer shows. Which is more accurate? Probably the GPS because the speedometer is based on assumed values for tire size which can fluctuate based on the age, wear, and brand of tire mounted to your wheel.