Airplane pacing without any signs posted in CA

[dfallstead]

In California, I am trying to find out if it is legal to be paced by patrol aircraft if there isn't any signage posted stating "Speed Enforced by Aircraft".

I was under the impression that this is entrapment unless it is posted. I have noticed on several freeways and highways in California there are signs letting you know there are planes in the air enforcing the speed laws.

I was issued a speeding ticket based on the findings of an airplane but no radar. On the freeway in which I was cited there are no signs saying
"Speed Enforced by Aircraft", they only say " Speed Enforced by Radar".

Any Assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Derek

 

[dfallstead]

Does anyone have any insight into this?

 

[rmet4nzkx]

There are big white "X"s painted on the pavement...
Where did you get your ticket?

 

[Sabor]

hmm

good news. I believe it was illegal. If you have pleaded for traffic school i suggest you motion to reopen your trial. See http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/ca-speed.html for information on this. You should have enough information though now. Good luck.

 

[divgradcurl]

In California, I am trying to find out if it is legal to be paced by patrol aircraft if there isn't any signage posted stating "Speed Enforced by Aircraft".

I was under the impression that this is entrapment unless it is posted. I have noticed on several freeways and highways in California there are signs letting you know there are planes in the air enforcing the speed laws.

I was issued a speeding ticket based on the findings of an airplane but no radar. On the freeway in which I was cited there are no signs saying
"Speed Enforced by Aircraft", they only say " Speed Enforced by Radar".

Any Assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Derek

If you were actually "paced" by the aircraft, then you are probably stuck. If the aircraft used "timing" between painted spots on the road, like rmet4nzkx suggested, then you may have a glimmer of hope. Read up California Vehicle Code 40802 if you think that you were caught because of timing -- 40800 et seq. discuss speed traps, and how speed trap evidence may be inadmissible (may, not will, so read carefully, and don't jump to conclusions).

However, of you were paced, don't hold your breath...

BTW, there is nothing in the vehicle code or other code sections limiting the use of aircraft to places where there are signs...

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Those BIG white Xs on the roads are also signs, notice, just as the words STOP painted on the road surface.

 

[Sabor]

follow up

http://forums.thelaw.com/archive/index.php/t-2313.html

check tihs forum as well. They discuss fighting airplane tickets. Mainly,
depends if the officer on the ground had paced you as well. Apparently from what i seen through your post he did not bother to write it down as evidence. Usually he would write as much as possible. Try contacting the dept that does the actual tickets and ask them their method of obtaining speed from vehicles. If he says anything about calculting through seconds/distance you got a nice fighting chance. Btw, it is important whether you received the ticket on the freeway or not. But one might be able to bring up the argument if it was on a freeway that, the airplane is similiar to vascar in that it requires a two point calculation to create its reading. Whether or not the speed was unreasonably set, such as the case if you are driving on a regular street where speed is 40mph and speed is approiatly set by speed survey,but a illegal device is used such as a vascar, then dismissed, in turn same argument can be applied to freeway, that a device measuing two points was used and although safe speed was set (maximum speed 65) as in the 40mph case an illegal use of speed measuring was obtained, regardless the safe speed? Would be interesting to try this.
This webpage is quite important.
http://www.jesbeard.com/s12.htm

"Consequently, both officers need to be in court for a conviction. It's difficult enough to get one officer there at a specific time and the odds of bringing both into court at the same time are slim. If both officers do happen to attend your trial, request of the court that one officer be removed from the courtroom so that each may be interrogated individually, and possibly contradict each other which would give you the basis for a defense of reasonable doubt.
"

 

[dfallstead]

rmet4nzkx.... I got my ticket on eastbound Highway 50. I was appearantly paced from Mather Field to Hazel. There are no "X" paintings on the ground and I also double checked that there were no signs letting drivers know about aircraft patrol anywhere from the start of HWY 50 at I-80 all the way up to Folsom Blvd.

sabor.... I was appearantly paced by airplane from Mather Field to Hazel. Now the arresting officer was a motorcycle cop that actually entered the freeway at Hazel and immediately pulled me over I saw him get on and I had already slowed down before he got on the freeway. I know for a fact that he did not pace me and he did not write on the ticket that he used radar on me to determine for himself if I was speeding or not. Judging by the info you had given me in your reply, CVC 40801,40802,40803,40804,40805, and 40808, it seems that they do not have a leg to stand on, correct? Or have I miss read something? My court date is set for November 3rd and I am wondering if I should fight this?

