• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

CVC 22348(b) - Exceeding 100 MPH

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

FikazsuK

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

Hello All,
I was recently cited for CVC 22348(b) - exceeding 100 MPH. I was driving home to San Jose from Los Angeles on Interstate 5 in late August, going approximately 96 MPH (speed limit 70) on cruise control. I was too focused on the road to realize that a CHP officer was already behind me with his lights on and pulled over at around 5:30 PM. This is the first time I have been pulled over since I received my license in 2009 and of course I was extremely nervous. When the officer approached and asked me how fast I was going, I told him that I was not sure and was distracted by talking to friend in the passenger seat which, at the time, seemed like a good idea. The officer then tells me he was pacing me at 105. At that point I was flabbergasted. However, I did not want to argue with the officer and was so scared that I just signed the ticket and left. Looking back at it, it was stupid to say I was not sure how fast I was going when I was actually pretty well aware. Assuming the officer uses that line against me, I'm pretty much sunk, correct? When I got home and reviewed the ticket, I saw that he also circled radar. I received my courtesy notice today and will need to show up at the M Street Courthouse in Fresno for my arraignment in mid November. I am planning to contest this ticket. Had the officer written me up for a 22356(b), I would have gladly accepted my guilt. I am not, however, going to hand over $900 without a fight, for an infraction I'm sure I didn't commit. My plan is as follows:

1) File discovery request with the Fresno District Attorney.
2) Show up in court for arraignment and request a trial by written declaration.
3) Ask for a trial de novo if I lose the TWD.

At this point, I have several questions,
1) I am currently preparing a request for discovery following the template on 'Help! I got a ticket!' for both pacing and radar. Would it be wise for me to wait until perhaps October to send it in and hope that this somehow gives the prosecution less time to prepare or is it better to just send it in now?

2) If I get the discovery request back and the radar shows that I was going less than 100 MPH, do I stand a solid chance of fighting this ticket? I'm not sure how well my cruise control argument will hold up against the officer's pace, especially since I have no idea how long he was pacing me.

3) Would it be wise to argue that I was going ~96 MPH instead of 105? As I understand it, this would still be admitting guilt and in the case that I (miraculously) win the trial, they could still charge me for 22356(b).

4) It it possible to contact the DA and ask for a plea bargain in the reduced form of a 22356(b)? If so, could I send my request by mail instead of showing up in person? I do not want to make a 6 hour round trip if I can help it. As I understand it, I would have to do this before the arraignment and there is a very small chance of the DA making a plea bargain for traffic infractions.

5) How feasible is it to get a fine reduction or not get my license suspended from the judge for this charge? I come from a very low income family (we only make $2000 above poverty level) and paying this off will be quite a struggle. I also need my license to drive to school. I am taking 32 quarter units split between two schools and the bus schedule will not allow me to get to my classes on time. My mother is the only person that can drive me and she works full time. Please note that I am not trying to make an excuse for what I did. I know I broke the law and fully intend to pay for it. I'm just hoping that I could get the fine reduced and keep my license.

6) If I go to trial and lose, how much more would the fine differ than if I simply pleaded guilty or no contest?

I guess at this point, I'm really just hoping that the court will schedule my trial outside of the 45 speedy trial clock or that the officer doesn't show up. The spot I was pulled over is around 1.25 hours away from the courthouse and with the closing of around 7 courthouses in Fresno county, I'm hoping that the consolidation of courthouses overloads the court's trial calendar. I would also appreciate if you could please spare your criticism of me and keep the replies on topic to the question. I know what I did was stupid and dangerous. I severely regret what I did and have learned my lesson, without the hefty fine. The ticket has done it's job and made me into a much safer driver. You know car you were passing in the right lane earlier that was driving so safe that you swear it had to be a grandma? Nope, that was me! Anyway, I appreciate the time you have taken out of your day to read this and am looking forward to reading your advice.
 


HighwayMan

Super Secret Senior Member
Whether the officer used radar or his calibrated speedometer the device should be checked regularly for accuracy. Can you say the same about your speedometer? Nine miles per hour is not a tremendous difference.
 

Eekamouse

Senior Member
You were aware of the potential of a hefty fine for a speeding ticket when you chose to speed. Your arguments are stale and the court has heard them a million times before. I think the hefty fine WILL be a good lesson for you.
 

