Ca Speeding Ticket.

[CdwJava]

Because it is vague we have the courts to help clarify the issue. Per case law the offense includes excessive acceleration so as to cause the tires to scream loudly and lose traction. (Grier (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 360.)

We have many such subjective statutes and not just in the vehicle code ... try noise, for example ... what objective criteria can be easily applied to what is "loud and unreasonable noise" as written in to PC 415? There are a few that we might agree upon, but they aren't always clear, and what is "reasonable" is not something the officers can decide as the law has been interpreted. This is why we need to courts to help clarify these issues.

I am not a fan of vague laws, either, as it often leaves everyone frustrated. My "favorite" (peeve) is when courts write custody and visitation papers with visitation to be decided "as mutually arranged" or some similar language. How in the heck do we enforce that? If they do no agree, then it is no longer mutual! We usually try and meditate, if that doesn't work, we tell them to go back to court ... no one is happy.



- Carl

[Jim_bo]

Even though the court in Grier still left a ton of ambiguity, you know good and well that people are written for exhibition of speed every day where there was no "screaming of tires". Basically, if the cop wants to charge you with something, he charges you with exhibition of speed and there is no real defense (because there is no real defined standard).

As for the other ambiguous statutes.... they do NOT justify this one. I have seen you on many counts tell people that they are not innocent of a traffic violation simply because many around them were commiting the same violation.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

Even though the court in Grier still left a ton of ambiguity, you know good and well that people are written for exhibition of speed every day where there was no "screaming of tires". Basically, if the cop wants to charge you with something, he charges you with exhibition of speed and there is no real defense (because there is no real defined standard).

As for the other ambiguous statutes.... they do NOT justify this one. I have seen you on many counts tell people that they are not innocent of a traffic violation simply because many around them were commiting the same violation.

Jim - he was using them as an example of ambiguous statutes... You just HAVE to argue.

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Jim - he was using them as an example of ambiguous statutes... You just HAVE to argue.

Zigner,

You are not the OP, nor were you part of that exchange. You just HAVE to offer your condescension.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

Zigner,

You just HAVE to offer your condescension.

Yes, when appropriate (as it was)

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Yes, when appropriate (as it was)

Condescension is never appropriate... unless you are just a condescending person. I believe that may be the case.

I know you have a hard time with reading comprehension sometimes, so I'll clarify.... the above is NOT a compliment!

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

Even though the court in Grier still left a ton of ambiguity, you know good and well that people are written for exhibition of speed every day where there was no "screaming of tires". Basically, if the cop wants to charge you with something, he charges you with exhibition of speed and there is no real defense (because there is no real defined standard).

I have never known the statute to be written except when the squealing of tires or some more egregious event has occurred. So, no, I do NOT "know good and well" that people are written for this without a squealing of tires. In the great scheme of things, it is a rarely cited offense, anyway.

As for the other ambiguous statutes.... they do NOT justify this one. I have seen you on many counts tell people that they are not innocent of a traffic violation simply because many around them were commiting the same violation.

Correct. But, if they are ambiguous that is the fault of the legislature and the courts often try to sort that out. I can rattle off a great number of ambiguous statutes in at least three codes. Some of these ambiguities if not addressed by state and federal courts are addressed by local courts or even local District Attorneys. But, if they are not defined, then they are up to the judgment of the officer and (in the case of most misdemeanors and felonies) subject to the interpretation of the DA.

- Carl

[patstew]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigner
Jim - he was using them as an example of ambiguous statutes... You just HAVE to argue.

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

Zigner,

You are not the OP, nor were you part of that exchange. You just HAVE to offer your condescension.

Why don't you two just get a room, already.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

compliment!

Thanks Jim. And, on that note, I'll end this. I'll ignore you in the future

[AgentSmithers]

I would think if a Cop would of brought that up in court, Or for that fact a park ranger that I would object that to be irrelevant, I Mean Squealing tires means your not moving at all in alot of cases if not mildly.

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Thanks Jim. And, on that note, I'll end this. I'll ignore you in the future

Please do!!! Nothing would make me happier than you ignoring me!!!!