22350, went to trial already, filing an appeal

[ihatetickets]

Orange County California. Cited for 22350 Basic Speed law

I had my trial already and was found guilty, I know I did nothing wrong and I'd like some tips on how to appeal. I know I need to fill out TR-150/155/160 anything else?

Details:

• Officer said I made a right hand turn at 50 (no radar/lidar to back it up). I was going at the most 40MPH, but most likely 35.
• Speed limit is 50 for where I was
• Officer stated that my tires were screeching, therefore he pulled me over
• I was also cited for 22100 as I apexed the curb so I could make the turn, the officer dismissed this charge 2 days later

For my defense I said:

• Screeching tires doesn't signify loss of control or unsafe driving (people's tires screech in parking lots all the time when they're doing 2MPH)
• Speed limit is 50 where I was cited
• Officer had no proof of me going 50
• I used the dismissal of 22100, as the officer admitted during the traffic stop that the way I turned allowed me to take the turn at a faster pace, to prove that I was turning at a safe speed

The judge pretty much ignored my defense of tire screeching as he continued to push that reason to find me guilty. I said if I bought expensive tires then I can turn as fast as I want and he responded with agreement.

I'm pretty much at a loss here, I think I did a decent job showing that not only did the officer not have an indicated speed but he admitted himself that I turned correctly.

Also, if I do end up losing, how would I go about applying for traffic school?

Thanks

Any suggestions or comments would greatly help.

[JIMinCA]

You do have a good case. If he cited you for 22350, he was saying that your speed presented a danger to persons or property. The trick behind 22350 is that 22351 says that if you were exceeding the posted speed limit, then that is sufficient to show a violation of the basic speed law and the burden shifts to the defendant to show by competent authority that your speed did not constitute a danger. Since there was no evidence that you were exceeding the speed limit, then the burden to prove that your speed constituted a danger to persons or property rests with the state. I don't believe screeching tires alone meets this burden. He would have had to talk about actual people or acutal property that were endangered to meet the prosecution's burden.

So... you should take a look at [url]www.helpigotaticket.com[/url]. There is a section on appeals. Once you file your notice of intent to appeal, you have 15 days to provide proposed statement. It goes from there. You need to determine your strategy and the actual grounds for appeal before you start the process.

[ihatetickets]

Thanks for the site, from what I gathered I need to emphasize that the officer understood that my speed was suitable for the line that I took while turning. I should also point out that he said that I was the only one on the road at the time (which he did say, and is true).

Should I point out traffic conditions and weather as well?

During the trial, the judge said he had to agree with the officer's recommendation that the turn should be taken at 15. Should I attack the validity of his judgement as he is not a certified civil engineer and that there is no advisory speed limit?

[davew128]

Originally Posted by ihatetickets

Thanks for the site, from what I gathered I need to emphasize that the officer understood that my speed was suitable for the line that I took while turning. I should also point out that he said that I was the only one on the road at the time (which he did say, and is true).

Should I point out traffic conditions and weather as well?

During the trial, the judge said he had to agree with the officer's recommendation that the turn should be taken at 15. Should I attack the validity of his judgement as he is not a certified civil engineer and that there is no advisory speed limit?

Tickets like this are absolute crap. Put in a different light, I drive an RX-8 and I could and quite possibly would have taken that corner without even slowing (assuming your 40mph) depending on conditions. Your comment about tire noise is also valid as someone downshifting with a manual transmission or even hitting a patch of sand on the road could have tire screeching.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by davew128

Tickets like this are absolute crap. Put in a different light, I drive an RX-8 and I could and quite possibly would have taken that corner without even slowing (assuming your 40mph) depending on conditions. Your comment about tire noise is also valid as someone downshifting with a manual transmission or even hitting a patch of sand on the road could have tire screeching.

And screeching=loss of contact between the tire and the road. Loss of contact between the tire and the road=loss of control. Loss of control=unsafe driving.

