Numerous Mistakes on Speeding Ticket

[Mossman]

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

Hello everyone,

I was pulled over for 22349 (a) driving at 82 on a 65 zone. The thing is, I set the cruise control in my vehicle for 70 MPH, and at the time the officer stopped me, my vehicle was probably going at 73 - 75 MPH, due to the downhill area where I was travelling. Even when I noticed the police vehicle coming up behind me, I left the cruise control settings as is because I don't think I did anything wrong. I believe that he was pacing me with his vehicle and he was reading the speed on his speedometer when he was trying to catch up with me.

There are a couple of those radar machines installed near my house which detects the speed you are travelling. When I compared my speeds at 40 MPH and 50 MPH, the speed was exactly the same as detected by the radar machines, so I don't think my speedometer is miscallibrated. I'm not sure how I can prove this in court. I received the ticket at 12:30 AM so the highway was practically empty and it is possible that the officer was very tired.

When I looked at the ticket, I noticed that there were numerous mistakes written by the officer.

1. My name was misspelled (it is spelled correctly on my license, registration, and insurance)

2. On the 'age' field, it was marked at 3 years-old. But my birthdate next to it was correct. (Obviously, I am not 3 years old)

3. The 'eyes' 'height' and 'weight' field HAD the wrong information in which the officer lined out and inputted the correct information above it.

I don't think the officer was in acting in full capacity at the time of the incident, but I'm not sure if the mistakes he made in the ticket is enough to prove that and get me out of paying the fine. Any information provided would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I was pulled over for 22349 (a) driving at 82 on a 65 zone. The thing is, I set the cruise control in my vehicle for 70 MPH, and at the time the officer stopped me, my vehicle was probably going at 73 - 75 MPH, due to the downhill area where I was travelling

So setting the cruise control at 70 really does not restrict the vehicle to the 70mph speed, it could go faster… but not slower… Only faster!

Even when I noticed the police vehicle coming up behind me, I left the cruise control settings as is because I don't think I did anything wrong

You weren’t doing anything wrong? Even when you were going at 73 to 75, which was 8 to 10 mph above the speed limit, you still think you weren’t doing anything wrong?

I believe that he was pacing me with his vehicle and he was reading the speed on his speedometer when he was trying to catch up with me.

California’s courts do accept “pacing” as a method that is accurate enough to measure a vehicle’s speed for purposes of issuing a citation. Typically, the officer will visually estimate a vehicle’s speed, then he will confirm that estimate by either “pacing” or by using a RADAR/LASER/LIDAR gun. Furthermore, police vehicle speedometers are regularly maintained and calibrated for that reason. Records of the calibrations are either maintained at the courthouse, otherwise, they are submitted to the court by the officer on a case by case basis.

I think you’re suggesting that the officer had to go a faster speed to catch up to you and then you are further suggesting that he used that “faster speed” as the speed he cited you for… For that to be true, you would have to assume that yours was the first speeding citation that this officer has ever issued and even then, you are also assuming that this officer had neither gone through any training nor does he have any common sense whatsoever.

There are a couple of those radar machines installed near my house which detects the speed you are travelling. When I compared my speeds at 40 MPH and 50 MPH, the speed was exactly the same as detected by the radar machines, so I don't think my speedometer is miscallibrated. I'm not sure how I can prove this in court

Aaahh, I love driving by those machines too… Anyway…

You can take your vehicle to a certified calibration station, have them test your speedometer and issue you a certificate that shows that it is indeed accurate.

However, the accuracy of your speedometer is not in doubt here nor is it in question. If any speedometer’s accuracy rate does in fact come into question it is the speedometer that is in the citing officer’s vehicle that makes a difference and like I said before those speedometers are regularly tested and deemed accurate with you or without you.

I received the ticket at 12:30 AM so the highway was practically empty and it is possible that the officer was very tired.

Could be… What I would be wondering about before making such a statement in court is how long has this particular officer been working that particular shift. If it happens to be a new shift assignment for him then you might have a point there.

Otherwise, the fact that it was 12:30 AM and the “he might have been very tired” scenario might apply to you instead… Which might also suggest that you were not fully cognizant of your speed at all times which might also suggest that you might have exceeded the speed limit by 8 to 10 miles as you stated, but it might also mean that you did actually exceed it by 17 miles as the officer will testify in support of his decision to issue you the citation that you received.

