CA: Informal Discovery Request before Plea?

[BayAreaBMWFan]

CA: 40 in 30: Informal Discovery Request before Plea?

What is the name of your state? California; Santa Clara


I received a ticket for going 40 in a 30 mile zone. I had just got out of my house and made a left turn after a stop sign at a T junction. An officer was standing on the sholder on the other side of the road about 240 ft from the intersection. He pulled me over and said that he caught me doing 40 on the 30 zone within the 240 ft!

He told me that there have been a lot of complaints of speeding on this road by area residents. He had already cut a few tickets today, primarily to high school students who frequent the road. He did ask me when I had my last ticket before writing me up, and then told me that I can go to traffic school. I asked him to show me the radar readout and he said that he had already cleared it!

I have a MS degree in EE and know enough about radars and mechanics to know that it almost impossible to do what he claimed I did. I have a roadster and due to a transmission issue, I have to press on the gas in the first gear, and I get off the blocks fast. I think he saw that and decided that I was going fast enough for him to pull me over. Since a roadster is much smaller than other cars, it also appears to go faster than a larger vehicle at the same speed.

I know the PD uses a K band radar. He was at least 25ft or 30 ft on the other side of my car. Assuming a beam angle of 15 degrees the officer needs a minimum gap of 150 ft to keep me in the main lobe. This means that I had 90 ft to go from 0 to 40mph which is equivalent to a 0-60 time of 4.60 sec!!

The other alternate is that he used an angular shot. However, that means that cosine acceleration becomes important. Assuming a cycle time of 300ms (between bursts of microwave), the minimum distance required with an offset of 30 ft to keep the error less than 1mph between two consecutive readings is about 90 ft. This gives me about 160 ft to go from 0 to 40. And would translate to a 0-60 time of 8.5 sec.

I was in a residential area and not driving fast. The officer admitted that I was not racing and that he expected a high-school student and not a mid 30s home owner going to work. But he said that to be fair to everyone he has to write me up.

I have the following dilemma:
- I can go to traffic school and forget about everything.
- I can fight it out and risk getting a point after all the hassle.

In order to decide which way to go, I need to know how the officer took the reading. I have the following questions:

1. Can I file a Informall Discovery Request before I decide to plead guilty or go to trial?
2. I am I required to plead not guilty to start requesting this information from the PD?
3. Can I use my MSEE degree to justify my calculations or do I need to have an outside expert verify my calculations?
4. Am I required to be in the main-lobe (which has 80% of the power) for the officer to get an accurate reading at such small distances?
5. Is the officer required to keep the gun on my car for a minimum amout time to get an accurate reading?
6. Can I request information about the specification of the radar gun used and the typical operating requirements (angle of detection, time span to lase etc.)?

I have left a voice mail with the officer so that I can explain my logic to him. This sounds stupid, but I do not believe that I can convince a judge with math and equations, if the officer is not convinced that he made an error.

 

[CdwJava]

1. Can I file a Informall Discovery Request before I decide to plead guilty or go to trial?

Yes, you can seek Discovery prior to trial. You can always plead guilty on the day of the trial if the officer shows and then take the traffic school.

2. I am I required to plead not guilty to start requesting this information from the PD?

I'm not certain. But, you should be able to do so before the first hearing. And even if you request a court trial at the first hearing, I can't think of a single instance where that has later prevented a change of plea at trial.

3. Can I use my MSEE degree to justify my calculations or do I need to have an outside expert verify my calculations?

You can try. But if your degree and qualifications are not verified both by the court, and specifically as it relates to the radar he was using, you may not be qualified as an expert in the operation of the radar. And if you choose to make a technical argument such as that you may find that the trial gets dragged on while the state asks for a delay to bring in experts of their own.

A technical fight is usually expensive. And while you might qualify as an expert, you will likely have to hire an outside expert whose qualifications are already accepted.

4. Am I required to be in the main-lobe (which has 80% of the power) for the officer to get an accurate reading at such small distances?

As I understand it, no. But, I am not certified on radar.

5. Is the officer required to keep the gun on my car for a minimum amout time to get an accurate reading?

By law? No.

6. Can I request information about the specification of the radar gun used and the typical operating requirements (angle of detection, time span to lase etc.)?

You can request the type and serial number of the radar, the maintenance records, the training and certification of the officer operating the radar, and the road surveys, but the technical specs are going to be up to you. They can provide them if they want, but these are not typically held around the officer and are readily available at the manufacturer's web sites anyway.

