CHP radar ticket on interstate 10

[AzDon]

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

California speeding ticket:

In mid-January 2009 I received a speeding ticket from a CHP officer hiding behind a dense tree in the median of interstate 10 near Chiriaco Summitt, Ca
His car and radar gun were positioned 120 degrees of traffic, he had no visibility for visual pretext and he shot instant-on radar across another occupied lane at my truck in the #2 lane. The speed limit for the cars in the other lane is 70 mph. I was cited for driving a tractor trailer combination, but maintain that I was going 55mph.
The Officer offerred to make it 71mph and take me to jail if I insisted on seeing the radar clocking. He then took my entire permit book to his patrol car and wrote a ticket to a license plate number that had been changed two years prior. Upon returning with the ticket, he refused to give me a court date in the county seat.
In "Written Declaration" trial, I sent a more detailed commentary, and was convicted without comment or details.
I requested the trial record and found a boilerplate officer testimony, a photocopy of a current SDSU Calibration Certificate, a photocopy of a 3x5 handwritten "daily calibration check" card with handwritten serial #'s of radar unit, police car, and tuning forks, AND a radar training certificate issued by CHP that reads:
On recommendation of the instructional staff, this Certificate of Attainment is awarded to ________________who has fulfilled the requirements prescribed for radar training, done at Indio, Ca on day/month/1990

A new trial was scheduled.
After another boilerplate performance, the officer presented the same three photocopies for examination by the judge and myself.

I started my cross examination asking about the radar unit's placement in the car and about multiple targets.
I then asked him if he was 100% certain that he had testified truthfully when he stated that he had stopped a truck with license # (wrong number) and he answered "yes".
I then presented a color page of all four of my company's Peterbilt tractors that are similar, but not even close to identical. Each picture was captioned with plate and unit number and each picture showed these numbers as well. I asked the officer to identify the vehicle he had stopped. He couldn't and quickly noticed the absence of the license plate he wrote. I explained that the plate had been gone for two years and he explained that he often writes tickets without ever looking at the plate.
I then asked him again to visually ID a truck and he couldn't
I asked him if, without a plate number of visual ID,he could "to a legal certainty" place me at the wheel of a vehicle restricted to 55mph rather than the 70 mph limit for unrestricted vehicles in that area. He replied that he had a trailer plate number. So you are saying, officer, that I was pulling a trailer down the road at 70 mph without a vehicle to pull it? He replied, "trailers are restricted to 55mph" (not the question I asked)
He then volunteered that I was the guy he stopped and he was sure I was driving a semi.
I then proceeded to ask for dismissal on the grounds that the officer was unable to place me at the wheel of a restricted-to-55mph vehicle either by visual recollection or by license number, or any other motor vehicle.
Motion was denied.
I then asked if he was aware that CVC 40802 required "24 Hours of POST certified Training", to which he replied that his certificate covered that training. After a little more back-and-forth on the issue, I asked for dismissal on the grounds that the training certificate he presented showed no evidence of meeting the specified requirements.
Motion Denied
I then zeroed in on the handwritten "daily calibration check" card by first asking if tuning forks are specific to a single radar unit to which I replied they were. Also in this segment, I held up a copy of the Stalker DSR II operators manual and asked if he read it and knew what it said about such things as cosine error and checking the unit before and after a stop. He replied that the standard for calibration checks is daily as shown by the card. I then asked him if he had documents with him showing when the calibration of the tuning forks had been checked. He replied "no"
I then asked if he had a printed document with him showing that the serial numbered tuning forks shown on the log actually belong to that radar unit. He replied "no"
I then asked for dismissal on the grounds that he didn't provide all the documentation to show that the radar unit is accurate for the assumption of accuracy to be valid.
Motion denied
Found guilty
I'm now in the process of preparing my appeal brief
Suggestions?

 

[racer72]

Suggestions?

Hire an attorney.

 

[AzDon]

Hire an attorney.

Not likely!
I'm to seventeen pages on my brief already!

I'm asking for overturn on all the grounds that I asked dismissal on. The most obvious is that the Officer's training certificate that he presented in court quite obviously DOES NOT meet the required specs.
I've been subjected to several instances of the trial court not meeting deadlines in the appeal process.
I guess I question whether it's within a court's authority to assume that such a bogus-appearing photocopy of a document fulfills the required specs if it does not specifically say so and if they have the authority to disallow a defendant from insisting on examining a document that does simply because the officer isnt able to produce it(?)

 

[Zigner]

Not likely!
I'm to seventeen pages on my brief already!

I'm asking for overturn on all the grounds that I asked dismissal on. The most obvious is that the Officer's training certificate that he presented in court quite obviously DOES NOT meet the required specs.
I've been subjected to several instances of the trial court not meeting deadlines in the appeal process.
I guess I question whether it's within a court's authority to assume that such a bogus-appearing photocopy of a document fulfills the required specs if it does not specifically say so and if they have the authority to disallow a defendant from insisting on examining a document that does simply because the officer isnt able to produce it(?)

Anyone who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client...

 

[steel9]

This cop makes the good cops look bad. He shouldnt be a cop. I bet he has few (if any) friends.

 

[AzDon]

I "googled" the cop and learned that my trial date was the sixteen year anniversary of an incident where a bystander rescued a passenger from an overturned, burning car while this officer had stood by and watched.
In my mind, the surgeon that performed this rescue risked his life for no compensation while the guy who most California taxpayers would agree that they pay to perform such heroics, stood by and watched.
I'm sure some will argue that CHP officers are not paid to risk their lives(?)
The guy that was rescued would certainly have died, as the car burned to a complete cinder. The guy is alive today because a bystander could not allow him to die unnecessarily WHILE THIS CHP OFFICER WATCHED!

 

[Zigner]

I "googled" the cop and learned that my trial date was the sixteen year anniversary of an incident where a bystander rescued a passenger from an overturned, burning car while this officer had stood by and watched.
In my mind, the surgeon that performed this rescue risked his life for no compensation while the guy who most California taxpayers would agree that they pay to perform such heroics, stood by and watched.
I'm sure some will argue that CHP officers are not paid to risk their lives(?)
The guy that was rescued would certainly have died, as the car burned to a complete cinder. The guy is alive today because a bystander could not allow him to die unnecessarily WHILE THIS CHP OFFICER WATCHED!

So what? He still nailed you speeding.

 

[racer72]

This cop makes the good cops look bad. He shouldnt be a cop. I bet he has few (if any) friends.

What makes you so righteous to make such a rediculous and foolish statement? You don't know the officer and other that the very one sided post by the OP, you know absolutely nothing about the case. I am at this time watching the funeral for 4 police officers on television, they were murdered by very sick lunatic. I would bet this officer would be shown the same level of respect and love if the same happened to him.

 

[CdwJava]

This cop makes the good cops look bad. He shouldnt be a cop. I bet he has few (if any) friends.

You have not a clue about the officer, his personal life, his competence, or his capability. If you have a thing against cops, just say so. But, NO information has been provided to support any of those overly-broad generalizations you just made.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Suggestions?

Sure... A few.... However, and judging by what you have stated so far, it sounds like you have done quite a bit of research so feel free to correct me on any of the following:

1. He is neither obligated nor required to show you the Radar reading at the time of the stop.

2. I'm not sure where you were going with your line of questioning as far as the license plate number, the permit book, the pictures, the “legal certainty" placing you at the wheel of the vehicle he had just pulled over... however, by you standing there in court with that particular citation in hand, while arguing that the license plate number that he listed is two years old, further proving that the license plate listed in YOUR permit book belonged to YOU... would be undeniable proof that it was YOU he pulled over, that it was YOU he asked for the permit book, that it was YOU he cited... The judge is within his ability to draw those conclusions. So rather than raise doubt as to whether it was you who committed the alleged violation, you more than solidified the officer's testimony.

