First I just want to preface, that I'm not a lawyer, I personally don't have any closer friends who are lawyers. The only experience I've ever had in law is watching law movies, tv shows and plays.
I'm in Los Angeles, California and I was charged with California Vehicle Code 22350. The trial occured and the Judge found me guilty. I plan to appeal my case under the belief that there was no substantial evidence to find me guilty.
CVC 22350 state: 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 traffice on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endanger the safety of persons or property.
There were three pieces of evidence used during this trial:
HARD EVIDENCE ~ The officer brought in papers showing he used a lazer gun clocking me at 55 miles per hour. He had documents that proved that the lazer gun had been maintained and checked recently. He had documents that proved he had been trained in using the equipment.
The other two pieces of evidence are HIS TESTIMONY and MY TESTIMONY.
The trial started with the police officer giving his opening statement, he described the basics. Folliwing his statment I questioned him. This was the questioning (summarized, as this was my first time going to court and fighting a case and I was nervous and stuttering.)
Me: Can you describe the weather?
Officer: It was a clear morning, it was not wet.
Me: What was the visibility like?
Officer: It was very visibile.
Me: Can you describe the traffic that day?
Officer: The traffic was moderate.
Me: Can you describe the road where you pulled me over?
Officer: There are two lanes traveling westbound.
Me: To clarify there are two lanes traveling westbound, two lanes traveling eastbound, and one lane for parking on both sides of road as well as a center turning lane.
Officer: Yes, however at this location there was no center turning lane. (*Note)
Me: In your professional opinion was I endangering any persons or property?
Officer: Yes, I believe at the speed you were traveling you were endangering yourself and others.
At this point I had shown through the cops testimony that I was driving at a speed that could be considered reasonable given the clear weather, clear visiblity, the moderate traffic and that the road was 6 lanes wide (*Note). At this point the only issue was that the Officer felt that I was endangering myself and others. There was a dialogue between us where he made statements and I made statements. I'll bring up the key points.
OFFICER TESTIMONY: I was pulled over in Lane 1 (the further lane from the sidewalk going my direction) near a park with a lake in which there were joggers around the lake. (Through my question to him) My car was approximently 40 feet from the sidewalk. Had I gotten into an accident traveling at speed that I was I could have slid across the two lanes and over the side walk into the lake hitting the joggers at the lake. (After I made a statement about this distance.) There were joggers on the sidewalk.
MY TESTIMONY: When I was pulled over I was completely stopped at a red light. There was a car next to me in lane 2 that was also stopped, we were the ones leading the traffic at the time. I did not recall any joggers at the time although there may or may not have been any. CVC 22350 has nothing to do with exceeding a speed limit, thus I was unfairly given a "speeding" ticket.
THE JUDGES VERDICT: I was improperly charged with CVC 22350 and should have been charged with CVC 22351(a) (NOTE: This code also has nothing to do with exceeding a maximum speed limit.) However based on the police officers testimony he believes that I was endangering myself and others and was found guilty.
The question I have at this point is if there was substantial evidence provided by the cop that I was driving "at a speed which endanger the safety of persons or property" for the judge to rule me guilty.
Now I'll lay my hand out on the table. Here are the things that were NOT brought up in my trial. Therefore I think it would be useless to bring up in my appeal, however I'm open to suggestions of people feel otherwise.
1) Admitidly I was traveling at 55mph in an area with signs that state "SPEED LIMIT 40." However, There is no law that states that one must abide by postd speed limits. Infact the legal California Speed Limit is 65mph, except with prima facie (prima facie I believe refers to two-lane undivided roads, school & residential zones, etc.) Speed Limit signs are actually posted by the city/county as RECOMMENDED speed limits for the area, however they are not legal speed limits. (Any interesting fact for all California Drivers to know.)