I have left a voice mail with the officer so that I can explain my logic to him. This sounds stupid, but I do not believe that I can convince a judge with math and equations, if the officer is not convinced that he made an error.

I doubt the officer will return your call. He might, but I doubt it.

And, I KNOW we don't need to have a car in our sights for 150 feet to get an accurate reading on the radar. While I have no specific technical expertise in this area, I KNOW the distance is much less than that.

- Carl

 

[fedcop110]

Carl explained things pretty well already.

4. Am I required to be in the main-lobe (which has 80% of the power) for the officer to get an accurate reading at such small distances?

I will add that your vehicle does not need to be targeted in the main lobe of the radar. Yes the main lobe is where the signal is strongest, however as the cone spreads out even the vehicles that are picked up in the side lobes can be prosecuted, as long as the officer can testify to a good tracking history. The greater the angle of the radar path in relation to your vehicle the greater the cosine effect. The only problem for you with cosine is that no matter what the radar read, the cosine effect on a stationary radar is always in your favor. Meaning that if you have a high cosine angle your speed will be read lower than it actually is. The closer to 0 degres the radar is to your vehicle the more accurate the reading will be.

5. Is the officer required to keep the gun on my car for a minimum amout time to get an accurate reading?

No, the officer needs to get a good tracking history on your vehicle. After he accomplishes this all that he needs to do is to verify your speed on the radar unit.

6. Can I request information about the specification of the radar gun used and the typical operating requirements (angle of detection, time span to lase etc.)?

As Carl stated, the officer/department will probably only be able to give you records as to the maintenance of the unit, the calibration tests, the type and serial number, and records pertaining to the training of the officer. NHTSA would have the technical specifications on the specific radar and if not, as Carl said you can contact the manufacturer.

And, I KNOW we don't need to have a car in our sights for 150 feet to get an accurate reading on the radar. While I have no specific technical expertise in this area, I KNOW the distance is much less than that.

Correct, there is not a set distance. But it does not take a trained operator 150 feet get the reading and probably still less than that to be able to testify to a good tracking history. Hope this helped

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

Some followup questions

Yes, you can seek Discovery prior to trial. You can always plead guilty on the day of the trial if the officer shows and then take the traffic school.

So I can request a trial. Go to court. Plead Guilty and request traffic school. Is this state law which allows me to plead guilty at the trial AND take traffic school or can the local rules over rule it.

http://www.scselfservice.org/traffic/default.htm

The local web page suggests that I have to plead not-guilty to go to trial.

I'm not certain. But, you should be able to do so before the first hearing. And even if you request a court trial at the first hearing, I can't think of a single instance where that has later prevented a change of plea at trial.

OK. So I should request a trial, then request discovery, and then perhaps plead guilty at the trial and request traffic school if the officer shows up. Right?

You can try. But if your degree and qualifications are not verified both by the court, and specifically as it relates to the radar he was using, you may not be qualified as an expert in the operation of the radar. And if you choose to make a technical argument such as that you may find that the trial gets dragged on while the state asks for a delay to bring in experts of their own.

A technical fight is usually expensive. And while you might qualify as an expert, you will likely have to hire an outside expert whose qualifications are already accepted.

This is the part which I find hard to swallow. The DA will not reimburse me if I win, right? The kind of stuff I am talking about is quite basic which the DA who deals in radar should be able to understand (if they want to).

And, I KNOW we don't need to have a car in our sights for 150 feet to get an accurate reading on the radar. While I have no specific technical expertise in this area, I KNOW the distance is much less than that.

- Carl

By 150 feet, I meant the minimum distance for the radar to get an accurate reading since I was not in the same lane (25-30 ft offset).

I obtained the following information about the specifications of the gun based on June 1, 2004 published NHTSA giudlelines for a down the road module.
"2.6.4 Antenna Horizontal Beamwidth. The total included angle between the -3 dB power points of the main lobe of the microwave beam, relative to the maximum power at the center of the beam, shall not exceed 18º for X-band and 15° for K and Ka-band radar devices."

The radar gun emits a beam width with a certain angle and the beam travels out in a cone. As the beam travels further, the cone increases in size. Since the officer was 25-30 ft offset from me, there is a minimum distance I have to be at before I come into the main beam where the radar can accurately measure my speed. If I am not in the main lobe the return of a car in the main lobe further down the road can return a stronger signal.