FikazsuK

Junior Member
Whether the officer used radar or his calibrated speedometer the device should be checked regularly for accuracy. Can you say the same about your speedometer? Nine miles per hour is not a tremendous difference.
My main argument is this case is trying to discredit the radar and speedometer. Hopefully the discovery will provide information that neither the radar or speedometer were not calibrated recently (yes, high unlikely, I know). In my case 9 MPH is HUGE. I was not charged with speeding per se but with exceeding 100 mph. In California, the fact that I was charged with going over 100 mph (CVC 22348b) makes the the punishment much more severe than if I was going 96 (CVC 22356b). This includes 2 points on my license vs 1 for a 22356b, $900 fine vs $400, and 30 day suspension vs no suspension. My uncle is a mechanic and I did have my speedometer calibrated after. It shows a +1 difference at 80 MPH so I'm sure it was accurate.

You were aware of the potential of a hefty fine for a speeding ticket when you chose to speed. Your arguments are stale and the court has heard them a million times before. I think the hefty fine WILL be a good lesson for you.
Yes, I was aware it was my fault and I'm sure the courts have heard these arguments many times before. I do not doubt being fined will be a good lesson. HOWEVER, I do not consider being charged with a violation I did not commit and therefore having my fine double to be fair!


Twenty-six miles per hour over the limit is bad enough as it is. You were knowingly traveling way over the limit. Seems very foolish.
Yes, it was indeed very foolish but like I said, I would have have been willing to pay had the officer charged me with going 96. In California, the penalty for going 26 mph over the limit is MUCH more preferable compared to those charged with going over 100 mph.
 
Last edited:

pdale44

Junior Member
I got an exceeding 100mph ticket (102mph) in 2006 and not only was it a mandatory appear, 2 point violation, $1,600 fine, but it was also an automatic 30 day suspension of my license. This was in Valencia, CA. Bailiff took my license right there in the court room. Was mailed back to me 30 days later.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
I got an exceeding 100mph ticket (102mph) in 2006 and not only was it a mandatory appear, 2 point violation, $1,600 fine, but it was also an automatic 30 day suspension of my license. This was in Valencia, CA. Bailiff took my license right there in the court room. Was mailed back to me 30 days later.
Did you have a legal point the OP was NOT aware of, or did you just want to "share"?:rolleyes:
 

pdale44

Junior Member
That in California the judge may suspend his license for 30 days for the charge of exceeding 100mph. So that's is another reason to try to get the charge reduced from exceeding 100 to just speeding. Also the fine may be more $$$ than he thinks. I'm not sure if the fine amount differs from county to county.
 

fobbit

Junior Member
Hi Friend,

I am in the exact situation you are. From Norcal, got pulled over at 101mph in Fresno. What was the outcome of your debacle? Thanks!
 

Jim_bo

Member
fobbit,

If you were charged with 22348(b) for doing 101, you should consider the statute. It says:

22348(b) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed
greater than 100 miles per hour is guilty of an infraction
punishable, as follows:
So, driving 100mph would not be a violation of this statute. It may be a violation of others... but not this one.

Now, if the cop was using radar or lidar, it is likely that the units that he uses do not display speed in fractions of mph's. In other words, if your speed was 100.5mph, the radar unit could have read 101. That means as little as 1/2 mph error in his radar gun would result in a reading that would make you appear guilty for an offense you are NOT guilty of. That means that his radar gun would have to be calibrated to an error rate of less than 1/2 of 1 percent at 100mph. That level of accuracy simply isn't very likely. You should send a discovery request to the DA and the ticket issuing agency demanding a copy of the calibration records. Your ticket should not be hard to beat... IF you go in front of a judge that hasn't already decided that you are guilty even before you go into court.
 

Jim_bo

Member
My point is obvious. The cop's radar could have been reading as little as 100.5 and register 101. That would require the accuracy of less than 1/2 of 1 percent error. Not likely.

The other point that is obvious is that most cops, courts and people in general would find it ridiculous to charge someone with 56 in a 55 zone. So what makes this any different? The cop should have charged 22349. That would have been appropriate and would have likely secured an easy conviction. Instead, he was over zealous and charged a violation that could not possibly be prosecuted... Unless be was simply relying on the biased nature of the court.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top