3. Calibration certificates, daily logs... etc, are always copies of the originals that are either filed at the agency or with the court. And for you to request that the case be dismissed based upon the fact that those were not certified copies is, in my opinion, a procedural error on your part. You could have requested that the officer present certified documents (which I think you said you did), if he doesn't, and instead of moving that the case be dismissed, you should have moved to exclude that piece of evidence... And then, in your closing, you could have moved for a dismissal based on lack of evidence. But then again, I'm not sure who is it that you expect should certify those documents. AS long as the officer can lay the proper foundation for those documents, where they came from and whether he has personal knowledge that they are copies of the originals, then, the judge is within his ability to accept the officer's word that they are.

4. Your argument that CVC 40802 sets the requirement for “POST certified training”, to me, means that the course itself needs to be certified by POST... In fact, here is:

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.​

And if the certificate itself is issued by the agency, then a copy of the same need not be “certified”... Again, certified by whom? Furthermore, you did state that the certificate he presented is in fact issued by the CHP, that it did state that he “has fulfilled the requirements prescribed for radar training” so for you to come back and argue that it did not meet the specified requirement, you're not disproving anything.

5. As far as the daily calibration checks, I am not aware of any vehicle code section that even begins to reference tuning forks... In fact, lets go back to CVC 40802...

40802(c)(1)(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.​

You didn't mention discussing “minimal operational standards of the NTHSA” in court... Nor did you offer any proof that the officer did not comply with CHP's requirements for their daily checks. You only argued that the manufacturer recommended requirements and while that might work in the outside world, to the court, the NHTSA standards and requirements are what matters. And without you introducing citations from those manuals as evidence in court, then the judge has the ability to decide whether the officer's testimony supports the fact that the unit was properly calibrated and used.

Also not that the ”certified” requirement refers to the testing/calibration facility, NOT the “certificate” itself.

With that being said, and although I do understand your frustration with the legal process (especially with you having a commercial license) and while I cannot envy you for having to take it to the appeals level (having been through a couple of my own), I have to remind you that the appellate will not even consider your case based on your realizing that you did not raise proper and timely objections nor will they entertain a review if you choose to present new evidence.

At any rate, good luck and keep us updated.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I "googled" the cop and learned that my trial date was the sixteen year anniversary of an incident where a bystander rescued a passenger from an overturned, burning car while this officer had stood by and watched.
In my mind, the surgeon that performed this rescue risked his life for no compensation while the guy who most California taxpayers would agree that they pay to perform such heroics, stood by and watched.
I'm sure some will argue that CHP officers are not paid to risk their lives(?)
The guy that was rescued would certainly have died, as the car burned to a complete cinder. The guy is alive today because a bystander could not allow him to die unnecessarily WHILE THIS CHP OFFICER WATCHED!

Is it possible that the officer chose not to intervene based on the fact that he is not a medical professional whereas the surgeon IS?

Is it possible that his department policy forbids him from trying a rescue effort so as to avoid subjecting his department, and himself, from any possible liability for any added injury that the passenger might suffer by the officer simply "pulling him/her out"?

And is it possible that the "story" you read was written by someone with as one sided a view as the one you posted here in this thread?

You can be as negative as you want, however, and as someone has already posted, the officer's actions, or lack thereof, from 16 years ago, are not, in any way, shape or form, related to the citation he issued you for allegedly speeding!

 

[AzDon]

