22350vc-speeding

[RyanR]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Hi guys,
Last night I was pulled over for barking the tires(dumped the clutch alittle and the tires chirped..thats it) the officer must have been several cars behind me and came flying down the center lane with lights on to pull me over. He walked about to the window and asked if I knew what he had pulled me over for, I said I accidentally let the clutch slip out more than I expected. He responded with,"and what would happen if you did that?" I said it must likely will chirp the tires. He said alright, asked for Lic. registration, insurance...all the normal stuff. He came back with telling me license is suspended (I had no idea...) so he said he would cut me a break, instead of a 23109(c) exhibition of speed he would drop it to a 22350vc. He said I never exceeded the posted speed limit and was never driving unsafe, but since it chirped the tires he was writing me up for that. So on the ticket there is; no Speed Approx:, no P.F./Max Spd:, Veh. Lmt:, Safe:, Radar:...nothing is written in these areas. He also cited me for 24003vc unlawful headlamps (they're HID's) and for 14606??(his handwriting is bad I cant read it fully) which would be the suspended DL.

Sorry for the long thread, I just wanted to get the entire story written out so that hopefully I can receive soom good advice. I am just wondering if I should fight the 22350? Being that he never saw me do anything, although I did admit to chirping the tires but that is not on the ticket..

Thank You for any advice,
Ryan R.

 

[Jim_bo]

You have got to be kidding me.....

First lesson. When a cop comes to your window and starts asking you a bunch of questions... he is not starting friendly conversation. He is building a case against you. Keep that in mind when answering as everything you say will come back to haunt you.

You absolutely should fight the 22350. If the cop said you weren't exceeding the speed limit and you weren't driving unsafe, then there is no basis for a 22350 charge. If he was just looking for something to charge you with because he heard your tires chirp, why not charge you with dui, or tax evasion?? Those are just about as reasonable as 22350.

Keep in mind that since you were under the prima facie speed limit, he has the burden to prove that your SPEED (not chirping tires, not acceleration, etc.) caused a danger to persons or property. Especially given his statement, there is no way he will be able to do that.

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed
greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather,
visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the
highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of
persons or property.

 

[RyanR]

well that was the first thing I thought of as soon as I said I chirped the tires...I was thinking that was pretty stupid on my part. So when I go to traffic court I will plea not guilty? And then they will appoint a later court date, I have never done this before so I have no clue as what to do.

 

[CdwJava]

Geez, that's two recent threads where good cites for exhibition have been dropped to very difficult to prove unsafe speed cites! What are these guys thinking! The Park Police I can understand making that mistake, but a city cop!?

If this goes to trial, this will be another officer who will earn his lesson and not cut a break like that one again!

The next guy the officer stops will get the full monte (fine and all ... though maybe not the vehicle impound)

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Geez, that's two recent threads where good cites for exhibition have been dropped to very difficult to prove unsafe speed cites! What are these guys thinking! The Park Police I can understand making that mistake, but a city cop!?

If this goes to trial, this will be another officer who will earn his lesson and not cut a break like that one again!

The next guy the officer stops will get the full monte (fine and all ... though maybe not the vehicle impound)

- Carl

I suspect the cop wasn't nearly as benevolent as you imply. As you have pointed out in more than one thread, the legal standard has to do with accelerating quickly causing the tires to loose traction and scream loudly. (That's a paraphrase... not exact, but close). I don't think a "chirp" rises to the level of "scream loudly". I can imagine that the cop realized this and decided to take what he could get. If he wrote a 22350 ticket and told the OP he was getting a break, maybe the OP wouldn't argue about it in court and just pay the fine or take traffic school. I believe traffic school is usually not an option with exhibition of speed.

So, instead of seeing that the cop is victimized by his generous nature, I think it is a reasonable assumption to believe the cop knew he didn't legitimately have anything of the OP, but figured he would provide the OP an easy way out (traffic school) and get a traffic conviction at the same time. Hopefully, the lesson this cop learns is not "don't cut anyone a break"... hopefully he learns to only cite legitimate violations.

 

[CdwJava]

A common mistake made by newer, younger officers is that they do try to offer up lesser offenses even when they have a more serious one. Sometimes it is because it is less likely everyone will go to court, but it is also because they do want to cut some people - if they are cooperative - a break. When they get burned, the officer won't do that any more.

The problem is the officer often cites for an offense that he feels is lesser, but that he cannot support with the facts of the case.

Unfortunately, the precedent is also set by prosecutors and defense attorneys alike when the agree to plea deals that do not include offenses that fit the fact set ... such as pleading to a public disturbance for a DV that occurred inside a private home, or to an offense that plain did not happen such as pleading a traffic case down to a seatbelt violation when the violation was for running a stop sign and there was no indication of a seatbelt violation observed by the officer! (Yes, I've seen both happen, and went into apoplexy both times ... well, sort of.)

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

You are the perpetual defender of the state. You seem to take the side of the cop/state in most cases. At least you are consistent.

 

[CdwJava]

Funny ... I didn't see that I took any "side" - I merely explained what sometime happens, and my disdain for such bargaining to offenses for which the elements of the offense have not been met.

