First traffic ticket (As well)

Jurisdiction: Oakland, California

I just received my frist ticket today, where the officer accused me of going 40+ in a 30 zone for the duration of the time that she was behind me (not prior to that), though when I asked for a more specific number she could not give it to me.

I saw her turn behind me about 1/4 mile back where she proceeded to tail me for that long. I remembered going approximately 38-39 mph at that time and having slowed down to 32-34 or so as soon as she "got on my tail." I can testify to the fact that half the time, I remember staring directly at the speedometer, trying not to speed. In fact, my foot was on the break about 80% of the time. After about a quarter of a mile, she flashed her lights and pulled me over.

I just recently changed my tires so I realize that my speedometer may have been incorrect. However, I don't think I was as far as 20%+ off. Is it reasonable to say that I wasn't aware of an expectation to check my speedometer every X duration?

Is that possible? What are my options?

Being a 1st year law student, I can hardly afford any expenses outside of my tuition/books. Please help!

TTS2000 said:

Jurisdiction: Oakland, California

I just received my frist ticket today, where the officer accused me of going 40+ in a 30 zone for the duration of the time that she was behind me (not prior to that), though when I asked for a more specific number she could not give it to me.

I saw her turn behind me about 1/4 mile back where she proceeded to tail me for that long. I remembered going approximately 38-39 mph at that time and having slowed down to 32-34 or so as soon as she "got on my tail." I can testify to the fact that half the time, I remember staring directly at the speedometer, trying not to speed. In fact, my foot was on the break about 80% of the time. After about a quarter of a mile, she flashed her lights and pulled me over.

**A: excuses not relevant.
*******

I just recently changed my tires so I realize that my speedometer may have been incorrect.

**A: changed tires have nothing to do with a speedometer functionality.
*******
However, I don't think I was as far as 20%+ off. Is it reasonable to say that I wasn't aware of an expectation to check my speedometer every X duration?

**A: way off. Stay in law school.
********

Is that possible? What are my options?

Being a 1st year law student, I can hardly afford any expenses outside of my tuition/books. Please help!

Click to expand...

**A: then next time heed the posted speed limit and do not break the law.

HomeGuru said:

**A: then next time heed the posted speed limit and do not break the law.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your sympathetic response.

Myth or fact, it is a common belief that it is the common policy of police enforcement/highway patrol to give a leeway of 5 to 10 mph before they start enforcing a speed limit. I do not believe I broke the law within the period that the officer cited me for.

HomeGuru said:

**A: excuses not relevant.
*******

Click to expand...

My recounting is not an excuse. It is a difference in fact from the officer's.

HomeGuru said:

****A: changed tires have nothing to do with a speedometer functionality.
*******

Click to expand...

That is entirely incorrect. As I found out after some research today, the diameter/pressure/calibration of your tires affects the accuracy of your speedometer.

HomeGuru said:

**A: way off. Stay in law school.
********

Click to expand...

Please clarify.

TTS2000 said:

My recounting is not an excuse. It is a difference in fact from the officer's.

Click to expand...

OK, how do you intend on proving your version is correct as opposed to the trained law enforcement officer who does this multipel times daily for a living?

That is entirely incorrect. As I found out after some research today, the diameter/pressure/calibration of your tires affects the accuracy of your speedometer.

Click to expand...

What the heck is a "tire calibration"? But in any event, you can be rolling on stale donuts and it won't matter - it's still your responsibility to operate the car within the law. Not only does that include driving under the speed limit, but also maintaining the car's equipment in proper working order. So you can theorectically have received a fix-it ticket if your speedo was "off". Still no defense though.

Please clarify.

Click to expand...

Be alert. The world needs more lerts.

What you recall the officer telling you, and the recollection fo events the officer will tell the court may be different matters. Maybe she communicated the "when" of the pacing or visual estimation incorrectly, or maybe you misinterpreted it. There are a number of ways she could get an estimate of 40 MPH.

And if you were braking for 80% of the time I was behind you, I might seriously suspect that your brakes weren't functioning properly or that your accelerator was stuck and pull you over for that purpose!