(Just pointing out the logic sequence the officer and judge use when determining these things)

[JIMinCA]

Unsafe driving is not the standard. The officer would have had to have shown that the SPEED of the vehicle presented a danger to persons of property. The defendant could have theoretically spun out in the middle of the road... but if the officer did not relate that to a specific danger presented to a person or property, then the defendant was wrongly convicted.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Unsafe driving is not the standard. The officer would have had to have shown that the SPEED of the vehicle presented a danger to persons of property. The defendant could have theoretically spun out in the middle of the road... but if the officer did not relate that to a specific danger presented to a person or property, then the defendant was wrongly convicted.

Our OP was traveling faster than the rest of the traffic. Thus his SPEED (a form of unsafe driving) presented a danger to persons or property (himself included).

I won't argue this any more with ya Jim

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by ihatetickets

Thanks for the site, from what I gathered I need to emphasize that the officer understood that my speed was suitable for the line that I took while turning. I should also point out that he said that I was the only one on the road at the time (which he did say, and is true).

Should I point out traffic conditions and weather as well?

During the trial, the judge said he had to agree with the officer's recommendation that the turn should be taken at 15. Should I attack the validity of his judgement as he is not a certified civil engineer and that there is no advisory speed limit?

Keep in mind that you are not allowed to introduce new evidence at an appeal. You are simply saying that the judge was wrong in convicting you given the evidence before him. Your grounds for appeal will likely be "Judicial Error".

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Keep in mind that you are not allowed to introduce new evidence at an appeal. You are simply saying that the judge was wrong in convicting you given the evidence before him. Your grounds for appeal will likely be "Judicial Error".

And, he will likely lose on those grounds

OP - c'mon back and let us know how it went.

[davew128]

Originally Posted by Zigner

And screeching=loss of contact between the tire and the road. Loss of contact between the tire and the road=loss of control. Loss of control=unsafe driving.

(Just pointing out the logic sequence the officer and judge use when determining these things)

Faulty logic. I can screech my tires shifting hard from first into second with mild acceleration. At no point do my tires leave the ground.

[davew128]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Our OP was traveling faster than the rest of the traffic. Thus his SPEED (a form of unsafe driving) presented a danger to persons or property (himself included).

Guess you missed the post where it was stated HE WAS THE ONLY DRIVER ON THE ROAD.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by davew128

Guess you missed the post where it was stated HE WAS THE ONLY DRIVER ON THE ROAD.

Wow, actually got this confused with a different thread.
HOWEVER, the law does NOT state that others have to be around...if the OP was going too fast for conditions, he also put HIMSELF and HIS PROPERTY at risk.

OP's not going to win this one...

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by davew128

Faulty logic. I can screech my tires shifting hard from first into second with mild acceleration. At no point do my tires leave the ground.

Yes, and screeching of tires can be considered "exhibition of speed" (I had a nice discussion with a police officer when I chirped my tires going from 1st to 2nd in a 1974 PINTO)

Your tires don't have to "leave the ground" for them to lose traction (which would have been a better way for me to explain it)

[davew128]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Yes, and screeching of tires can be considered "exhibition of speed" (I had a nice discussion with a police officer when I chirped my tires going from 1st to 2nd in a 1974 PINTO)

Which anyone familiar with a manual transmission would get dismissed in a heartbeat.

Your tires don't have to "leave the ground" for them to lose traction (which would have been a better way for me to explain it)

Ok, but now you're talking about a new argument to issue the ticket, something not likely involved with its issuance in the first place. Bottom line is that if you're the only person on the road, under the speed limit, and don't visibly lose control of the vehicle the ticket should never be issued. Under the logic given, someone who's tires screech while braking hard could get a ticket for the same thing even though there is no accident.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by davew128

Which anyone familiar with a manual transmission would get dismissed in a heartbeat.

Right

Ok, but now you're talking about a new argument to issue the ticket, something not likely involved with its issuance in the first place. Bottom line is that if you're the only person on the road, under the speed limit, and don't visibly lose control of the vehicle the ticket should never be issued. Under the logic given, someone who's tires screech while braking hard could get a ticket for the same thing even though there is no accident.

Right