Home     Law Advice     Insurance Advice     Community    
Go Back   FreeAdvice Legal Forum > TRAFFIC LAW > Speeding and Other Moving Violations

Powered by Attorney Pages


  Find An Attorney In Your Area    
 

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-12-2001, 11:10 AM
Bounty Hunter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

West Hollywood, California

Issued the first moving violation in twenty years recently, I have come to the conclusion that it is worthwhile to represent myself as "not guilty" to the preciding court.

Based on a radar reading, the citation is for CVC 22350 (Basic Speed Law), going 54 in a 35 mph zone. Researhing the CVC lead me to find that this is a double fine offense, one that may well be expensive in the fine itself and escalating insurance premiums.

My question is this: Does the citation itself represent the formal complaint to the court to the point where errors in both the CVC Section quoted and the vehicle description present "resonable doubt" as to the ability of the rookie Deputy's expertise with the Radar equipment? Done with a training officer in the patrol vehicle, not only was there other traffic present at the time of reading, my wife and I were in my classic 1955 Chevy. I understand there is validity to the size and shape of vehicles insofar as one like mine will likely be picked up by radar and locked onto more than that of the later, smaller streamlined shapes of vehicles.

I do understand (and intend to employ) the myriad of defences available when questioning radar violations, but really question the facts: That the current CVC has NO 22350.(a) as my citation clearly states I am guilty of, and that the carefully prepared citation (15 minutes of having the brightest lights shine through the big rear window into the mirrors, and all around us) described my car as "white" in color. In fact, the car is more than one-half blue.

Would not these glaring mistakes give credence to a "reasonable doubt" theroy as mentioned?

I would say this as well: The Deputy told me he was a rookie, wrote the ticket for the exact reading he saw, was polite, but seemed nervous. We never saw or met the other Deputy present. The car is NOT a race car, it is a very stock looking 2-door coupe with factory two-tone paint, a mild, late 350 motor, automatic transmission, and the traditional bench front seat we all loved as kids. The licence plate however may have different overtones to some who know not the history of the '55 chevies. It is "'55 NASCR", meaning 1955 NASCAR. Historically, the '55 2-door coupe was used in the early years of NASCAR racing with body's and frames factory fresh. The '55 took on the nickname "nascar frame" because of the one piece frame and less flex under strain it offered. Of course we did not speak of this**************..

Sorry to ramble, hoping to provide clear picture for whomever may offer insight.

Thanks!
    Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-12-2001, 02:24 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 12,075
Having the incorrect law you violated on the citation is cause for dismissal. That is the only defense you need.
    Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-14-2001, 09:40 PM
Bounty Hunter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Exclamation

Validate Defence for Invalid Citation


72 Racer...
Thank you for that quick reply. I do appreciate it!

I do want however, to validate your response insofar as in that the seemingly minor mistake is truly grounds for a easy dismissal of this case. It is correct sir...that the CVC does NOT contain 22350.(a) as written. It does contain 22350. It was a definite oversight (or undersight, depending on how one see's it) on the issuing Deputy's part. Let alone the training officer with him.

I guess all I'm saying is: Are you sure this alone is grounds for a motion to dismiss?

Very cool if so**************.
    Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-15-2001, 12:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 12,075
Having read the law, it appears the citation is correct. The "a" after the CVC code is a revision letter that is not shown on any online copies of the California Vehicle Code. Other than that, it would be hard to find a valid defense in your post as stated. I attend traffic court on a regular basis and a common defense is that "I was just one of many speeding" or "I was going with the flow of traffic". I have not found any traffic court judges that have accepted those as valid pleas. I would go with the claim that you were singled out based on the size and appearance of your vehicle. Wish you luck. I have a '66 GTO and I keep it at or below the speed limit just to avoid any possible problems. It is a pain when all the little Japanese cars go racing by but I feel it is worth it.
    Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 AM.



IMPORTANT NOTICE
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS PAGE WERE NOT REVIEWED BY THE EDITORIAL STAFF OR ATTORNEYS AT FREEADVICE.COM. Thousands of professionally prepared and reviewed questions and answers in 130 legal categories are to be found at the Question and Answer pages at FreeAdvice.com.

F
reeAdvice Forums are intended to enable consumers to benefit from the experience of other consumers who have faced similar legal issues. FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting or the qualifications of any person responding. Use of the Forums is subject to our Terms and Conditions which prohibit advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, or false, defamatory, abusive, vulgar, or harassing messages, and subject violators to a fee for each improper posting. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of FreeAdvice. Information on FreeAdvice or a Forum should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for advice from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction who you have retained to represent you. To locate an attorney visit AttorneyPages.com. Copyright since 1995 by Advice Company. All Rights Reserved.