CVC 23109(c)(i) exhibition of speed

[davisdrafting]

California

(c) A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle exhibition of speed on a highway, and a person shall not aid or abet in a motor vehicle exhibition of speed on any highway.
(i) A person who violates subdivision (b), (c), or (d) shall upon conviction of that violation be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 90 days, by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

I was pulled over by a rooky (being trained)
He issued a citation, 23109(c)(i)
He stated I was riding a wheelie.
I did not disagree that the front tire
came off the ground twice, both times
starting from a dead stop at a stoplight
I did disagree with willfully riding a “wheelie”

The dirtbike is very low geared and
Has a top speed of 70mph. The tire
consistently leaves the pavement starting
In 1st or shifting from 1st - 2nd whilst leaning over the handle bars and with 6ga of fuel in the tank.

The charge of 23109(c) seems to be inappropriate for what took place.
I was not speeding my tire clearly wasn’t “peeling out” I was in control of the motorcycle and was not showing off.

What should the appropriate charge be?

Are there any winning case laws fighting this subjective law?

It appears all moving vehicles are in violation of this law “exhibition of speed”

Main Entry: ex•hi•bi•tion
Pronunciation: \ˌek-sə-ˈbi-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : an act or instance of exhibiting
2 British : a grant drawn from the funds of a school or university to help maintain a student
3 : a public showing (as of works of art, objects of manufacture, or athletic skill) <a one-man exhibition> <an exhibition game>

Main Entry: 1speed
Pronunciation: \&#712;sp&#275;d\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English spede, from Old English sp&#275;d; akin to Old High German spuot prosperity, speed, Old English sp&#333;wan to succeed, Latin spes hope, Lithuanian sp&#279;ti to be in time
Date: before 12th century
1 archaic : prosperity in an undertaking : success
2 a : the act or state of moving swiftly : swiftness b : rate of motion: as (1) : velocity 1 (2) : the magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction c : impetus
3 : swiftness or rate of performance or action : velocity 3a
4 a : the sensitivity of a photographic film, plate, or paper expressed numerically b : the light-gathering power of a lens or optical system c : the time during which a camera shutter is open
5 : a transmission gear in automotive vehicles or bicycles &#8212;usually used in combination <a ten-speed bicycle>
6 : someone or something that appeals to on 7 : methamphetamine; also : a related stimulant drug and especially an amphetamine e's taste <just my speed>

 

[The Occultist]

First bit of advice: when attempting to define something in a legal context, one should refrain from using a normal "lay person's" dictionary. The definitions you need are part of the legal code, and that is what counts here.

My next bit of advice: find an experienced traffic attorney. Local attorney know best what the courts want to hear, and as such present the highest potential for yielding the most favorable results. Many attorneys will offer free/cheap consultations, so you should take advantage of this and sit down with a couple to see what insight they may have to offer.

 

[CdwJava]

It appears all moving vehicles are in violation of this law “exhibition of speed”

Really? I have yet to drive a car or motorcycle where wheels have left the ground. So, how do "all moving vehicles" violate this section?

It has long been a debate as to whether or not popping a wheelie is reckless driving or exhibition of speed. Some argue they are perfectly in control of their vehicle when they lose traction. Common sense says such a driver is not in control. To my knowledge there is no case law specifically defining it one way or the other.

 

[davisdrafting]

Occultist
I’m under the impression that “normal lay person's” are to uphold the law, how is one to uphold a law if such law is not understandable?

Cdwjava
“Really? I have yet to drive a car or motorcycle where wheels have left the ground.”

Have you tried skydiving without a parachute, it can be done too.
ridiculous statement receives the same answer.

"So, how do "all moving vehicles" violate this section?”

That’s covered in the “normal lay person's” definition.
All vehicles in motion are exhibiting speed even if it’s 5mph.
CVC 23109(c) is vague

Cdwjava, please do not post any responses on my threads, I’m seeking legal advice not a cops opinion.

 

[Zigner]

Occultist
I’m under the impression that “normal lay person's” are to uphold the law, how is one to uphold a law if such law is not understandable?

Cdwjava
“Really? I have yet to drive a car or motorcycle where wheels have left the ground.”

Have you tried skydiving without a parachute, it can be done too.
ridiculous statement receives the same answer.

"So, how do "all moving vehicles" violate this section?”

That’s covered in the “normal lay person's” definition.
All vehicles in motion are exhibiting speed even if it’s 5mph.
CVC 23109(c) is vague

Cdwjava, please do not post any responses on my threads, I’m seeking legal advice not a cops opinion.

Well - good luck. Acting like an arse to an esteemed member of this forum will shut you down pretty quick.

 

[Some Random Guy]

davisdrafting,

You will find that the cop whose opinion you have dismissed is one of the fairest and most reasonable members of this forum.

