Construction zone speeding California

[ca_wings]

CALIFORNIA

My girlfriend was ticketed on what used to be CA-275, a four-lane divided connector road that used to run from US-50 into downtown Sacramento. She was stopped on the first day that the construction zone signs appeared with no personnel or equipment present on the road. Since then, the road was closed, rebuilt, renamed to Tower Bridge Accessway and traffic lights were put in.

We submitted an informal discovery request asking for LIDAR and officer training documents, reverse side of the citation and the survey for CA-275, since this is a 22350 citation. DA provided us with everything but the survey, telling us that surveys are freely available at the courthouse. I found the thick binder of surveys for West Sacramento, however the CA-275 survey was absent from there.

It seems now that a motion to preclude the survey (assuming it still exists, since the road does not) could be successfully argued here. Furthermore, since this is a 22350 ticket and not a 22362 ticket, absence of the survey, or preclusion thereof, would necessitate a dismissal as a speed trap.

I think what the DA could argue is that the prima facie speed is set by the construction zone so they survey is immaterial. CVC 40802 expressly removes school zones from the survey requirement when defining a speed trap. So the legislature had ample opportunity to exclude construction zones from the speed trap provisions but did not.

I am also in the process of obtaining a statement from the city certifying that no workers were present on the roadway to attack any reliance on the construction zone during the prosecution's case in chief.

Am I on the right track here?

 

[Zigner]

CALIFORNIA

My girlfriend was ticketed on what used to be CA-275, a four-lane divided connector road that used to run from US-50 into downtown Sacramento. She was stopped on the first day that the construction zone signs appeared with no personnel or equipment present on the road. Since then, the road was closed, rebuilt, renamed to Tower Bridge Accessway and traffic lights were put in.

We submitted an informal discovery request asking for LIDAR and officer training documents, reverse side of the citation and the survey for CA-275, since this is a 22350 citation. DA provided us with everything but the survey, telling us that surveys are freely available at the courthouse. I found the thick binder of surveys for West Sacramento, however the CA-275 survey was absent from there.

It seems now that a motion to preclude the survey (assuming it still exists, since the road does not) could be successfully argued here. Furthermore, since this is a 22350 ticket and not a 22362 ticket, absence of the survey, or preclusion thereof, would necessitate a dismissal as a speed trap.

I think what the DA could argue is that the prima facie speed is set by the construction zone so they survey is immaterial. CVC 40802 expressly removes school zones from the survey requirement when defining a speed trap. So the legislature had ample opportunity to exclude construction zones from the speed trap provisions but did not.

I am also in the process of obtaining a statement from the city certifying that no workers were present on the roadway to attack any reliance on the construction zone during the prosecution's case in chief.

Am I on the right track here?

CVC:
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed
greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather,
visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the
highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of
persons or property.

I think you are NOT on the right track since this ticket has nothing to do with speed limits...

 

[JIMinCA]

CALIFORNIA

My girlfriend was ticketed on what used to be CA-275, a four-lane divided connector road that used to run from US-50 into downtown Sacramento. She was stopped on the first day that the construction zone signs appeared with no personnel or equipment present on the road. Since then, the road was closed, rebuilt, renamed to Tower Bridge Accessway and traffic lights were put in.

We submitted an informal discovery request asking for LIDAR and officer training documents, reverse side of the citation and the survey for CA-275, since this is a 22350 citation. DA provided us with everything but the survey, telling us that surveys are freely available at the courthouse. I found the thick binder of surveys for West Sacramento, however the CA-275 survey was absent from there.

It seems now that a motion to preclude the survey (assuming it still exists, since the road does not) could be successfully argued here. Furthermore, since this is a 22350 ticket and not a 22362 ticket, absence of the survey, or preclusion thereof, would necessitate a dismissal as a speed trap.

I think what the DA could argue is that the prima facie speed is set by the construction zone so they survey is immaterial. CVC 40802 expressly removes school zones from the survey requirement when defining a speed trap. So the legislature had ample opportunity to exclude construction zones from the speed trap provisions but did not.

I am also in the process of obtaining a statement from the city certifying that no workers were present on the roadway to attack any reliance on the construction zone during the prosecution's case in chief.

Am I on the right track here?

CA Wings,

You are EXACTLY on the right track... maybe. However, I wouldn't waste much time with the statement from the city.

Your point should be that the prosecution did not provide you with the discovery requested. Just saying it is at the courthouse is not sufficient. The penal code madates the DA to provide discovery, not send you to stand in line at the courthouse. Therefore, that cannot be used as evidence. However, 40803 requires the prosecution to show that use of LIDAR did not constitute a speed trap.

If the highway in question had a posted prima facie lower than the Max. speed limit, you are getting there. 40802 will say that if the prima facie speed limit is not justified, then a speed trap exists. Then, NO EVIDENCE OF SPEED can be used against you.

If the posted speed limit was the max speed limit, then the question is, how fast was she cited for? If more than the speed limit, then they were relying on the posted speed limit which does not have to be justified by a survey. If she was cited for less than the max speed limit, then they were relying on the temporary signs and your case gets interesting again.

Provide some more info. This may be an interesting case.