- Carl

 

[Zigner]

You are the perpetual defender of the state. You seem to take the side of the cop/state in most cases. At least you are consistent.

Funny - seems to me that Carl was actually blasting the cops. They definitely should write up the offenses that are committed. I mean - you gotta agree with that, right Jim?

 

[Jim_bo]

Funny - seems to me that Carl was actually blasting the cops. They definitely should write up the offenses that are committed. I mean - you gotta agree with that, right Jim?

I do agree with that. And that is why this OP shouldn't have been cited at all. Carl thinks he will learn his lesson by losing a case in court. I think he should learn his lesson by being repremanded for citing a driver when there was nothing to actually cite them for!! I don't buy the story of "the cop was inexperienced and was trying to cut the OP a break". And, I am not crazy about the implication that the OP should be grateful because he is apparently going to get off with a good deal.

I believe the truth is that the cop knew he didn't have anything to truly substantiate an "exhibition of speed" ticket, so he wrote a 22350 assuming that the OP would just do traffic school, pay the state its honorarium, and be done with it. That is dishonest, immoral and ILLEGAL!! This cop wants to write the OP an illegal speeding ticket and have the OP thank him for doing so! I think it is infuriating!! If I were the OP, I would have much rather he wrote an exhibition of speed ticket and I would have defended myself in court rather than making up some bogus crap just to get a conviction.

There is no honor, generosity or integrity, nor has anyone been given a "break" when the cop writes a ticket for an unrelated charge simply because he knows he cannot substantiate the ticket he wants to write.

 

[CdwJava]

There ya go again, Jim - mind reading.

I am afraid I don't know what was going through the officer's mind and I never claimed I did - unlike you. But, knowing as many officers as I do, I know what tends to be the thought process in such instances, so I am making an educated guess that he was making a conscious effort to cut the guy a break. But, I guess I tend to see the good in people rather than see the bad ... it makes living in the world so much more pleasant.

Try it some time.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

There ya go again, Jim - mind reading.

I am afraid I don't know what was going through the officer's mind and I never claimed I did - unlike you. But, knowing as many officers as I do, I know what tends to be the thought process in such instances, so I am making an educated guess that he was making a conscious effort to cut the guy a break. But, I guess I tend to see the good in people rather than see the bad ... it makes living in the world so much more pleasant.

Try it some time.

- Carl

You are missing the point. The guy didn't have a substantiatable exhibition of speed case. But he did have the mindset that he was going to write a ticket for something. The cop was under no obligations to write a ticket, so no break was being given to the OP. If he truly wanted to give the OP a break, he would have told him that his "chirping" of the tires gets him approaching a grey zone, so please be conscious of this in the future and have a nice day.

Getting a ticket for 22350 instead of EOS when neither are warranted is NOT a good deal!! It is an abuse of authority... nothing less. By your logic, I could tell you, "I'm not going to punch you in the mouth and knock out a couple of your teeth... instead, I'm just gonna punch you in the stomach..." and you should be happy that you only got a punch in the stomach, right??? WRONG!!! Neither one is warranted nor justifiable!!

You should see abuses of authority for what they are and be intollerant of them. After all, it is the intollerance of tyrany and abuses of authority that has provided this country with a level of liberty unknown by any other society in history. To turn an apathetic blind eye to such abuses is invitation for more government abuses.

As American citizens, it is not only our right to keep our government in check... it is our duty!!!

 

[CdwJava]

Jim, if you think I agreed with the decision to write for 22350 in this instance, and in offering deals to offenses for which the elements are not met, I submit that you need to enroll in reading comprehension 101.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Jim, if you think I agreed with the decision to write for 22350 in this instance, and in offering deals to offenses for which the elements are not met, I submit that you need to enroll in reading comprehension 101.

- Carl

I don't think you agreed, but I do think you were far too dismissive of the offensiveness of this cop's abuse of authority. Instead of seeing it for what it was, you simply dismissed it as "inexperience" and "cutting the guy a break". This is typical of your opinions in many threads. While I, and most other people here, have a lot of respect for you and your willingness to share your knowledge with others, I am frequently troubled by your over-zealousness with trying to see a situation from the perspective that gives the cop maximum benefit of the doubt. I have often said that your bias is clear and it obviously leans towards the state. If you made the observation that I am biased as well leaning towards the defendants, you would be right. But my bias is in line with our system of government's ideals of assumption of innocence. Being in a supervisory LEO position, I would rather you be much more critical of cops, setting a higher standard and not being so willing to do everything possible to look for the "good" in them.

I notice that you frequently post in threads where the OP doesn't have much of a case. Or, in cases like this where the OP is obviously not guilty as charged, you usually offer something bland that suggests the cop may have not done the exact right thing, but there is likely a good explanation. What I have not seen is outrage from you when a cop blatantly abuses his authority. There have been many threads where the cop was totally out of line and you become loudly silent. As a citizen, I want to see the leadership of the cops that are here to serve me take more of a critical stance and demand more from them.

If LEO's like you gave as much benefit of the doubt to motorists as you do to each other, you'd never write any tickets!!

 

[CdwJava]

Clearly, Jim, you are reading far more into this then need be.

- Carl