2) The cop gave inaccurate testimony. One being that he said there was no center lane where I was pulled over. He stated the location I pulled over and I looked it up and there is indeed a center lane. (Check out the location on Googlemaps: San Pablo & Valley Los Angeles, CA - Google Maps or at googlemaps.com look up San Pablo & Valley, Los Angeles, CA) Also if you notice from the map the location of the red light which I was pulled over is basically where the start of the lake with these joggers were. For me to have come to a complete stop at the red light I would have had to been slowing down and thus I would have been traveling at a speed under 40 miles an hour. The speed has no relevance to the possibility I could get into an accident and knock out some joggers by the lake.
3) At the time I was pulled over there was a tan van between myself and the cop who was parked in the parking lane on my side of the street. The van and myself both reached the red light at about the same time. When the cop pulled behind me at the red light and pulled me over the tan van also pulled over. The cop told the van that he was not writing him a ticket I was the one getting the ticket. The van started to pull away, then stopped and revesed back toward us. The cop again had to walk up to the van and tell him he was not pulling over, that I was the one being pulled over. I don't know how to make the relevent, but it just stood out in my head, it was odd...
So basically this trial was no longer about whether I was going over the speed limit or not. It was whether there was substantial evidence that I was driving "at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." His evidence with the lazer radar didn't prove anything except I was traveling at 55 mph. It was the cops word vs. mine.
This is where I think I stand on an appeals that there was no substantial evidence to charge me with the above.
1) If traveling at 55 mph endangers myself than everyone who drives on any free way at 65 mph should be charged with CVC22350.
2) The idea that my speed of 55mph increases the endangerment of the joggers by the lake because of the possibility that I could get into an accident slide two lanes down and hit the joggers is opinion evidence. The testimony that the cop gave was not an expert witness, he could not scientifically, technically through specialized knowledge know that this probablility of hitting these joggers would be increased due to my speed.
Given these two things were basically the only evidence that the judge had to go by I think the judge ruled without substantial evidence. I'm curious to hear if you feel I have a definite chance of over turning this verdict with my appeals.
Thanks...sorry it was so long winded. I wanted to get all the facts and info out there.
I'm in Los Angeles, California and I was charged with California Vehicle Code 22350. The trial occured and the Judge found me guilty. I plan to appeal my case under the belief that there was no substantial evidence to find me guilty.
CVC 22350 state: 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 traffice on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endanger the safety of persons or property.
There were three pieces of evidence used during this trial:
HARD EVIDENCE ~ The officer brought in papers showing he used a lazer gun clocking me at 55 miles per hour. He had documents that proved that the lazer gun had been maintained and checked recently. He had documents that proved he had been trained in using the equipment.
The other two pieces of evidence are HIS TESTIMONY and MY TESTIMONY.
The trial started with the police officer giving his opening statement, he described the basics. Folliwing his statment I questioned him. This was the questioning (summarized, as this was my first time going to court and fighting a case and I was nervous and stuttering.)
Me: Can you describe the weather?
Officer: It was a clear morning, it was not wet.
Me: What was the visibility like?
Officer: It was very visibile.
Me: Can you describe the traffic that day?
Officer: The traffic was moderate.
Me: Can you describe the road where you pulled me over?
Officer: There are two lanes traveling westbound.
Me: To clarify there are two lanes traveling westbound, two lanes traveling eastbound, and one lane for parking on both sides of road as well as a center turning lane.
Officer: Yes, however at this location there was no center turning lane. (*Note)
Me: In your professional opinion was I endangering any persons or property?
Officer: Yes, I believe at the speed you were traveling you were endangering yourself and others.
At this point I had shown through the cops testimony that I was driving at a speed that could be considered reasonable given the clear weather, clear visiblity, the moderate traffic and that the road was 6 lanes wide (*Note). At this point the only issue was that the Officer felt that I was endangering myself and others. There was a dialogue between us where he made statements and I made statements. I'll bring up the key points.
