basic speed law use of radar

[Bubbafish]

California


During my trial for an alleged violation of 22350 basic speed law radar evidence was introduced by the prosecution's witness who was the deputy involved. There was no prosecutor.
I immediately challenged the engineering traffic study required for use of that radar or laser. The officer was unable to answer any question about the study saying he didnt need to know that information only the law.
The city had lowered the speed limit an additional 5mph for which they need a valid speed survey as justification. I was attempting to challenge that justification, the accident rate, unforseen hazards etc. None of this the officer would address and the judge made no attempt to help me get my questions answered. I had to read from my copy and basically answer my own questions. I felt frustrated and that the officer was being uncooperative as a witness.

In a trial where radar was used does the officer have to answer basic questions regarding the speed survey? Im not talking about technical stuff just the data and how it relates to the case, such as actual accident rate being lower than the expected rate, etc.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[CdwJava]

No, the officer does not HAVE to answer those questions. It is also very likely he does not know the information on any justification to lower the speed limit. The judge can certainly take into consideration your pointing out the posted limit is below the limit supported by the survey, but the officer does not have to answer those questions aside from, "I do not know," or something to that effect.

If the survey does not support the limit, perhaps you can make the argument that it was a speed trap as defined under CVC 40802 et seq.?

 

[Bubbafish]

Speed trap

The burden of proof regarding speed traps rests with the prosecution not the defense. The prosecution needs to show that evidence was not gathered illegally and the speed trap is prima facie evidence to their case.
The people, in this case the deputy, didnt even refer to the speed survey nor could he as he had no copy of it at his desk. I could not challenge what had not been presented. The survey may have been somewhere in the courtroom. It may have been in the judge's hands. But it wasnt with the prosecution where I believe it should have been.

People vs Goulet:

The burden of proof regarding speed traps rests with the prosecution
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 subdivision (b) of Section 40802.

Also people vs earnest:
People's burden under Vehicle Code section 40803, subdivision (c) of producing "evidence" that a traffic and engineering survey was conducted within the five-year period prior to the date of the violation cannot be met unless the "evidence" produced demonstrates that the posted speed limit was justified by the data in the traffic and engineering survey.

 

[CdwJava]

Yes, but if you remain silent and do not point this out, the court may overlook it. Hence my suggestion to point it out. And, again, the officer is not going to answer those questions because he almost certainly does not have the information from the city engineer nor would he likely be qualified to answer them anyway. The officer's opinion could be objected to because he is not likely an expert in traffic engineering and could not offer his opinion as to why the speed limit was lowered based upon the circumstances.

Would you rather point this matter out at trial, or wait and raise it on appeal? Wouldn't it be better to get it dealt with at the trial? if the judge sides against you for whatever reason, you can still appeal. But, why do it if you do not have to?

 

[Bubbafish]

speed trap

Oh I was not at all silent. but there is only so much times I can hear " I dont know". All my questions were non technical and simple reads from the data. For the city to lower the speed limit an additional 5 mph below the 85th percentile, they need to show justification within the survey. That justification must be in the accident rate and the unforseen hazards to the motorist. That is what I told the judge. I showed from my copy of the survey that the actual accident rate was lower than the expected rate, and that all the "unforseen hazards" were in fact readily visible to the motorist and as such cannot be used as a reason for downward speed zoning.
That should have put the officer on the defensive which he should have been from the start as he has the burden of proof that this was not a speed trap which I feel it was. I did make that clear to the judge citing people vs goulet. I also blew apart the charge of violating the basic speed law by having the officer admit that my driving did not endanger any persons or property. That the weather was clear and visibility good. Traffic was light.
He had no case, the judge knew it but still found me guilty stating that " I see you did alot of preparation but you were still driving too fast"

I will appeal.

 

[CdwJava]

Then you did it as you should. Perhaps you will prevail on appeal.

Understand that few officers would be able to answer questions on the survey aside from reading what it says and, maybe, offering an opinion as to what some abbreviation or measurement might mean to him or her. Unless the reasons for the reduction(s) are articulated in the survey, the officer could likely only speculate.

Good luck.

 

[JIMinCA]

Carl,

You are missing the obvious. The judge was incompetent. People v Earnest says:

Because the People did not produce either the original engineering and traffic survey or a certified copy of it demonstrating that the posted speed limits on the pertinent segments of roadway were justified by current engineering and traffic surveys, none of their evidence as to the defendants' speeds was - admissible...

The judge should have dismissed the case when the officer didn't produce the survey. Period.

Understand that few officers would be able to answer questions on the survey aside from reading what it says and, maybe, offering an opinion as to what some abbreviation or measurement might mean to him or her. Unless the reasons for the reduction(s) are articulated in the survey, the officer could likely only speculate.

You amaze me the way you claim officers should be able to hide behind ignorance. You have told me in other threads that cops don't even have to LOOK at the survey before they conduct speed enforcement. However, under this theory, the officer may be violating VC 40801 and his only defense for doing so is ignorance (i.e. he didn't look at the survey). I wonder why cops never allow me to use ignorance as an excuse.

 

[CdwJava]

If the judge is incompetent, he appeals. If the state failed to lay out its case, he can appeal. I think I said that.

