Can someone explain the 'speed trap' law in Ca?

[SadbutTrue]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

I am slightly confused as to what constitutes an illegal 'speed trap' and what does not. Coudl someone clarify it?

[JIMinCA]

Read California Vehicle Code section 40800 - 40805

[I_Got_Banned]

. . . Or, if you were given a citation, post the vehicle code section that you were cited for and the circumstances under which you received the citation and someone could tell you whether it applies & how to proceed!

Just don't get sucked into that vortex of believing that a speedometer is an electronic device used to measure the speed of other objects!

That, will more than likely end up causing you to lose your trial and even your appeal if you need to go that far!

Two ppeople have been brain washed with that idea... Prognosis: Hopeless!

Sad but true!!!

[davew128]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

Just don't get sucked into that vortex of believing that a speedometer is an electronic device used to measure the speed of other objects!

We will agree that a speedometer doesn't measure the speed of other objects. If and when CVC 40802 is changed to require that it does, it will be relevant.

CVC 40802 (a) (2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

IGB, are you stating that a modern speedometer is not an electronic device or that it doesn't measure the speed of moving objects?

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by davew128

We will agree that a speedometer doesn't measure the speed of other objects. If and when CVC 40802 is changed to require that it does, it will be relevant.

If & when...

I see you've changed your tune! Good for you. . .

Originally Posted by davew128

IGB, are you stating that a modern speedometer is not an electronic device or that it doesn't measure the speed of moving objects?

Asked & answered Dave! Check back on your now "closed" thread. I answered that question numerous times and in numerous ways.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

. . . Or, if you were given a citation, post the vehicle code section that you were cited for and the circumstances under which you received the citation and someone could tell you whether it applies & how to proceed!

Just don't get sucked into that vortex of believing that a speedometer is an electronic device used to measure the speed of other objects!

That, will more than likely end up causing you to lose your trial and even your appeal if you need to go that far!

Two ppeople have been brain washed with that idea... Prognosis: Hopeless!

Sad but true!!!

Is a speedometer is an electronic device? Yes.

Does it measure the speed of moving objects? Yes.

Sounds to me like your opinion is hopeless.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Is a speedometer is an electronic device? Yes.

Does it measure the speed of moving objects? Yes.

Sounds to me like your opinion is hopeless.

Where do you get all this energy to be this bitter towards everybody, Jim??? I know it's not Wheaties!!!

Whether my opinion is hopeless or not is not the issue, Jim... I'm not the one walking into court soon to argue a laughable argument based on advice that you gave, argued, re-argued and then when it came down to it, you posted this:

Please let us know how you intend to proceed. Also, if you do get convicted and you do appeal... please come back here and let us see your briefs before you submit.

That was from the last 2 lines of post #44 in this thread--> [url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/speeding-other-moving-violations-13/ca-speed-trap-law-question-427633-p3.html[/url]

That doesn't sound too HOPEFUL of a statement Jim!!! Going into trial expecting to lose and planning for an appeal...

But, I'm not gonna get into the same argument again... Neither my opinion nor yours count. We will hear the opinion that does counts when Dave reports back soon...

[davew128]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

I'm not the one walking into court soon to argue a laughable argument

No, you simply have a hard time accepting that if a device used to measure speed is electronic, it falls into the speed trap law.

You continue arguing about a case regarding pacing, where the speedometer is never mentioned. You mentioned legislative intent, when the law is not ambiguous. That the argument is not likely to be accepted at a lower court is more a reflection of how those courts operate, not the argument itself.

Courts always get it right, eh IGB? Oh wait, I just saw the Ninth Circuit's decision on the an Francisco employer health care mandate. Never mind.....

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by davew128

No, you simply have a hard time accepting that if a device used to measure speed is electronic, it falls into the speed trap law.

And why are you so concerned about what I accept or not. Your main concern should be focused on what the judge will think at your trial. My opinion has no bearing on your pocketbook, your driving record nor will it affect the judge's opinion or the guilty verdict that will be issued.

Originally Posted by davew128

You continue arguing about a case regarding pacing, where the speedometer is never mentioned. You mentioned legislative intent, when the law is not ambiguous. That the argument is not likely to be accepted at a lower court is more a reflection of how those courts operate, not the argument itself.

I "continue"??? Show me where I have "continued" to argue about pacing!
As for the rest of your statement/argument (which BTW, everybody has read a few times already), it still don't jive... Then again, not my job to decide...

Originally Posted by davew128

Courts always get it right, eh IGB? Oh wait, I just saw the Ninth Circuit's decision on the an Francisco employer health care mandate. Never mind.....

Focus Dave, focus. How is the San Francisco employer health care mandate gonna hlep you convince the judge whatever your theory is?

Oh, and let me add that it's whether the court will decide in your favor or against you that makes a difference to you.... NOT whether the court is right or wrong!

Now will you lay off of it? Seriously, we've heard it many times and although it sounded like you changed your tune but ... Seriously, enough!

[davew128]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

And why are you so concerned about what I accept or not. Your main concern should be focused on what the judge will think at your trial. My opinion has no bearing on your pocketbook, your driving record nor will it affect the judge's opinion or the guilty verdict that will be issued.

Then why should anyone ever bother? According to you, everything is a waste of time.

Focus Dave, focus. How is the San Francisco employer health care mandate gonna hlep you convince the judge whatever your theory is?

Clearly you have a hard time with analogies.