Thank you for answering my original post with something other than "Hire a Lawyer!"
I had no problem with the officer's documents being photocopies and really didn't care that they should be certified or original.
The problem I had with his training certificate is that it reveals no proof that his training is "24 Hours of POST Certified Training" that is specifically required by CVC40802
I have every reason to believe that his certificate DOES NOT meet the requirement because a check of POST's website indicates that CHP only offers a course for "Radar Officer Trainer" and a two hour Lidar course. The CHP officer's certificate appears to be from one of these trainers rather than the actual 24 hour course.
I think I might successfully argue that, as in the case of People vs Earnest, that simply proving the existence of a docunent doesn't, itself, constitute required proof. The proof is in what the document actually says, or in this case what it doesn't say . Yes, it was some kind of radar training document, but it did not specify that it had fulfilled the training requirements of 40802 (24 hours, POST Certified)
My points regarding the daily log were 1) all identification info (serial numbers) were handwritten onto a generic form and 2) there was no printed proof that the serialed tuning forks actually belong to the radar unit indicated. There was also no document showing when or if the tuning forks had been calibrated. I don't believe that a legitimate argument can be made that the three-year calibration record is complete if the tuning forks weren't checked also, since these forks provide the daily verification of the radar unit's tune.
Thanks again for your reply!

 

[AzDon]

In doing research, you sometimes learn things that you absolutely can't use for anything unless you want to sabotage your own objective....
The account of the rescue from the burning car was not written about the officer and did not serve up any criticism for the officer. It was written by the surgeon that had performed the rescue and was a self-examination piece about what makes ordinary people take extrordinary risks of life and limb to help others folk, who are complete strangers, at a do-or-die time of distress. It is a question that is asked annually by Goodyear Tire Company as they consider hundreds of cases of such heroics performed by professional truckers and award "Highway Hero" awards, some posthumously, to three truck drivers each year who took an unscheduled break from their professional duties because they were called by their inner humanity to rescue somebody in dire distress and need of rescue, or forever deal with the consequences of conscience for having done nothing. These "Highway Heroes" would not have been faulted for driving on by and "not getting involved" because it is not their job, as truck drivers, to perform these heroics.
It was also not the job of this surgeon to abandon his wife and kids that were with him on the scene and go perform this rescue. He did it because of his inner decency.
My question to those who flamed me for mentioning this story is: If it was not the "job" of this officer to have performed this rescue, whose job was it?
If it was nobody's job, was the victim supposed to have just remained in the car and burned to a crisp?
That story goes on to descibe that the victim would have succumbed to his injuries anyway without the onsite services of that surgeon, so the rescue from the burning car itself was only part of the rescue.
When I pass the monument on highway 62 numerous times a week that was placed for the CHP officer that died in a fiery head on collision, I wonder if he actually ever rescued anybody or if he merely is considered a "hero" for having made his living wearing a uniform

 

[AzDon]

Moving on...
I read a post in another forum that suggested that in a courtroom proceeding without a prosecutor, that a police officer, in the role of a witness is not supposed to be allowed to present exhibits regarding training or radar documentation, only provide testimony. This same poster suggested that it is improper for the Judge to ask for and catalog documents from a prosecution witness, as only a prosecutor is supposed to present exhibits for the prosecution. He also implied that, had I testified, a Judge would be improperly serving in the role of a prosecutor by asking me any question (cross-examining me) about my testimony.
I doubt the info, but if any of it is true, where would I find the documentation? In "Rules of The Court?"

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I read a post in another forum that suggested that in a courtroom proceeding without a prosecutor, that a police officer, in the role of a witness is not supposed to be allowed to present exhibits regarding training or radar documentation, only provide testimony.

That's a stretch... Ask the "other poster" to provide you with a citation that supports that. I haven't heard of that argument being brought up.

This same poster suggested that it is improper for the Judge to ask for and catalog documents from a prosecution witness, as only a prosecutor is supposed to present exhibits for the prosecution. He also implied that, had I testified, a Judge would be improperly serving in the role of a prosecutor by asking me any question (cross-examining me) about my testimony.

Read People v.. Carlucci (23 Cal. 3d 249; 590 P.2d 15; 152 Cal. Rptr. 439). That case specifically adresses the role of a judge in a traffic infraction case. You may want to suggest that the "same poster", read it as well.

I doubt the info, but if any of it is true, where would I find the documentation? In "Rules of The Court?"

Even if they were true, my guess is that you never objected to these matters during your trial; and considering the fact that you are in "appeal", you can not make new arguments or present new evidence at this stage. It would be a waste of time to bring them up now.