CA Speeding Ticket Defense Methods?

[fairuza]

State: California

I want to help a friend defeat a speeding ticket (CVC 22350 Basic Speed Law) for 57 in a 40 double lane (both ways) road. The officer used a laser gun and was satationary on his motorcycle. Clear/Dry/Light traffic at night.

In the past for my own speeding ticket I lost by trying to prove that although I was going over the speed limit, I was not endangering anyone on the road or nearby property and therefore was not traveling at an unsafe speed given the road conditions. I did this for both a written declaration and then a trial de novo and lost both.

So I need help in refining my defense. What are some good methods? Are there any links/info attacking the laser gun used?

Is it common for the officer to automatically bring the site/traffic survey to court if I don't mention it in the Written Declaration?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by fairuza

I want to help a friend defeat a speeding ticket (CVC 22350 Basic Speed Law) for 57 in a 40 double lane (both ways) road. The officer used a laser gun and was satationary on his motorcycle. Clear/Dry/Light traffic at night.

Ouch! That's pretty tought to beat.

What's his defense?

In the past for my own speeding ticket I lost by trying to prove that although I was going over the speed limit, I was not endangering anyone on the road or nearby property and therefore was not traveling at an unsafe speed given the road conditions. I did this for both a written declaration and then a trial de novo and lost both.

That's because under CA law, the speed limits do not revolve around what is "safe" or not. The speed limit is the limit. And it can be less if conditions are poor ... it is in these poor conditions cases that the limit is unclear and the safety argue might stand a chance.

So I need help in refining my defense. What are some good methods? Are there any links/info attacking the laser gun used?

An expert might be able to challenge the training of the officer in the use of the laser, or the maintenance of the device. However, chances are if the officer was working from a motorcycle, his primary duty is traffic ... this means that he almost certainly is certified on the device.

There are books you can buy that might give you some ideas to beat the ticket, but they are not generally winners. Your only hope MIGHT be to find that the road has not been properly surveyed. But, you'll have to buy a book to find that info out because I ain't gonna explain the process to you here.

Is it common for the officer to automatically bring the site/traffic survey to court if I don't mention it in the Written Declaration?

It depends on the court. Where I used to work, the traffic surveys were kept at the court to make it easier to access. You can seek the survey as part of Discovery before trial, but all because you mention it in the written declaration does not compel anyone to produce it.

- Carl

[fairuza]

Do you know the name of the book?

There was a car behind my friend and one next to her when she got "zapped", so would it be possible to claim that she was going with the flow of traffic?

During my trial after the officer showed the survey I pointed out that he didn't show proof that his laser gun was calibrated or that he was certified to use it. I thought that was a pretty good point, but the judge totally shrugged it off and said he'd defer that til the end of the trial... then he of course never mentioned it again.

The judge and my officer were friends though I think. The officer actually got us transfered from the regular judge to this one as I was waiting for my trial to start. Something fishy was going on there.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by fairuza

Do you know the name of the book?

There are dozens of them out there. All the major book stores have them.

There was a car behind my friend and one next to her when she got "zapped", so would it be possible to claim that she was going with the flow of traffic?

And if the flow of traffic was still over the limit, she's guilty. Going with the "flow of traffic" is NOT a speed defense in CA.

During my trial after the officer showed the survey I pointed out that he didn't show proof that his laser gun was calibrated or that he was certified to use it. I thought that was a pretty good point, but the judge totally shrugged it off and said he'd defer that til the end of the trial... then he of course never mentioned it again.

Unless it was sought in Discovery, it might not be relevant as obtaining his training records and the maintenance records of the laser is not as simple as running to his glove compartment and producing them.

The survey is a pretty standard issue to show in court, so its likely they regularly produce that.

The judge and my officer were friends though I think. The officer actually got us transfered from the regular judge to this one as I was waiting for my trial to start. Something fishy was going on there.

The officer has nothing to do with court assignments. it might seem that way to you, but if he asked for the judge it may have been for any number of reasons ... schedule, etc.

Heck, I know the judges in my county as well, but I doubt I could influence the court selection OR their decision. Though my credibility might be better if it came down to two people's statements and one was lying.

- Carl

[fairuza]

well what happened was while we were all waiting in the courtroom my officer went up to some lady next to the judge who was at a desk and he whispered something to her. she then made a phone call (or whatever it was she spoke into) to someone and about 5 minutes later received a call back and then looked up and across at the officer with a smile and waived at him. then a few minutes later the current judge read off my name and the officer's and said we now have to go room #whatever for our trial.

and when we went up there we were the only there for this judge.

the old judge was not busy either as it appeared nearly ever single person there had their officer not show up so they all won. maybe 1 or 2 people were left still, i don't remember.

so i don't know what was going on.