OFFICER TESTIMONY: I was pulled over in Lane 1 (the further lane from the sidewalk going my direction) near a park with a lake in which there were joggers around the lake. (Through my question to him) My car was approximently 40 feet from the sidewalk. Had I gotten into an accident traveling at speed that I was I could have slid across the two lanes and over the side walk into the lake hitting the joggers at the lake. (After I made a statement about this distance.) There were joggers on the sidewalk.
MY TESTIMONY: When I was pulled over I was completely stopped at a red light. There was a car next to me in lane 2 that was also stopped, we were the ones leading the traffic at the time. I did not recall any joggers at the time although there may or may not have been any. CVC 22350 has nothing to do with exceeding a speed limit, thus I was unfairly given a "speeding" ticket.
THE JUDGES VERDICT: I was improperly charged with CVC 22350 and should have been charged with CVC 22351(a) (NOTE: This code also has nothing to do with exceeding a maximum speed limit.) However based on the police officers testimony he believes that I was endangering myself and others and was found guilty.
The question I have at this point is if there was substantial evidence provided by the cop that I was driving "at a speed which endanger the safety of persons or property" for the judge to rule me guilty.
Now I'll lay my hand out on the table. Here are the things that were NOT brought up in my trial. Therefore I think it would be useless to bring up in my appeal, however I'm open to suggestions of people feel otherwise.
1) Admitidly I was traveling at 55mph in an area with signs that state "SPEED LIMIT 40." However, There is no law that states that one must abide by postd speed limits. Infact the legal California Speed Limit is 65mph, except with prima facie (prima facie I believe refers to two-lane undivided roads, school & residential zones, etc.) Speed Limit signs are actually posted by the city/county as RECOMMENDED speed limits for the area, however they are not legal speed limits. (Any interesting fact for all California Drivers to know.)
2) The cop gave inaccurate testimony. One being that he said there was no center lane where I was pulled over. He stated the location I pulled over and I looked it up and there is indeed a center lane. (Check out the location on Googlemaps: San Pablo & Valley Los Angeles, CA - Google Maps or at googlemaps.com look up San Pablo & Valley, Los Angeles, CA) Also if you notice from the map the location of the red light which I was pulled over is basically where the start of the lake with these joggers were. For me to have come to a complete stop at the red light I would have had to been slowing down and thus I would have been traveling at a speed under 40 miles an hour. The speed has no relevance to the possibility I could get into an accident and knock out some joggers by the lake.
3) At the time I was pulled over there was a tan van between myself and the cop who was parked in the parking lane on my side of the street. The van and myself both reached the red light at about the same time. When the cop pulled behind me at the red light and pulled me over the tan van also pulled over. The cop told the van that he was not writing him a ticket I was the one getting the ticket. The van started to pull away, then stopped and revesed back toward us. The cop again had to walk up to the van and tell him he was not pulling over, that I was the one being pulled over. I don't know how to make the relevent, but it just stood out in my head, it was odd...
So basically this trial was no longer about whether I was going over the speed limit or not. It was whether there was substantial evidence that I was driving "at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." His evidence with the lazer radar didn't prove anything except I was traveling at 55 mph. It was the cops word vs. mine.
This is where I think I stand on an appeals that there was no substantial evidence to charge me with the above.
1) If traveling at 55 mph endangers myself than everyone who drives on any free way at 65 mph should be charged with CVC22350.
2) The idea that my speed of 55mph increases the endangerment of the joggers by the lake because of the possibility that I could get into an accident slide two lanes down and hit the joggers is opinion evidence. The testimony that the cop gave was not an expert witness, he could not scientifically, technically through specialized knowledge know that this probablility of hitting these joggers would be increased due to my speed.
Given these two things were basically the only evidence that the judge had to go by I think the judge ruled without substantial evidence. I'm curious to hear if you feel I have a definite chance of over turning this verdict with my appeals.
Thanks...sorry it was so long winded. I wanted to get all the facts and info out there.
Last edited:
