CA VC 22350 requesting help with appeal

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?California
I am appealing a guilty verdict from a trial by written declaration, mostly because I did not know I had to ask for traffic school option in my written declaration. But now that I have the officers declaration, I still feel I should be able to beat this.
The officers statement included:
ETS within 5 yrs, on file (form submitted also had unmarked options for 5-7 yr ETS, and 7-10 yr ETS)
Use of visual assessment AND radar to determine speed

The ETS on file in the county law library within 5 yrs is the survey for Trucks which is a different posted and justified speed limit.
The last ETS for cars, which I was driving, was 1995, next scheduled ETS 2006. The ETS Evaluation dated 2001 extending the next ETS to 10 year did not include the second page which had questions 2-5 which are addressed to determine if extension is appropriate. The differences I noticed between the car survey of 1995 and the truck survey of 2005 were: a change of verticle curve from 1200' to 1600', a change in road division (concrete barriers vs. painted lines), changes in roadway signs (removal of daylight headlight safety signs, removal of telephone ahead signs)

I believe that since I was not driving a truck or towing a trailer, the radar evidence submitted by the officer can not be used against me.

As far as the visual assessment of speed and its relation to being unsafe:
the officer was in his car, facing the same direction as my direction of travel, approx. 20' right of the edge of travel way. I was in #1 lane of 2. He was positioned approx. 1/4 mile downhill from the crest of mountain pass. From this crest there is a straightaway of about 1/3 mile.
How can an officer accurately assess speed of car when viewing from a rear view mirror? The only visual markers I can see which could be used to time travel time would be shadows of power poles which at that time of day cross the two lanes of oncoming traffic. These poles are only 250' feet apart. If he was able to get a radar reading from his "rear radar" which he "activated after his visual assessment", wouldn't there need to be a safe distance between myself and other vehicles? I don't believe he had a hand held unit which he could position himself behind to point directly at target vehicle.

I hope I have included enough information to explain this clearly.

Basically, how can an officer accurately visually assess, through a rear view mirror of a stationary vehicle located past the shoulder, the speed of a solo car 200-300' behind a group of four cars on coming on a downhill straightaway?

Thank you for your help.

I am assuming that you are not actually appealing right now, but are preparing for a trial de novo, which you are entitled to after losing a trial by dec. But if you haven't filed for a trial de novo, do so today, as there is a 20-day deadline to file.

Forget about his visual assessment, or how it was done. Attack the radar. Why? Because per our speed trap law (CVC 40802 - 40805), if the survey doesn't properly justify the posted speed, the officer is "poisoned" and all testimony from him, including any visual estimates, is inadmissible.

You've already noticed that the survey may not be Kosher because of the missing second page. But you also need to be ready in case they come up with that page, or the judge says it doesn't matter.

One aspect of the survey that you did not address is whether the speed limit was properly justified by the survey. If the 85th percentile speed was (for example) 47 and they posted a 45 limit, no special justification is required. But if they posted a limit that was another 5 mph increment less, 40 in this example, then the survey needs to contain an explanation by the traffic engineer (and signed, too) as to why the additional decrease in the posted limit was necessary. That justification cannot be something that would be apparent to a driver, such as "there is a steep hill." Things that would not be apparent to a driver would be a higher than average accident rate, or hidden obstacles, etc.

Another common fault in a survey is when the posted limit makes violators of the majority of drivers. (See footnote 20 in P. v. Goulet, (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 801) Using our example again, lets say the 50th percentile speed (not always indicated on the survey, so you may have to figure it yourself) is 41, then more than half of the drivers are violating the 40 posted limit . Be sure to get a copy of Goulet - it is a treasure trove. It is a famous case should be readily available on the internet.

There are good books about all this, at the library, that will tell you other aspects of the radar to attack. See the reference librarian.

Pug