 

[Zigner]

You amaze me the way you claim officers should be able to hide behind ignorance. You have told me in other threads that cops don't even have to LOOK at the survey before they conduct speed enforcement. However, under this theory, the officer may be violating VC 40801 and his only defense for doing so is ignorance (i.e. he didn't look at the survey). I wonder why cops never allow me to use ignorance as an excuse.

Save your venom, Jim.

 

[Bubbafish]

speed trap

At the exchange of evidence the officer took me to an enormous book with all the surveys of the city and said "its in there somewhere". Nice.
The judge was no protem he was a very experienced traffic judge. I know I can appeal and will. Its a shame a defendant needs to go to that extreme for justice to be served.

 

[CdwJava]

At the exchange of evidence the officer took me to an enormous book with all the surveys of the city and said "its in there somewhere". Nice.
The judge was no protem he was a very experienced traffic judge. I know I can appeal and will. Its a shame a defendant needs to go to that extreme for justice to be served.

The judge probably should have tossed it at the outset if the survey did not support the posted limit. Unfortunately, that sort of thing happens with some frequency. We can only speculate why.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

The officer was unable to answer any question about the study saying he didnt need to know that information only the law.
The city had lowered the speed limit an additional 5mph for which they need a valid speed survey as justification. I was attempting to challenge that justification, the accident rate, unforseen hazards etc. None of this the officer would address and the judge made no attempt to help me get my questions answered. I had to read from my copy and basically answer my own questions. I felt frustrated and that the officer was being uncooperative as a witness.

In a trial where radar was used does the officer have to answer basic questions regarding the speed survey? Im not talking about technical stuff just the data and how it relates to the case, such as actual accident rate being lower than the expected rate, etc.

The officer is under no obligation to answer any questions related to the validity of the survey... "Basic questions"? Maybe... Although we may disagree on the definition of "basic"!!! So to assume that he is required to present an analysis of the engineer's opinion (and one which would satisfy the defendant) as to whether the survey justifies the posted limit... I don't see you getting anywhere with an appeal on those grounds. I am even surprised that the judge would allow that line of questioning!!!

 

[JIMinCA]

I am even surprised that the judge would allow that line of questioning!!!

Are you kidding?? I think we established that the judge was incompetent already.

There is a bigger point here that is being missed. The officer definitely should be able to answer basic question concerning the speed survey as he would have to know that basic information to avoid violating 40801. But, the position here has been stated that a cop doesn't even need to verify that a survey exists, much less actually read it, because he is acting in "good faith" So, if a cop can't even answer basic questions then how could he ensure he was not violating 40801??

The OP says the officer's position was:

The officer was unable to answer any question about the study saying he didnt need to know that information only the law.

So... if the officer knows the law... does he know 40801? I would like to know what constitutes a violation of 40801? If the cop writes two tickets where there was an unjustified limit (or better... no valid survey), but only one defendant goes to trial and proves a speed trap existed... did the cop violate 40801? Did he violate 40801 on the ticket where the defendant did not challenge it?? If not, why is there a difference. 40801 does NOT say that a cop can't conduct a speed trap ONLY if a defendant argues a speed trap defense! It says he can't conduct a speed trap... PERIOD!!! And that begs the question... has any cop that anyone here knows of ever been charged with violating VC40801? It seems clear to me that in EVERY single case that was dismissed due to a speed trap, the cop was in violation of 40801. The Vehicle code clearly says:

40000.1. Except as otherwise provided in this article, it is
unlawful and constitutes an infraction for any person to violate, or
fail to comply with any provision of this code, or any local
ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.

So, since the cop committed an infraction when he operated a speed trap, why isn't he charged with such? Is it only because cops don't get tickets as Carl has stated in other threads? Are cops held to a different standard than the rest of us???? Really??? Are we OK with that? I'd love to see anyone who habitually bends over backwards to side with the cop/state (i.e. Carl, Zigner, etc.) to answer those questions.

 

[Bubbafish]

Again the questions were non technical and could be read right off the survey. Example- is 1.92 less than 2.80? Can a bicycle be seen or is it an object not readily visible? Seems a traffic survey is a hot potato in traffic court. Nobody wants to take responsibility for it but they sure want to use it against you. Just dont ask any questions about it.

 

[JIMinCA]

The judge probably should have tossed it at the outset if the survey did not support the posted limit. Unfortunately, that sort of thing happens with some frequency. We can only speculate why.

There is no speculation. The judge was biased towards the state. There is no way anyone can convince me that a judge who hears traffic cases doesn't know what is in People v Earnest where it says:

Because the People did not produce either the original engineering and traffic survey or a certified copy of it demonstrating that the posted speed limits on the pertinent segments of roadway were justified by current engineering and traffic surveys, none of their evidence as to the defendants' speeds was - admissible...

There is a stack of case law that states over and over the obligation of the prosecution to present the speed survey in court (not just testify to its existence) whether the defendant asks for it or not! Just because this information is common knowlege for court officers who hear traffic cases, it is NOT common knowlege for most defendants. So, judges (and the state) rely on defendants to be ignorant and not defend themselves well (even when producing the evidence was NOT the defendant's obligation).

If this was a rare occurrence, that would be one thing. But, the contrary is true. This kind of thing happens on a daily basis. It is commonplace and it is indicative of a corrupt system that routinely abuses its authority and violates (knowingly) the rights of the citizens of this state.