97 MPH in a 70 MPH...

[acassara]

Hey guys, been a long time reader but first time poster. Hope someone can help me out!

What is the name of your state? California

Citation 22356

I was driving south on the US-101 to my home in Los Angeles from college (located in Santa Clara, CA [near San Jose]) when I was stopped outside of King City. I was driving along the roads and a lot of cars were passing me somewhere around 90 to 100 MPH and I believe I was going about 80 or so (I'm fairly confident in how my car rides, and it was only a month young when I got the ticket--so the speedometer should be well calibrated). I checked my mirror to see the officer gaining on me from about a half mile behind (no lights or sirens) and got into the slow lane and saw my speed was 70 MPH at that point. He caught up (easily going over 100 MPH), got behind me, pulled me over, and gave me a ticket for 97 MPH in a 70 MPH zone, saying he had it on radar. I was in a little too much shock (and was frankly exhausted from my finals that week and packing all night long for the drive home for winter break) to ask for the radar read out. I just took the ticket and left (he would not talk to me about the ticket until I signed it). He didn't know if I could do traffic school or anything. My friend Liz (who was riding with me home) checked my speedometer when we were being pulled over and confirmed I was going 70 MPH.

So how do I fight this? It's a huge ticket and it was on a clear Saturday late morning, bright and sunny. All other cars on the road had passed me at that point so I was alone. Monterey Traffic Court only holds court on Thursdays so I believe I can get a continuance well into the summer due to me being a full time student--but first I'm going to fight via written declaration. Liz will also write a declaration and have it notarized this week. I don't know what to argue besides that my car is a gray Audi, fairly common color and car (most of the cars passing me were gray) and that he may have either clocked the wrong car and/or used his radar gun without proper calibration. I couldn't believe it when I got this ticket and am frankly still a little shocked about it. I cannot do traffic school (its 2 MPH over the limit where I can) and the fine is $459.00--OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I'm considering hiring an attorney. This is not my first ticket and it's not the first one I've fought but the only time I fought a was at home and the officer failed to show to court.

-Tony

 

[cepe10]

Radar is certainly not infallible especially when used by someone who is not familiar with even fundamental scientific methods in order to make an accurate measurement or who is not interested in doing so.

Moving radar has a lot of potential for inaccuracy and would have a large view which is measuring the strongest target (fastest moving, largest vehicle) in a field of view with many vehicles this is against NHSTA guidelines and written policy for making these measurements. CA LEO agencies are supposedly certified to NHSTA standards.

The speedometer of the patrol car, the radar unit and the tuning forks used to calibrated need to be current.

Stationary would have some of the same problems.

Get the records for the device - easier said than done.

Bring your witness to court with you if possible -especially to document traffic was around and the faster moving vehicles where present as well as the vehicle speed when the LEO actually came up.

The insurance hit will probably be big.

 

[JIMinCA]

I have fought a few speeding tickets and helped several others fight theirs. So far I have a 100% dismissal rate. The trick is, you have to hold the State responsible for following its own rules. Truth of the matter is that usually the State simply does not want to work hard enough to prosecute speeders. Here is a few basic procedures:

1) Request discovery from the District Attorney. Frequently, once the DA's office sees that they will have to work for a conviction, they will simply ignore the case (i.e. fail to prosecute). A failure to prosecute is grounds for dismissal. This approach has worked many times. As a matter of fact, I have never seen it not work. However, if the DA provides your discovery, then you will have much information to add to your defense. So, requesting discovery is a win/win for you.

2) If the discovery produces useful information, you can use it. However, if it appears that the cop had his stuff together (i.e. justified speed limit, up to date calibration/maintenance records, appropriate training certificates, etc.), just remember that he has to produce those same documents in court if you ask for them. Furthermore, the documents he produces must be an original or a certified true copy, else the evidence is heresay. I have used this defense successfully.

3) Trial By Written Declaration. Some judges simply rubber stamp these guilty. However, if the cop doesn't submit a statement, you'll likely get a dismissal. If you are found guilty, you simply request a new trial. I have seen this work simply by the cop not showing up for the new trial (for whatever reason) in which time you'll get your dismissal.

4) Section 40803(b) of the vehicle codes states:

In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the
speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or
other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects,
the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case,
that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a
speedtrap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section
40802.​

Since prosecuting attorneys typically do not appear at traffic trials, the prosecution obviously cannot establish that a speed trap didn't exist. Therefore, you can request dismissal based on failure to prosecute. Although I have never used this defense (I haven't needed to yet), I know that it has been used successfully several times. However, I would save this defense for a last ditch effort.




This is a good start. You should develop your strategy and move forward. Good luck and keep us informed.

 

[makesmewannagag]

I have fought a few speeding tickets and helped several others fight theirs. So far I have a 100% dismissal rate. The trick is, you have to hold the State responsible for following its own rules. Truth of the matter is that usually the State simply does not want to work hard enough to prosecute speeders. Here is a few basic procedures:

1) Request discovery from the District Attorney. Frequently, once the DA's office sees that they will have to work for a conviction, they will simply ignore the case (i.e. fail to prosecute). A failure to prosecute is grounds for dismissal. This approach has worked many times. As a matter of fact, I have never seen it not work. However, if the DA provides your discovery, then you will have much information to add to your defense. So, requesting discovery is a win/win for you.