When I looked at the ticket, I noticed that there were numerous mistakes written by the officer.

1. My name was misspelled (it is spelled correctly on my license, registration, and insurance)

2. On the 'age' field, it was marked at 3 years-old. But my birthdate next to it was correct. (Obviously, I am not 3 years old. I am actually 34)

3. The 'eyes' 'height' and 'weight' field HAD the wrong information in which the officer lined out and inputted the correct information above it.

Realistically, none of these errors/corrections will do anything to deprive you from the ability to fully and fairly defend yourself against the charge of violating CVC 22349.

True, they might suggest that the officer was not acting in his full capacity but you’d be hard pressed to being able to prove that in court.

Regardless of whether you decide to pay this citation or whether you decide to fight it by taking it to trial, there are two questions that you’d have to keep asking yourself at every junction during either process are these:

1) How would the officer benefit by deciding to target you and later cite you for speeding if you weren’t (even though we both know you had exceeded the limit by “at least” 10mph?)

And even if he decided to cite you for speeding…
2) What if anything does he gain by citing you for the 17mph (the 82mph 65mph) that he alleges versus the 8mph to 10mph (the 73mph to 75mph) that you admitted to in you post?

The answer to both those questions in “nothing”.

 

[Mossman]

So setting the cruise control at 70 really does not restrict the vehicle to the 70mph speed, it could go faster… but not slower… Only faster!

Ok, so let me elaborate. I was travelling on a level plane at 70 MPH before the downhill slope. So during the initial increase in speed, the cruise control system in my vehicle haven't caught up with the sudden acceleration yet, but it was slowing back down to 70.

You weren’t doing anything wrong? Even when you were going at 73 to 75, which was 8 to 10 mph above the speed limit, you still think you weren’t doing anything wrong?

I'm not sure where you live, but in California, just about everyone drives a bit faster than the posted speed limit. I have never seen or heard anyone in California being stopped for 70 MPH. As a matter of fact, in one incident, I was driving at exactly 65 MPH in the far left lane and a police vehicle (non-CHP) asked me to get out of the way (using his vehicle's speaker system) because I was driving too slow on the "passing lane". I can't remember his exact quotes but it was something to that nature.

There was also a study conducted a few years back that states that commuters in California spends an average of 90 hours extra each year on the road due to traffic. Every year there is a legislation passed in CA to provide additional taxes to improve the traffic condition, and every year the funds gets funneled into something else. Because of California traffic, what normally takes me only 1 hour to commute (round trip without traffic), has taken me 4 hour each day.

I stayed in my lane, I don't weave in and out of traffic, and the highway was empty. I was not endangering anyone's life other than, perhaps, my own. If you even consider 5 MPH (or even 10) over the speed limit as endangerment. So I was trying to make up for a little bit of time that was lost on the roads due to traffic. I would rather live a short and happy life than a long and crappy one.

I think you’re suggesting that the officer had to go a faster speed to catch up to you and then you are further suggesting that he used that “faster speed” as the speed he cited you for… For that to be true, you would have to assume that yours was the first speeding citation that this officer has ever issued and even then, you are also assuming that this officer had neither gone through any training nor does he have any common sense whatsoever.

This might be possible because after he has my D/L, registration, and insurance, it took him approximately 15 min just to write up the ticket. That was just one small sheet of paper and filling out the blanks. It took me about that much time just to write up this post. He was having a discussion with another officer while writing it up. Perhaps to ask what to put in each field.

Could be… What I would be wondering about before making such a statement in court is how long has this particular officer been working that particular shift. If it happens to be a new shift assignment for him then you might have a point there.

Ok, so how do I go about finding this information? Can I just call the CHP office and find out?

Otherwise, the fact that it was 12:30 AM and the “he might have been very tired” scenario might apply to you instead… Which might also suggest that you were not fully cognizant of your speed at all times which might also suggest that you might have exceeded the speed limit by 8 to 10 miles as you stated, but it might also mean that you did actually exceed it by 17 miles as the officer will testify in support of his decision to issue you the citation that you received.

I was tired and it was the end of my shift, thus one of the reason that I was using the cruise control system in my vehicle. The other reason is to save some gas. I use my cruise control system whenever possible.