In order to get an accurate reading, the officer "should" hold the vehicle in the gun's sight for a second or two. Since each cycle (burst, receive, process) takes a few 100 ms, the gun should be kept on the vehicle for at least a second or two to get 6-7 consecutive readings. A single reading could be anything. This becomes important since if the officer needed 1 second to get an accurate reading, the time I have to reach 40 mph goes down further!

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

Carl explained things pretty well already.


I will add that your vehicle does not need to be targeted in the main lobe of the radar. Yes the main lobe is where the signal is strongest, however as the cone spreads out even the vehicles that are picked up in the side lobes can be prosecuted, as long as the officer can testify to a good tracking history.

TRACKING HISTORY: The question is that how long does the officer need to establish a good tracking history. There was 240 ft between the point I started the left turn and where the officer was parked. So what you are suggesting is that the officer would have started tracking me when I was at the stop sign and then followed me as I made the turn. This would have led to a tracking history and then he could have measured the top speed I reached?

Is the officer supposed to keep stationary or can he move the gun while creating the tracking history?

The greater the angle of the radar path in relation to your vehicle the greater the cosine effect. The only problem for you with cosine is that no matter what the radar read, the cosine effect on a stationary radar is always in your favor. Meaning that if you have a high cosine angle your speed will be read lower than it actually is. The closer to 0 degres the radar is to your vehicle the more accurate the reading will be.

I understand that the cosine error is in my favor. What I am looking at is the cosine acceleration error. Simply put: As the angle increases, the error in the measurement increases. The gun is supposed to be accurate to +1 mph. The gun also takes samples at a few 100 millisecond intervals. If the consecutive samples (3 samples taken in a second) differ by more than 1 mph, the gun should not report a valid sample. Due to the cosine error, the velocity as seen by the gun is changing more than 1 mph in consecutive samples, which means that the tracking software algorithms should report an error.

Correct, there is not a set distance. But it does not take a trained operator 150 feet get the reading and probably still less than that to be able to testify to a good tracking history. Hope this helped

As I wrote, the 150 feet was not the time he took to track me but the minimum distance for me to be in the main lobe.

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

Tracking History:

Dear Carl and FedCop:

I will summarize my previous two replies in a more coherent manner. It seems the crux is whether the officer had sufficient time to establish a tracking history and whether I had enough time to accelerate to 40mph during that period. There was about 240 ft between the point I started making the turn and his position.

0. What is required to establish a tracking history: Do I have to be in the main-lobe when he starts tracking me?
1. Does the officer need to keep the gun stationary while establishing the tracking history?
2. If he can move the gun, then can he rotate it AND/OR move it horizontally?
3. Can the tracking history be developed when a car is accelerating from a stop and turning? OR would I have to finish the turn and straighten before the tracking can start? This is important since the doppler shift will happen only when there is a velocity component in the same or opposite direction of the radar. When I am turning and perpendicular to the gun, my speed will be zero.

Does this mean that the officer can not start developing a track till the point I had completed the turn?

4. Can the radar gun be kept on all the time or is there a ON-OFF period during which the officer turns the gun on after he decides to track me?

5. As I moved out of the main lobe, is it possible that radar may latch on to another vehicle in the main lobe.

On a different note: Is hitting a top speed more than the speed limit into a turn enough to justify the speeding ticket, even if I slow down and possess no danger or risk to anyone on an empty street in a sunny afternoon?

My car has an Sequential Manual Transmission. This is a manual transmission with automatic electronically controlled clutching. In the first gear, if I ease of the gas pedal the electronics automatically disengage the clutch and the car lurches violently. This happens even more when I am turning. In order to prevent that, in the first gear I rev it up higher (2.5 - 3.5K RPM) instead of my normal 1.8 - 2.8K RPM speeds. This does give the impression that I am moving fast. It also means that I may reach a higher speed momentarily which drops off in the second it takes to shift from the first to second gear.

 

[CdwJava]

So I can request a trial. Go to court. Plead Guilty and request traffic school. Is this state law which allows me to plead guilty at the trial AND take traffic school or can the local rules over rule it.

At the arraignment _the first hearing) you can ask for traffic school and this will usually require a guilty or no contest plea. You can also plead "not guilty", get a court date, and then hope the officer doesn't show. if he DOES show, then most counties give you a chance before the trials start to take traffic school in lieu of fighting the cite ... many counties will take traffic school off the table if you fight the citation.