I am going to look into all of the info I was given here. Thank you all very much.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

rmet4nzkx.... I got my ticket on eastbound Highway 50. I was appearantly paced from Mather Field to Hazel. There are no "X" paintings on the ground and I also double checked that there were no signs letting drivers know about aircraft patrol anywhere from the start of HWY 50 at I-80 all the way up to Folsom Blvd.

I am going to look into all of the info I was given here. Thank you all very much.

I am familiar with that section of freeway in RC. You weren't speeding there during a Friday evening commute Perhaps Carl our resident Cop will have further comment.

 

[dfallstead]

rmet4nzkx.... Actually I was out having a little fun on my bike on a Sunday evening.

 

[efflandt]

What makes you think they need signs advising that the aircraft are watching you? Have you ever seen a sign that says you may be observed or paced by an officer in a squad car?

If they have signs warning about aircraft or other speed enforcement, it is just a deterant in areas where they have a speed problem and cannot stop everybody.

Many metro areas even have road sensors and cameras, so we can go in the internet and see how fast traffic is moving (even in each lane).

 

[Sabor]

I will have to take a further look for you. I will let you know in a few days. Suggest for now just get a extension and continue researching speed trap and contact the dept that does the airplane radar and ask their methodology of obtaining speed. That will give you much more base to work with.

 

[CdwJava]

It's up to you if you want to fight it or not. Hwy 50 is a well-traveled, well-patroled stretch of road. I would wager to guess you were popped by the CHP. If they used a fixed wing plane they do not need to enter anything for "radar" on the citation. Through Discovery you can get the notes and additional information. Also he does not have to independently establish your speed ... though it helps. And if he used visual estimation that is also valid (depending on his training and experience ... and if he's on a bike, he's experienced).

You might consider consulting a Sacramento area attorney.

- Carl

 

[sukharev]

aircraft speed

Just a thought: when police car is pacing, speedometer calibration is sometimes required as proof. It's not enough to have officer say: I was going 75 mph. He has to provide proof that his car was certified and speedometer was accurate. Almost never is the case (sorry, I only read about this defense, and never had to use it). What about an airplane? Does the officer need to prove his speed measuring (whatever that was) was accurate? What is the accuracy required?

Also, just to make sure, if you do go to trial and both officers are there, ask the judge to remove one out of courtroom while the other testifies - this way, you can get them on any inconsistency (like your car description from the airplane)

 

[CdwJava]

Just a thought: when police car is pacing, speedometer calibration is sometimes required as proof. It's not enough to have officer say: I was going 75 mph. He has to provide proof that his car was certified and speedometer was accurate. Almost never is the case (sorry, I only read about this defense, and never had to use it). What about an airplane? Does the officer need to prove his speed measuring (whatever that was) was accurate? What is the accuracy required?

Also, just to make sure, if you do go to trial and both officers are there, ask the judge to remove one out of courtroom while the other testifies - this way, you can get them on any inconsistency (like your car description from the airplane)

I doubt you are going to get any significant inconsistency. Exact times and details of a sequence of events is not likely to be all that material.

As for the speed of the plane, if you seek that information in Discovery you can try to challenge it. Generally, they are not going to be required to admit the maintenance records into evidence prior to the presentation of the testimony. If you want to make that an issue, then seek the information in Discovery.

As to what that speed information and calibration might be for a plane, I couldn't tell you. I have never worked with them.

- Carl