Sitting on the brakes is a tell-tale sign of a speeder.

There are other ways you might be able to contest a speeding citation, but if it comes down to your word versus the officer's, chances are the officer will prevail.

- Carl

"...I just recently changed my tires so I realize that my speedometer may have been incorrect. However, I don't think I was as far as 20%+ off. Is it reasonable to say that I wasn't aware of an expectation to check my speedometer every X duration?..."

Do they still call speeding, inter alia, public welfare offenses in law schools these days?

This type of offense does not require intent to commit it.

Thus, when the officer testifies you were speeding, your only defense is that you were NOT speeding. How will you prove that?

BTW, having defective equipment on your car will not enhance your case.

Thanks for all your replies.

A few LAST questions.

1) In response to maintenance and responsibility for maintenance, does it matter whether that the car is not registered to my name?

2) If so, what kind of technical knowlegdge does the law expect of me to know? If I just went to the dealership because my tires were balding and, acting as a responsible driver, had them changed, how should I know what kind of tires are the "correct" type to get so that my speedometer reflects the most accurate speed? I am NOT a car expert. Shouldn't that be partly the dealership's responsibility?

3) (Not on a theoretical basis) Does my word weigh less than that of the officer's? If I testify, under the penalty of perjury, that i was STARING at the speedometer, and its needle was between 32-34, does that not create any amount of doubt?

4) What is the usual pacing method of a police officer from behind a vehicle? How does that work? If that involves a procedure as simple as looking at her speedometer, then how do they determine whether they are moving at the same speed as you? (What I'm getting at is, say, if she discovers I'm moving quickly and speeds up to catch up to me, and looks at her speedometer before she decelerates, she could be looking at a speed DRASTICALLY faster than the speed in which I was moving because she was speeding up to catch up to me. If I push the date of the court hearing pretty far out, it may be that she would have a hazy testimony, and lend some credible doubt my way.)

PS. "Tire calibration" simply means the calibration between your tire size and the speedometer. So yes, it was redundant repetition of "diameter." My apologies.

TTS2000 said:

1) In response to maintenance and responsibility for maintenance, does it matter whether that the car is not registered to my name?

Click to expand...

The owner of the car can get cited for that ... and you would still not be able to use the defective equipment as a defense.

2) If so, what kind of technical knowlegdge does the law expect of me to know? If I just went to the dealership because my tires were balding and, acting as a responsible driver, had them changed, how should I know what kind of tires are the "correct" type to get so that my speedometer reflects the most accurate speed? I am NOT a car expert. Shouldn't that be partly the dealership's responsibility?

Click to expand...

If that turns out to be the case, then go after them in small claims court for the amount of the fine. However, since you probably approved the purchase and installation of the tires, chances are that won't go anywhere.

3) (Not on a theoretical basis) Does my word weigh less than that of the officer's? If I testify, under the penalty of perjury, that i was STARING at the speedometer, and its needle was between 32-34, does that not create any amount of doubt?

Click to expand...

If you were staring at the speedometer and not the road, then I would be concerned about your ability to operate the car safely. The speedometer won't kill you ... but taking your eyes off the road for several seconds CAN.

4) What is the usual pacing method of a police officer from behind a vehicle? How does that work?

Click to expand...

It depends. If the officer is radar trained, then they have experience in visual estimation and can do pretty good estimations. If directly pacing you, it usually comes down to the maintenance of distance for a period of time and usually estimating low to account for the distance.

However, the distance and angle are reasonable avenues of inquiry. If the officer has little experience, you have a better chance of prevailing. if the officer is experienced, you may be in trouble.

If I push the date of the court hearing pretty far out, it may be that she would have a hazy testimony, and lend some credible doubt my way.)

Click to expand...

Your memory would be just as "hazy" and just as in doubt. She probably took notes immediately after the incident - I'll bet you didn't.


- carl

Does my word weigh less than that of the officer's?
Yes, she is an expert witness.

If I testify, under the penalty of perjury, that i was STARING at the speedometer, and its needle was between 32-34, does that not create any amount of doubt?
No. Don't first year law students take evidence? Haven't you studied credibility?