OK. So I should request a trial, then request discovery, and then perhaps plead guilty at the trial and request traffic school if the officer shows up. Right?

I'm not saying what you SHOULD do, but it's certainly one way to do it.

This is the part which I find hard to swallow. The DA will not reimburse me if I win, right? The kind of stuff I am talking about is quite basic which the DA who deals in radar should be able to understand (if they want to).

The DA won't be dealing with it in traffic court. And, frankly, the officer won't either. If you bring this information up it's going to be outside the scope of expertise of the officer and he won't be able to answer your inquiry. And the court may just assume that you're trying to dazzle them with B.S.

Also, it will not be expected that the officer knows a lot of this information. As long as he is operating it properly - as trained - there is likely to be a presumption that it is operating within parameters unless you can show that it was outside the manufacturer's effective operating guidelines.

Take for instance an inquiry involving a firearm ... an officer can be trained in the use of the weapon and the laws governing it's use within department policy, but the officer does not have to understand the chemical reactions and physics involved when he fires it.

By 150 feet, I meant the minimum distance for the radar to get an accurate reading since I was not in the same lane (25-30 ft offset).

Well, while I am not officially radar certified in CA I know that it takes significantly less than that to get a good reading. Plus, there is no stautorily defined distance. So, it would be up to the specs of the manufacturer and any experts called to court.

Remember, the presumption is that so long as the officer is operating it properly, as trained, and the device is propely maintained and calibrated, it will generally be presumed that the device is operating accurately.

In order to get an accurate reading, the officer "should" hold the vehicle in the gun's sight for a second or two. Since each cycle (burst, receive, process) takes a few 100 ms, the gun should be kept on the vehicle for at least a second or two to get 6-7 consecutive readings. A single reading could be anything. This becomes important since if the officer needed 1 second to get an accurate reading, the time I have to reach 40 mph goes down further!

Keep in mind that NHTSA's standards may not be the same as required under CA law. Additionally, depending on the specific device used, this may not be necessary.

However, as I have no formal training in the operation of the radar, I am only speculating. But, I have yet to see an easy technical challenge to a radar. But, ya never know.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Oh, the other key point to remember is that the officer is going to testify that he observed your vehicle and made a visual estimate of your speed as he was trained to do in his certification class (and passed after a successful test ... within 2 MPH or 5 MPH for EACH observation depending on the specific course). He will testify that his visual estimation was confirmed by the radar.

While you MIGHT be able to argue the technical aspect of the radar, since he is basing making a visual estimation of your speed that is being confirmed by the radar, the argument against the radar is only one facet of the defense. You would somehow have to challenge his expertise, training and experience.

- Carl

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

Oh, the other key point to remember is that the officer is going to testify that he observed your vehicle and made a visual estimate of your speed as he was trained to do in his certification class (and passed after a successful test ... within 2 MPH or 5 MPH for EACH observation depending on the specific course). He will testify that his visual estimation was confirmed by the radar.

While you MIGHT be able to argue the technical aspect of the radar, since he is basing making a visual estimation of your speed that is being confirmed by the radar, the argument against the radar is only one facet of the defense. You would somehow have to challenge his expertise, training and experience.

- Carl

I had thought about the visual confirmation. My car is much smaller than a typical car and would appear much faster at the same speed. An F-16 lands at a lower speed than a 777 but appears much faster. Another problem with visual estimation, is that as the reliability goes down as the distances narrow.


Another thing to keep in mind is that the entire episode happened in 8-9 seconds (if I was indeed doing 40) from the point I started the turn. So in that time the officer would have to everything from identifying me as a potential speeder, get a visual estimate, establish a tracking history etc. While doing a web search I found a brochure titled "Sobre and Safe" from the NHTSA web site which said that a radar needs 3 to 5 seconds to get a reading while a LIDAR needs 1/3rd of a second.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/docs/pdf/terms.pdf

If this is indeed true and he needed 3 seconds to get a track it becomes even more difficult to prove his case.

The 150ft stuff I am talking about is based on the size of the radar beam. At distances less than 150 ft I am outside the main cone of the gun. This may become important since a convertible with a cloth top has a much smaller RCS than a family sedan. A small car has a typical RCS of 30 sq.m; a large car averages 120 sq.m. A convertible with a cloth top and less metal has an even lower RCS than a small car. So a sedan going 500 ft down the road may return a stronger signal than my car because I am outside the primary target area of the gun.

