CA- speed trap

[lameri]

When there is no current "engineering and traffic survey," should you admit that you were driving over the limit, or is it irrelevant?

Here are the facts: I was cited for violating 22350 on street X at point B. I found that there is a traffic survey for X between a and B that is 5.5 years old, and there is also a traffic survey for X between B and C that is 10 years old. So, no matter what, that street hasn't been surveyed in 5 years.

Should I admit that I was driving over the limit?

I also know that the validity of the surveys can be extended to 10 years, should I be concerned about the report that is 5.5 years old?
Thanks!

 

[Jim_bo]

You should not admit to anything. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

40803(b) 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.

Also, there is ample case law that supports this notion. So, you should just go to court and see if the prosecution presents a survey as evidence. If not, you should move for dismissal. If they do present the 5.5 year old one, then there is additional burdens the prosecution must meet.

40802(c)(1)(A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully
completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the
use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and
certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

(B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure
the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully
completed the training required in subparagraph (A) and an additional
training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by
the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(C) (i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied
with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic
survey has been conducted in accordance with subparagraph (B) of
paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer
issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that
the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the
requirements of subparagraph (D).
(ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe
for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless
the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.
(D) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure
the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational
standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and
has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the
alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair
and testing or calibration facility.

Keep in mind that:

1. The limit must be justified in the survey
2. All documents described above must be submitted and MUST be certified true copies or originals. Simple photocopies should be objected to.

Good luck!!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

**************..

All documents described above must be submitted and MUST be certified true copies or originals. Simple photocopies should be objected to.

Jim,

I do recall having this one dscussion before -a long thread-, and the way I remember it and no one could find any information that confirmed what you're suggesting MUST be done...

Specifically, none of us could find any information stating that they "MUST BE SUBMITTED" (instead we established that they can be on file in court) and if the officer chooses to mention/refer to them in his/her testimony and or offer them as evidence, he/she can refer to them as being "on file with the court"...

Also, none of us could find any information that stated that these documents "MUST be CERTIFIED!!!" Instead, we established that as long as the court will accept them as true copies then they can be accepted as items of evidence against a defendant.

Unless you've come across something new and you're holding out on us!

I find it so funny that you have these "theories" that no one has even considered let alone tried... NOT EVEN YOU... And yet with as convinced as you are in their supposed validity, you would love to see how they would work out in real life... So why not have someone else try them on your behalf?

If they happen to work, then JIM-BO is the HERO...

If they dont happen to work then "tough luck to the O.P; that Judge must have been an idiot... Appeal, yes you'll win it on appeal".



lameri,

You didn't mention whther your alleged speed was measured by Laser, Radar or by "Pacing"... In the slight chance that you might have been paced, Jim has another theory that he'd like to sell... One about speedometers, electronics speed measuring devices and "black letter readings of the law"...

 

[Jim_bo]

Jim,

I do recall having this one dscussion before -a long thread-, and the way I remember it and no one could find any information that confirmed what you're suggesting MUST be done...

VC 40802 allows the speed survey to be extended to 7 years if the conditions in my previous post are met. Otherwise, the 5 year limit applies to the speed survey. If you would like for me to provide case law as to the necessity of the prosecution proving that a speed trap did not exist via a speed survey, I can... however, I thought that was so commonly understood it was unnecessary.

Specifically, none of us could find any information stating that they "MUST BE SUBMITTED" (instead we established that they can be on file in court) and if the officer chooses to mention/refer to them in his/her testimony and or offer them as evidence, he/she can refer to them as being "on file with the court"...

Once again, the documents would have to be used in order for the prosecution to make his case. Certainly you don't dispute that the defendant has a right to review and possibly object to any evidence used by the prosecution... do you? I thought this too was obvious.

Also, none of us could find any information that stated that these documents "MUST be CERTIFIED!!!" Instead, we established that as long as the court will accept them as true copies then they can be accepted as items of evidence against a defendant.

Basic law once again... a photocopy cannot be confirmed as being a true copy of the original. Certifying a copy as being a true copy is as simply as the person who makes the copy placing a "certified true copy" stamp on it with their signature. It's not difficult to do, but it is a requirement. I know because I have won TWO seperate speeding ticket cases of my own using this tactic. The officer showed up with a bunch of documents and I objected to their introduction into evidence because they were not certified true copies. My objection was sustained and the cases were dismissed. It's not really hard to do.

Unless you've come across something new and you're holding out on us!

I'm not holding out... I have talked about these cases in many threads.

I find it so funny that you have these "theories" that no one has even considered let alone tried... NOT EVEN YOU... And yet with as convinced as you are in their supposed validity, you would love to see how they would work out in real life... So why not have someone else try them on your behalf?

If they happen to work, then JIM-BO is the HERO...

If they dont happen to work then "tough luck to the O.P; that Judge must have been an idiot... Appeal, yes you'll win it on appeal".

Apparently I have tested these "theories"... and they work. Got any other points you'd like to make?

lameri,

You didn't mention whther your alleged speed was measured by Laser, Radar or by "Pacing"... In the slight chance that you might have been paced, Jim has another theory that he'd like to sell... One about speedometers, electronics speed measuring devices and "black letter readings of the law"...

This is a good point... he didn't tell us how the cop got his speed. If it was using radar/laser, then the need for the survey is clear. If he only used visual estimation, then there is clearly no need for the survey. However, if he PACED you (i.e. using his speedometer), I do still contend that is an electronic device used to measure speed of objects and brings speed trap laws into play... but, I will also admit that this "theory" is untested as of yet.