2) If the discovery produces useful information, you can use it. However, if it appears that the cop had his stuff together (i.e. justified speed limit, up to date calibration/maintenance records, appropriate training certificates, etc.), just remember that he has to produce those same documents in court if you ask for them. Furthermore, the documents he produces must be an original or a certified true copy, else the evidence is heresay. I have used this defense successfully.

3) Trial By Written Declaration. Some judges simply rubber stamp these guilty. However, if the cop doesn't submit a statement, you'll likely get a dismissal. If you are found guilty, you simply request a new trial. I have seen this work simply by the cop not showing up for the new trial (for whatever reason) in which time you'll get your dismissal.

4) Section 40803(b) of the vehicle codes states:

In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the
speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or
other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects,
the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case,
that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a
speedtrap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section
40802.​

Since prosecuting attorneys typically do not appear at traffic trials, the prosecution obviously cannot establish that a speed trap didn't exist. Therefore, you can request dismissal based on failure to prosecute. Although I have never used this defense (I haven't needed to yet), I know that it has been used successfully several times. However, I would save this defense for a last ditch effort.




This is a good start. You should develop your strategy and move forward. Good luck and keep us informed.

so basically, you haven't "won" squat. The state has merely failed to pursue prosecution.

 

[JIMinCA]

so basically, you haven't "won" squat. The state has merely failed to pursue prosecution.

Well, if you don't consider a dismissal a win, certainly it is not a loss. So, maybe I should revise my stats from a 100% win rate to a 0% loss rate.

 

[acassara]

Thank you guys! I didn't realize there was so much I could do about to get the court to have to work to keep me paying! I will fight this to the bitter end!

-Tony

 

[JIMinCA]

Thank you guys! I didn't realize there was so much I could do about to get the court to have to work to keep me paying! I will fight this to the bitter end!

-Tony

Great... if you need help with any specific action, let us know.

 

[makesmewannagag]

Thank you guys! I didn't realize there was so much I could do about to get the court to have to work to keep me paying! I will fight this to the bitter end!

-Tony

and of course, there is always that novel idea of obeying the traffic laws in the first place.

 

[acassara]

and of course, there is always that novel idea of obeying the traffic laws in the first place.

not that anyone here believes me but I did not ever pass 80 MPH. also the basic speed law says i may exceed the speed limit given proper conditions (that day was clear and sunny and there were almost no other cars on the road where I was pulled over).

 

[Zigner]

also the basic speed law says i may exceed the speed limit given proper conditions (that day was clear and sunny and there were almost no other cars on the road where I was pulled over).

HAHAHA - I'm glad I got my laugh in for the day!

 

[makesmewannagag]

not that anyone here believes me but I did not ever pass 80 MPH. also the basic speed law says i may exceed the speed limit given proper conditions (that day was clear and sunny and there were almost no other cars on the road where I was pulled over).

so the speed limit is 80???

and you are serious?? you honestly think that the conditions (if there even WERE any) necessary would be a clear and sunny day with light traffic.

Oh BRoooooooooooooooother.

 

[loulblades]

Gee, then I have won thousands. Of course, I haven't gotten any tickets, but still, that is the same as winning right??

Oh, and I defeated the Turkish army as well. Of course, none of them showed up to fight, but their lack of showing up, and/or fighting means I won, right?

Pretzel logic...interesting

Let's see:

- Person is accused of/charged with committing an offense (ie: gets a ticket, glove slap to face, etc)
- Person has a choice of (a) surrendering or (b) defending oneself

The options:
(a) Surrender (ie: plead guilty)
- pay the fine, go to jail, get slapped harder, etc.

(b) defending oneself - (ie: plead not guilty)
Outcome 1 (Person loses): The king/judge/magistrate finds the defense unworthy and upholds the accusations (even if that happens, taking the matter to a higher authority may be an option)

Outcome 2 (Person wins): The defense is deemed worthy and the accused is found not guilty and/or the accusations/charges are removed/dismissed.

Seems to me that the goal is to free oneself of the accusations/charges and a "win" would be accomplishing that goal. Of course to declare a "win", I would think, one would have to engage the enemy/accuser in some fashion (such as entering the arena/courtroom/negotiating hall/battlefield).

But then again I am just a lowly engineer and maybe my understanding of such things is inadequate.

(Sorry guys, I couldn't help myself)

 

[The Occultist]

the basic speed law says i may exceed the speed limit given proper conditions (that day was clear and sunny and there were almost no other cars on the road where I was pulled over).

Oh my, you're kidding, right? The posted limit is the limit FOR IDEAL CONDITIONS. You don't get to go faster because conditions are better, you must go slower when conditions are worse. You've got things a little backwards there.

 

[The Occultist]

Hey guys? I have this rock here. It keeps tigers away. Obviously it works since I've yet to see any tigers nearby.

 

[JIMinCA]

not that anyone here believes me but I did not ever pass 80 MPH. also the basic speed law says i may exceed the speed limit given proper conditions (that day was clear and sunny and there were almost no other cars on the road where I was pulled over).

Dude... I hate to burst your bubble, but the basic speed law (VC 22350) does not allow you to exceed the speed limit given proper conditions. See the following:

22351. (b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima
facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in
this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by
competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not
constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and
under the conditions then existing.

There are good defenses you can use. That's just not one of them.