All these arguments are very technical. Regardless of wheter I was doing 28 or 35 mph, the officer did acknowledge that I was not racing and he was primarily sent there because of complaints by residents. I am in angst because I know I drive safe and defensive.

The problem with speeding tickets is that I have to prove without reasonable doubt that I am innocent; the burden of proof is shifted.

 

[fedcop110]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the entire episode happened in 8-9 seconds (if I was indeed doing 40) from the point I started the turn. So in that time the officer would have to everything from identifying me as a potential speeder, get a visual estimate, establish a tracking history etc.

As far as the tracking history for stationary radar, all that the officer needs to be able to testify to is that he visually observed you speeding, received audio confirmation from the radar and verified you speed in the target window of the radar.

My car is much smaller than a typical car and would appear much faster at the same speed. An F-16 lands at a lower speed than a 777 but appears much faster. Another problem with visual estimation, is that as the reliability goes down as the distances narrow.

As Carl stated, all that the officer needs to do is to show that he is certified in the use of the radar (how to put the radar into operation and test its calibration) in the training class the officer had to visually estimate speeds of various vehicles and estimate correctly.

The 150ft stuff I am talking about is based on the size of the radar beam. At distances less than 150 ft I am outside the main cone of the gun. This may become important since a convertible with a cloth top has a much smaller RCS than a family sedan. A small car has a typical RCS of 30 sq.m; a large car averages 120 sq.m. A convertible with a cloth top and less metal has an even lower RCS than a small car. So a sedan going 500 ft down the road may return a stronger signal than my car because I am outside the primary target area of the gun.

While this is true, if the officer testifies to a good tracking history, it pretty much takes this off of the table. Even if there was another vehicle that was returning a stronger signal you may have still been the reading when the officer tracked you. The radar will NORMALLY track a vehicle with a stronger signal. That, however, is not always the case. If the officer got a good tracking history it doesn't matter if you were the weakest signal out of 3 different cars.

0. What is required to establish a tracking history: Do I have to be in the main-lobe when he starts tracking me?

1. Visual estimation
2. Audio confirmation
3. Target speed confirmation

1. Does the officer need to keep the gun stationary while establishing the tracking history?

No

2. If he can move the gun, then can he rotate it AND/OR move it horizontally?

No

3. Can the tracking history be developed when a car is accelerating from a stop and turning? OR would I have to finish the turn and straighten before the tracking can start? This is important since the doppler shift will happen only when there is a velocity component in the same or opposite direction of the radar. When I am turning and perpendicular to the gun, my speed will be zero.

The tracking history can begin at any point. Remember only the last two points in a tracking history include the radar. The audio confirmation means that the audio doppler tone produced by the radar is consistent with the speed estimated. This is the same for the target speed confirmation. If the officer sees you increasing speed (as in the turn) and the audio doppler and target speed confirm this then he has a good tracking history. It behooves the officer to lock the speed when you are straight ahead of him but not necessary.

4. Can the radar gun be kept on all the time or is there a ON-OFF period during which the officer turns the gun on after he decides to track me?

The radar gun can be turned on/off, however, if the officer is stationary and is running stationary radar he would more than likely have the radar on. Only the officer would be able to tell you if he had it off prior to clocking you (but I would doubt that he did)

5. As I moved out of the main lobe, is it possible that radar may latch on to another vehicle in the main lobe.

Yes, however it would be a moot point with a good tracking history.

On a different note: Is hitting a top speed more than the speed limit into a turn enough to justify the speeding ticket, even if I slow down and possess no danger or risk to anyone on an empty street in a sunny afternoon?

Yes

If you go to fight the ticket with your technical expertise, the judge will more than likely not want to hear it, as Carl said, the court will think you are trying to dazzle them with BS. You would need expert testimony to prove most of this. And I will tell you that because the officer has to have only a basic working knowledge of the radar he will not be able to comment on most of your argument. Take a look at Honeycutt v. the Commonwealth of Kentucky, this case is where the court said that the officer needs to be able to set-up, test, and read the device. The operator does not need to know how the internal workings of the device operate.

With a speed of 10 over the limit you may have a better chance on getting the charge dropped to defective equipment, or something similar. Just throwing that out there. In either case, good luck and let us know what the outcome is. After all of this I am curious.

 

[CdwJava]

Specifically, what section were you cited for?

- Carl

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

Specifically, what section were you cited for?

