Cited for 22349(a) in posted 55 zone

[mojo_stevo]

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

Cliff Notes: Cited for 22349(a) cvc on a 2-lane highway (no center divide) posted speed limit was 55.

My friend and I were on our way back from Julian (separate cars) and got pulled over by a Sheriff deputy. He was going the opposite direction as us when we passed a slow moving vehicle. He flipped a u-turn and caught up. He pulled over my friend but told me to continue. I waited down the road.

He cited my friend for going over 75 in a 55. Traffic was going at the most 65. Plus he was coming towards us, no radar, or at least he didn't say he clocked us with one. I wish my friend would have asked the officer more questions about his p.c.

Here are some of the errors that he made on the cite.

1: One wrong digit in the license plate.
2: Spelled car model wrong
3: Incorrect spelling on registered owner street name.
4: Failed to put "CVC" after 22349(a) on violation code.

The errors surprise us because the officer read it over several times. Also, under radar, it looks like he wrote "pytt" but can't be sure. Any idea what that means?

How should we handle this? Do we have any grounds for dismissal. I'd be fine with the cite if we were messing off, but we were simply passing a slow moving vehicle where it goes from 2 lanes to one.

We appreciate any feedback.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by mojo_stevo

Cliff Notes: Cited for 22349(a) cvc on a 2-lane highway (no center divide) posted speed limit was 55.

You friend was cited for ...

22349. (a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.

He cited my friend for going over 75 in a 55.

More accurately, he was cited for exceeding the 65 MPH maximum speed limit.

Traffic was going at the most 65. Plus he was coming towards us, no radar, or at least he didn't say he clocked us with one. I wish my friend would have asked the officer more questions about his p.c.

He can request radar information through discovery. If there was no radar, then it might make your friend's ability to raise reasnable doubt all that much easier.

1: One wrong digit in the license plate.
2: Spelled car model wrong
3: Incorrect spelling on registered owner street name.
4: Failed to put "CVC" after 22349(a) on violation code.

1 ... not a huge issue though it might make it difficult to track down the car if that became necessary, though certainly not an element of the crime.

2 ... not relevant to the offense.

3 ... not relevant to the offense

4 ... only relevant if the court decides that there was possibly some other code with an applicable 22349(a) that it might be confused with.

Taken together, these MIGHT be raised to try and show the court the officer's attention to detail was lacking that day and, perhaps, his estimation of your friend's speed was similarly lacking.

The errors surprise us because the officer read it over several times. Also, under radar, it looks like he wrote "pytt" but can't be sure. Any idea what that means?

No idea what it means.

But, since deputies do not write many tickets (unless he was also a local resident deputy in Julian or Ramona), this is not an activity he may engage in all that often. When I worked down there the SDSO rarely issued traffic citations, and none of them had radar ... things might have changed in the last 8 years, though.

How should we handle this? Do we have any grounds for dismissal.

*WE* don't handle anything, HE can go to trial if he chooses to do so. He can also opt for a guilty plea and take traffic school if he wishes. He can also choose to take a trial by written declaration then have a new trial if he loses ... his call.

I'd be fine with the cite if we were messing off, but we were simply passing a slow moving vehicle where is goes from 2 lanes to one.

If that passing made him go over 65 MPH, then he should not have done it.


- Carl

[mojo_stevo]

So the (a) sub section covers everything? So the (b) section would not have been more appropriate?

Thanks for the help Carl.

Do you suggest he fight it by mail? Or by appearance? I've never gotten a moving cite, so I don't know anything about this stuff.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by mojo_stevo

So the (a) sub section covers everything? So the (b) section would not have been more appropriate?

The (b) subsection might not have been applicable. Even if it were, that is not what he was cited for.

Do you suggest he fight it by mail? Or by appearance? I've never gotten a moving cite, so I don't know anything about this stuff.

The advantage of a TBWD is that if he loses, he can immediately request a trial de novo (a new trial) and appear in court before a judge. The disadvantage of taking a TBWD or going to trial is that the court may not permit traffic school to be taken if he is convicted. Very often the offer for traffic school is made before trial for those wish to take advantage of it, and not after. Having worked in San Diego County I can say with some certainty that when I was there very few people were allowed traffic school after they took the stand at trial.

That being said, it would appear that your friend might have some avenues to allow him to raise some reasonable doubt - the travel in the opposite direction, the lack of a radar on the officer's vehicle (assuming he did NOT have radar), the minor errors to show he was not all too attentive that day (be careful to call the officer a lop or an idiot, judges don't like that ... going with his having an off day is a happy medium). So, he might fare well in either a TBWD or via trial.

I cannot say what he should or should not do, and only his attorney can give him THAT advice.

- Carl

[mojo_stevo]

I did some more research and found this response:

...mention "parallax distortion" which is the space between you and the cop, and if you both were going at different speeds its harder for his eyes to tell how fast you are really going, and if he has no radar proof on top to show you have a huge percent of getting it tossed out. He also mentioned to ask if the cop if he was focusing on other traffic if he was just watching you...

Does this hold any weight? Or is it useless info? The funny thing is, that term is usually reserved for photography.

Thanks again for your clarification in this matter.

-Steve

[FlyingRon]

Spelling and other clerical errors won't get you off.
Having to exceed the speed limit by 10 (or 20) miles per hour to pass a slower vehicle probably means your "slower" vehicle was doing the speed limit. As near as I can tell you have no defense to the charge.

[CdwJava]

As I am not familiar with "parallax distortion", I cannot speak to its validity or lack of validity. However, unless you can bring in an expert to testify to the matter, the court may not recognize it as a valid defense either. Thought it probably doesn't hurt to bring it up provided your friend can cite some reputable technical sources that discuss it, not just a website to help people beat traffic tickets.

- Carl