Oh, and let me add that it's whether the court will decide in your favor or against you that makes a difference to you.... NOT whether the court is right or wrong!

Absolutely. It's not about the law, it's about winning and losing. Got it.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

And why are you so concerned about what I accept or not. Your main concern should be focused on what the judge will think at your trial. My opinion has no bearing on your pocketbook, your driving record nor will it affect the judge's opinion or the guilty verdict that will be issued.

Dave and I have discussed a very legitimate defense to a speeding case. You have numerous times made absolute declarations, such as the one above, which state that Dave WILL be found guilty.

Since you are so convinced that Dave will be found guilty and you have no room to see any other perspective, I propose that you seal your conviction. I have a challenge to issue to you. If Dave's case is dismissed either by the traffic court of the appellate court, you should come here and start a thread issuing him and myself a sincere, public appology. You should discuss the errors of your narrow-mindedness and how you could really learn something by opening your mind up to other opinions. Your appology should be long and sincere. You should also promise NOT to make such absolute statements in the future.

So, the challenge is on the table. Time to put-up or shut-up. Words are cheap, but let's see if you are willing to back them up. Are you willing to accept the challenge?

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Are you willing to accept the challenge?

And both you and Davew agree to the same if he's convicted? Or is this one of those "heads I win, tails you lose" bets?

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

And both you and Davew agree to the same if he's convicted? Or is this one of those "heads I win, tails you lose" bets?

Much appreciated, You Are Guilty...

Jim?

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

And both you and Davew agree to the same if he's convicted? Or is this one of those "heads I win, tails you lose" bets?

Nope.... this is not a bet. Niether Dave nor I have made the repetitive absolute statements that IGB has. We have only recognized that this is a good defense and that the case law precedence was not based on a speedometer being an electronic device used to measure speed of moving objects. We have never stated that it WILL work. Contrarily, IGB has stated over and over that the defense WILL NOT work and it IS NOT legitimate. Since he is so confident that he can make such absolute statements, I'm asking him to demonstrate his convictions.

Now... put up or shut up!

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Dave and I have discussed a very legitimate defense to a speeding case. You have numerous times made absolute declarations, such as the one above, which state that Dave WILL be found guilty.

Since you are so convinced that Dave will be found guilty and you have no room to see any other perspective, I propose that you seal your conviction. I have a challenge to issue to you. If Dave's case is dismissed either by the traffic court of the appellate court, you should come here and start a thread issuing him and myself a sincere, public appology. You should discuss the errors of your narrow-mindedness and how you could really learn something by opening your mind up to other opinions. Your appology should be long and sincere. You should also promise NOT to make such absolute statements in the future.

So, the challenge is on the table. Time to put-up or shut-up. Words are cheap, but let's see if you are willing to back them up. Are you willing to accept the challenge?

JIM, JIM…. Wake up! I think you’re DREAMING!!!!!!

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Nope.... this is not a bet. Niether Dave nor I have made the repetitive absolute statements that IGB has. We have only recognized that this is a good defense and that the case law precedence was not based on a speedometer being an electronic device used to measure speed of moving objects. We have never stated that it WILL work. Contrarily, IGB has stated over and over that the defense WILL NOT work and it IS NOT legitimate.

That is true... In fact, I'd like to add "senseless, pointless, has no legal basis or justification and I would consider it to be a waste of the courts time".

But, keep in mind that is just my opinion... If you think I'm so wrong Jim, and this goes to you too Dave, then why are you putting so much value and getting hot under both collars based on an "opinion" and one that you consider to be "wrong" ?

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Since he is so confident that he can make such absolute statements, I'm asking him to demonstrate his convictions.

First of all, you are not the authority on convictions, demonstrations, absolute statements and you do not get to decide who can make them and who can't.

Second of all, you don’t set the rules on this forum nor do you enforce them. Not your job Jim... So lay off of it.

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Now... put up or shut up!

I will put and shut up, Jim BUT Only when you beg me to, Jim...

In fact, here are the conditions under which I will shut up...

1) You and Dave must start a new thread, in it, post your so called legitimate legal defense to a speeding charge" but only for reference. Neither one of you will discuss or argue your opinions; instead, the topic of each and every post should be why you two believe I am totally wrong and yet you're both placing so much weight and value to my opinion. Once I see that thread has reached a post count of 40 or so posts... I will consider shutting up.

2) As for my actually shutting up, that might come after I see that you and Dave have put in enough effort into setting up a Public Parade on the day that Dave will lose his trial... Yes, I will be Grand Marshal... Dave will drive (and he’ll stick to the speed limit, this time)... And he will drive me through Los Angeles. In a limo, black in color... Preferably one with a mechanical speedometer, if you can find one. if not, I want the speedometer disconnected (Yeah, it's illegal but I'm not the one disconnecting it, You and Dave will).

You will have a megaphone in your hand Jim… You will walk behind the car the entire parade… Using the megaphone, you will tell the citizens of L A about your so called legitimate legal defense and what transpired the entire time; you’ll tell them that you learned a big huge lesson about yourself; how you’re not always right and about how much you appreciate the guidance I’ve bestowed upon you here…

Do ALL that and I’ll consider it… Until then, you and Dave can skip any or all of my posts if you’d like.

Get to work Jim… Trial is coming up and I hear you’re gonna need a permit for the parade, as well as the street closure permission from the city of L A and the LAPD…