- Carl

CVC 22350 Speeding (Infraction)
Speed Approx 40.
PF/Max Speed 30
Veh Limit 30
Safe 30
Radar Y

Weather/Road/Traffic
C/D/L (Clear, Day, Light I presume)

I really hope the officer calls me and I can reason with him. With all the information you have provided to me, it is unlikely that I will be able to prove my innocence beyond reasonable doubt. I would like to send a written interrogration

Satellite Image of the Area

The officer was standing at the end of the farm in front of the third house to the left of the marker. I took the left from a stop sign to the right of the marker. He finally caught up with me at the end of the farm where I was waiting to take a right turn on to the main road. Incidentally, he did not turn on his lights till he was almost behing me. Perhaps he did not expect to be able to catch me before I was gone.

One of the first questions he asked me was "when was my last ticket". And told me take traffic school online or via blockbuster. I am tempted to take traffic school and forget about everything. However, I am a safe and a defensive driver and feel the angst about getting the ticket.


As far as I remember, there were vehicles parked in front of the officer on his side of the road so it would taken him some time to visually id me.

 

[CdwJava]

Okay ... you CAN ask for a trial by declaration - this is where you and the officer will write your statements to be submitted to the court. Very often you have to pony up the bail (fine and fees) first prior to submitting your written statement, but it might allow you to present your case in a better light ... provided the judge/commissioner chooses to wade through the documents. There would be no cross examination of the officer at all in this case, as you each simply write your pieces and submit them.

If you choose to fight it in court, I would suggest you go to the local bookstore and find a book that tells about fighting California traffic cites - there are a few out there. They can tell you the procedures to use in a challenge to these things. It's cheaper than an attorney and you can do it yourself.

The bottom line is that a technical challenge is expensive - much greater than any fine might be, that's for sure. And the courts look at radar as generally reliable so it's an uphill battle ... provided they are used properly as trained and per manufacturer specs.

- Carl

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

Carl:

Thanks a lot for the information you have provided.

The problem with trial by written declaration is that I still have to plead not guilty and lose my chance to go to traffic school. I really do not care for the fine. What bothers me that I am pleading guilty to something wrong.

In order to build a proper case, I need access to the officer's notes and some answers to how he went about clocking me with his radar. From what I know now, I can not do that without pleading not-guilty (and losing my chance to go to traffic school). If I did not have that option, I would have fought this ticket to highest court possible.

I checked 22350. I think anyone in a logical frame of mind will not say that my driving during the 240 ft was risky, dangerous or posed a danger to anyone, any property or animal or whatever.

Another twist: This crossing is actually marked as a pedestrian school crossing. California law requires a school within 500 ft but the nearest school is much further away at least 1000 ft.


Prima Facie Speed Limit

22352.2.B
" When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign. For purposes of this subparagraph, standard "SCHOOL" warning signs may be placed at any distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds."

 

[CdwJava]

The problem with trial by written declaration is that I still have to plead not guilty and lose my chance to go to traffic school. I really do not care for the fine. What bothers me that I am pleading guilty to something wrong.

I understand the part about pleading to something you don't believe you did wrong ... but, in all honesty, unless you had youre nose on the speedometer the entire time, you honestly can't say with certainty WHAT your speed was - or, that your speedometer is accurate.

Also, in a court trial it is common practice in every court I am aware of to keep the option of traffic school open right up to just before the trial. The judge/commissioner will give an announcement before the trials giving people the option of pleading guilty or no contest and then accepting traffic school if eligible. However, as a practical matter, many courts will not offer traffic school if found guilty by trial.

In order to build a proper case, I need access to the officer's notes and some answers to how he went about clocking me with his radar. From what I know now, I can not do that without pleading not-guilty (and losing my chance to go to traffic school). If I did not have that option, I would have fought this ticket to highest court possible.

His notes (if any) are discoverable - along with his qualifications to run the radar, road surveys, and maintenance/certification on the unit itself.

I checked 22350. I think anyone in a logical frame of mind will not say that my driving during the 240 ft was risky, dangerous or posed a danger to anyone, any property or animal or whatever.

It also used as a speed violation when exceeding the posted limit in residential areas. I don't have the specific authority at my fingertips here at home, but I do have it at the office.

And since you were not cited for school zone violations, the placement and location of the crosswalk are not generally going to be relevant unless it is going to be asserted to show "unsafe speed" as opposed to exceeding the speed limit.

- Carl