22348 (b) speeding 100 + can i win california

[colincrow]

state california

Hello all

I was recently cited with a 22348 (b) speeding ticket in a 65 mph zone. The officer used a radar gun that had me clocked at 112 mph. It was on the 210 e bound freeway which is a 4 lane highway 4 lanes going each way.

I hade to wave my right to a speedy trial because i thought the bail was going to be 500 but it was 1800 and i could not pay it at the arraignment.

My trial is in 3 days. I did not submit a discovery request, all the information on the ticket is correct ,name,location,address.

I did however issue a duces tecum subpena and obtained records of the officer radar training,his daily log and calibration log.

His daily log and calibration log of the day the ticket was issued contradict each other . In the calibration log it states he calibrated his radar gun at 13:00 hrs but his daily log states he was conductiong a accident investigation from 12:45 to 13:30 hrs. That was the only time that day he calibrated his radar gun. however his gun does have a self calibration test with out tuning forks.

Will this discredit him or help in the defense ?

Also his radar training records show test results. In which his visual estimate to actual speeed of the tested vehicle was wrong 13 out of 15 times . Once he was off by 5 mph where the vehicle was going 53 and he estimated 48.

Will this help the defense ?

How should i argue these points? and will it be enough to win ?

Should i testify to my atcual speed of 88 ?

Do i have any chance of winning ?

Anyone's help is much appreciated

[VeronicaLodge]

so are you going to try and say under oath that you were only going 65 and the officers radar inaccurately clocked you at 112 and that you were not speeding?

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by colincrow

Also his radar training records show test results. In which his visual estimate to actual speeed of the tested vehicle was wrong 13 out of 15 times . Once he was off by 5 mph where the vehicle was going 53 and he estimated 48.

This made me laugh.

So, it's your contention that, because he thinks someone who is going 48 is actually going 53 that his visual ESTIMATING ability is insufficient to verify against radar?

I would LOVE to see someone pipe up on how THIS GUY should defend himself, now that he has all that discovery under his belt

[MikeKV]

This guy seems to have duplicate threads so I'll reply twice.

Just giving you a heads up. I'm not trying to scare you, only trying to make you think of what options you have. If you plead not guilty to a speeding ticket and lose in court you stand the chance that the judge will increase the fine(s) and penalties. I've sat in on traffic court (during 2 of my no-fault accident decisions) and seen it happen. If you attempt to discredit an officer and lose in court it can have drastic and negative affects on the judges decision against you. The judge could take away your driving privledges for a year or more if he/she wanted and increase the fine(s).

If you know, honestly, that you were going 100+ I would recommend pleading guilty and paying the, better chance, lesser fine and penalty and moving on. It looks much better in court when you accept your fault. You may even be able to ask for a lesser decision (exceeding the speed of 80+ for example) and then accept your fines(s) and penalties.

Just giving you a heads up with what you could be setting yourself up for. If you are honestly not guilty than go for it.

Keep us updated on the results.

[JIMinCA]

How do you know your speed was 88??? If you were doing 88, and you can prove it, then you are NOT GUILTY of violating 22348(b).

[colincrow]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

How do you know your speed was 88??? If you were doing 88, and you can prove it, then you are NOT GUILTY of violating 22348(b).

that was the speed of my speedometer and it is correct. on proving it i cant. i didnt have a camera in the dash, and i dont think the judge will take my word over the officers.

the only way i think i can win the case is to show that the radar was wrong by there being no accurate log of calibration .thus the gun may have not been working properly

and to show that the office visual estimate was wrong.

do u have any other suggestions jim ?

or do u think this tactic will work ?

[colincrow]

Originally Posted by VeronicaLodge

so are you going to try and say under oath that you were only going 65 and the officers radar inaccurately clocked you at 112 and that you were not speeding?

not at all i would testify to going 88 and accept the penalty

[JIMinCA]

If he testified to doing 88 and that was accepted by the court, there would be no consequence.

[JIMinCA]

I have never defended a speeding ticket based on the lack of daily calibration. VC40802 requires:

(D) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure
the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational
standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and
has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the
alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair
and testing or calibration facility.

Can someone verify that field calibrations are in fact a requirement and what section of the vehicle code requires it?

[VeronicaLodge]

Originally Posted by colincrow

not at all i would testify to going 88 and accept the penalty

are you saying you were going 88? or are you saying you would lie under oath?

[VeronicaLodge]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

If he testified to doing 88 and that was accepted by the court, there would be no consequence.

are you saying there is no penalty for going 88 in a 65?

[fairisfair]

Originally Posted by VeronicaLodge

are you saying there is no penalty for going 88 in a 65?

No, what he is saying is that it would be a different citation.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by VeronicaLodge

are you saying there is no penalty for going 88 in a 65?

I am saying that he was charged with exceeding 100 mph. If he were driving 88, he would not be guilty of exceeding 100. He may be guilty of a different infraction, but he was not charged with a different infraction.

Analogy: If you were caught red handed in the act of Breaking and Entering, but you were charged with armed robbery.... wouldn't you plead not guilty?

[fairisfair]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

I am saying that he was charged with exceeding 100 mph. If he were driving 88, he would not be guilty of exceeding 100. He may be guilty of a different infraction, but he was not charged with a different infraction.

Analogy: If you were caught red handed in the act of Breaking and Entering, but you were charged with armed robbery.... wouldn't you plead not guilty?

and therein lies the difference.

I wouldn't have committed either crime.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by fairisfair

and therein lies the difference.

I wouldn't have committed either crime.

So... what's your point? And how does it relate to helping the OP with his issue? Or is your intent just to spew rightous indignation by demonstrating how you are morally superior to all those who would come here to ask for help?