All vehicles in motion are exhibiting speed even if it’s 5mph.
CVC 23109(c) is vague

If you feel it necessary to challenge the constitutionality of the law based upon a claim of vagueness, you will quickly find that the judge will rule against you. His purview is to judge whether you violated the law as written. Challenging the law is for your appeals. How much money did you wint to spend on this?

 

[CdwJava]

Occultist
I’m under the impression that “normal lay person's” are to uphold the law, how is one to uphold a law if such law is not understandable?

Cdwjava
“Really? I have yet to drive a car or motorcycle where wheels have left the ground.”

Have you tried skydiving without a parachute, it can be done too.
ridiculous statement receives the same answer.

"So, how do "all moving vehicles" violate this section?”

That’s covered in the “normal lay person's” definition.
All vehicles in motion are exhibiting speed even if it’s 5mph.
CVC 23109(c) is vague

Cdwjava, please do not post any responses on my threads, I’m seeking legal advice not a cops opinion.

The normal "lay person's definition" has no relevance in court. Plus, good luck defining what the "lay person's definition" might be. You can certainly articulate YOUR definition, or break down words and phrases to Webster's definitions, but this does not equate to anything the court might use.

The point you so entirely dismissed is that the charge is largely subjective and there is no clear case law (that I am aware of) that defines whether one wheel leaving the ground constitutes reckless driving per CVC 23103 or an exhibition of speed per 23109(c) - I have seen it successfully prosecuted both ways. Most often the latter, as I recall.

As a note, you will not receive "legal advice" here as only your attorney can provide that. What you will receive here is legal opinion from people with an assortment of experience. If you choose to listen only to those who agree with your position, how will that benefit you? You will also note that I neither agreed or disagreed with your contention, I merely pointed out the fact that section is subjective and that no clear cut legal definition of whether a wheelie is a crime seems to exist - much less which code section it might be. heck, you can cite it as an unsafe lane change or turn in the right circumstances, so making it fall under a single code section would not really be possible in the first place.

So, if you want to make a real fight of it, hire an attorney who can make the legal arguments. Or, you can try and do it yourself and hope for the best. Your call.

 

[The Occultist]

Occultist
I’m under the impression that “normal lay person's” are to uphold the law, how is one to uphold a law if such law is not understandable?

Firstly, please learn to use the "quote" function as it makes reading posts with multiple quotes easier to read.

Secondly, if everybody knew how to read/interpret the law, there probably wouldn't be lawyers anywhere; if you can't understand the law, retain the PROFESSIONAL services of one who studies the law for a living.

 

[Jim_bo]

Really? I have yet to drive a car or motorcycle where wheels have left the ground. So, how do "all moving vehicles" violate this section?

It has long been a debate as to whether or not popping a wheelie is reckless driving or exhibition of speed. Some argue they are perfectly in control of their vehicle when they lose traction. Common sense says such a driver is not in control. To my knowledge there is no case law specifically defining it one way or the other.

If you say you have never driven a motorcycle where wheels have left the ground, how can you have the informed opinion that the driver of such a vehicle is not in control? I understand the OPs position as I too believe this statute to be ridiculously vague. It may as well say "driving in a manner that the cop just doesn't like" or "driving in front of a cop who just wants to write a ticket".

As for the DOCs (disciples of Carl), I believe that Carl is an intelligent and conscientous poster. However, he is typically very biased towards the state. The OP recognized it best as a "cop's opinion". Personally, I think Carl would gain much more credibility here if he were more objective rather than the typical "state's advocate".

 

[Jim_bo]

If you feel it necessary to challenge the constitutionality of the law based upon a claim of vagueness, you will quickly find that the judge will rule against you. His purview is to judge whether you violated the law as written. Challenging the law is for your appeals. How much money did you wint to spend on this?

Since you are so clairvoyant that you can predict the way a court will rule, maybe you can show specificly just what part of the statute relates to the offense that the OP allegedly committed. Also, maybe you can inform us on the exorbinant expenses of an appeal. Every time I have been involved in an appeal, it only cost postage.

 

[CdwJava]

If you say you have never driven a motorcycle where wheels have left the ground, how can you have the informed opinion that the driver of such a vehicle is not in control?

I do not recall where I ever posted that he was not in control. Common sense does indicate, however, that one wheel will imply a lack of a control as it is, after all, a two wheeled vehicle. And, since the steering wheel is off the ground, the operator will have to resort to a shifting of weight and leaning to control the vehicle and not the handlebars as designed. In short, if his front wheel left the ground, he was operating and attempting to control the vehicle in a manner that it was not designed.

The section is subjective as so many of them are in all of the state codes. If the judge agrees with the officer's contention, then the OP will have to pay the piper.

I fail to see how it is not being objective to point these simple little things out. Unless, of course, being objective means to agree that the OP is right. If that is the definition of "objective" that i being applied, I will have to agree to a lack of such objectivity.

Of course, I have seen the results of more than a few idiots who have popped those front wheels off the ground in such a way as to crack up. My favorite (non-injury) involved a guy who did it and then lost control and could not get that wheel back down before he ran up the rear of a Mazda Rx-7 and jumped it like a ramp. The quote by one onlooker was, "That was awesome! I'd pay to see it again!" Fortunately, no one was hurt that time.

 

[Jim_bo]

I do not recall where I ever posted that he was not in control. Common sense does indicate, however, that one wheel will imply a lack of a control as it is, after all, a two wheeled vehicle. And, since the steering wheel is off the ground, the operator will have to resort to a shifting of weight and leaning to control the vehicle and not the handlebars as designed. In short, if his front wheel left the ground, he was operating and attempting to control the vehicle in a manner that it was not designed.

As someone who has ridden motorcycles my entire adult life (and a good part of my childhood), I can say that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

The section is subjective as so many of them are in all of the state codes. If the judge agrees with the officer's contention, then the OP will have to pay the piper.

That's the problem with a "subjective statute"... cops and judges that don't have a clue about what they are talking about apply their own level of "common sense". I'm sure the intent of the legislature, whatever that was, did not envision exhibition of speed being charged every time the front wheel of a bike lifts from the ground or a car breaks traction of its drive wheels. However, since it is so vague, that's like a ticket to print money for the state.

I fail to see how it is not being objective to point these simple little things out. Unless, of course, being objective means to agree that the OP is right. If that is the definition of "objective" that i being applied, I will have to agree to a lack of such objectivity.

Everyone here understands that the OP will likely be found guilty as there is a lot of history of *******izing this statute. But that is all the more reason to go to trial and then to appeal. After all, traffic court is NOT where you go to for due process. You have to get to the appellate court for anyone to actually look at the law.

Of course, I have seen the results of more than a few idiots who have popped those front wheels off the ground in such a way as to crack up. My favorite (non-injury) involved a guy who did it and then lost control and could not get that wheel back down before he ran up the rear of a Mazda Rx-7 and jumped it like a ramp. The quote by one onlooker was, "That was awesome! I'd pay to see it again!" Fortunately, no one was hurt that time.

And I have seen the results of more than a few idiots who overexagerate the severity of things they really don't understand. Your antecdote of the bike running into the RX7 has nothing to do with the minor issue that the OP was involved in.

 

[CdwJava]

Like I said, take it to court and see what the judge says.

If he doesn't like what the judge says, and can find grounds to appeal, he is free to give the appeal a whirl.

In the meantime, it might behoove him to keep his wheels on the ground.

 

[Jim_bo]

Carl, you should run for political office. You are quite skilled at defending the establishment when there is support and then distancing yourself when there is dissent. That's not criticism, just a recognition of the obvious.

 

[cyjeff]

As someone who has ridden motorcycles my entire adult life (and a good part of my childhood), I can say that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Ahh... the "I can control a wheelie very well and so everyone should be allowed to do so as well" law.

Would you like me to post the HUNDREDS of youtube videos showing "very experienced" riders almost killing themselves when their wheelie goes out of control for an action that would have been controllable if both wheels had been on the ground?

You aren't the only one here that grew up on a motorcycle. Your statement doesn't give you instant credibility.

That's the problem with a "subjective statute"... cops and judges that don't have a clue about what they are talking about apply their own level of "common sense"

No, the purpose of subjective statute is to provide a judge with the latitude to actually look at the circumstances.

If you would prefer a zero tolerance approach, that can be worked out.

I'm sure the intent of the legislature, whatever that was, did not envision exhibition of speed being charged every time the front wheel of a bike lifts from the ground or a car breaks traction of its drive wheels. However, since it is so vague, that's like a ticket to print money for the state.

Almost as popular is the "this only makes the state money" defense.

I would argue that anyone that cannot predict when the front wheels leave the ground doesn't have your level of expertise... and is not in total control.

This is akin to saying, "I have been driving my whole life. I should go at whatever speed I wish".

Everyone here understands that the OP will likely be found guilty as there is a lot of history of *******izing this statute. But that is all the more reason to go to trial and then to appeal. After all, traffic court is NOT where you go to for due process. You have to get to the appellate court for anyone to actually look at the law.

True. But merely disliking the verdict is not enough to go to appeal. What point of law do you think will be used to elevate this issue to the appellate level?

No, saying that you are a really good rider/driver is not enough.

And I have seen the results of more than a few idiots who overexagerate the severity of things they really don't understand. Your antecdote of the bike running into the RX7 has nothing to do with the minor issue that the OP was involved in.

Is that because there was no RX7 present?