Realistically, none of these errors/corrections will do anything to deprive you from the ability to fully and fairly defend yourself against the charge of violating CVC 22349.

In addition to the errors I have already mentioned, I noticed one more. On the "Speed Approx" field he wrote the speed at which he thought I was travelling, which was 82. But for the "Max Spd" section, hey wrote 80, instead of 65.

1) How would the officer benefit by deciding to target you and later cite you for speeding if you weren’t (even though we both know you had exceeded the limit by “at least” 10mph?)

To meet his quota of the day/week/month, perhaps?

And even if he decided to cite you for speeding…
2) What if anything does he gain by citing you for the 17mph (the 82mph 65mph) that he alleges versus the 8mph to 10mph (the 73mph to 75mph) that you admitted to in you post?

Well, we are having quite an economic crisis, and they are tagging an extra $25 to $35 in fine to all citations (according to the WestWays Magazine from AAA, January/February 2009 issue). Why not tag on the extra miles so they can make more money for the city/state/country? If not, why would they even increase them?

Here is a link for more information on what was stated in the magazine for new laws in 2009:

New 2009 California Driving Laws - IWSTI.com: Subaru WRX STI Forums

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I'm only gonna respond to one statement that you made in your post, and only because I think you have been misinformed.

To meet his quota of the day/week/month, perhaps?

Perhaps NOT!!! Let me quote a few sections from the California vehicle code:

41600. For purposes of this chapter, "arrest quota" means any requirement regarding the number of arrests made, or the number of citations issued, by a peace officer, or parking enforcement employee, or the proportion of those arrests made and citations issued by a peace officer or parking enforcement employee, relative to the arrests made and citations issued by another peace officer or parking enforcement employee, or group of officers or employees.

41601. For purposes of this chapter, "citation" means a notice to appear, notice of violation, or notice of parking violation.

41601.5. For purposes of this chapter, "agency" includes the Regents of the University of California.

41602. No state or local agency employing peace officers or parking enforcement employees engaged in the enforcement of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code, may establish any policy requiring any peace officer or parking enforcement employees to meet an arrest quota.

As for your other statements in your post, ..., it is full of excuses, none of which will get you any closer to having your citation dismissed in court. In fact, I urge you not to try any of them as you defend yourself before a judge.

 

[Mossman]

Call it what you will... excuses, facts, opinions.... whatever. All I need to know is... is there a way to find out what the officer's shift was on the day of the incident? I will do whatever it takes to get this unfair ticket dismissed or reduced. File a trial by declaration, then a trial de novo, if that doesn't work. Whatever. If they want my money, they're going to have to work for it. What are they going to do? They're not going to increase the fine, they're not going to put me in jail. Piss them off a bit? So the hell what? If anything, it's going to keep that CHP off the streets for a while from giving other people unfair tickets.

They may have a law against "quotas," so they just change the terminologies they use for the number of tickets they are supposed to give people. I have many non-CHP officers living all around me. They mentioned that there is no quotas imposed on the officer, but it does affect their performance evaluation if they don't have enough on file.

I was previously in the military for many years. They have a law against hazing, but it still happens. Just because there is a laws against it does not mean they don't practice it. They just use other terminologies to hide it.

Now, going back to my question, is there a way to find out what the officer's shift was on the day of the incident?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Call it what you will... excuses, facts, opinions.... whatever.

I did... I called them "EXCUSES"!!!

I will do whatever it takes to get this unfair ticket dismissed or reduced. File a trial by declaration, then a trial de novo, if that doesn't work. Whatever. If they want my money, they're going to have to work for it. What are they going to do? They're not going to increase the fine, they're not going to put me in jail. Piss them off a bit?

Actually, so far, it has not affected them at all. It seems to have done quite a number on you though!!!

If anything, it's going to keep that CHP off the streets for a while from giving other people unfair tickets.

Chances are it won't. Filing TBD's and court appearances are usually done &/or scheduled during the officer's off duty hours... i.e. either before or after a shift. If it happens that he has to appear in court during his shift then there's plenty of other officers where he came from...

I was previously in the military for many years.

That is obvious... Judging by how much respect you have for the law/authority and the amount of discipline that you show...

Now, going back to my question, is there a way to find out what the officer's shift was on the day of the incident?

I'm not really sure... I never really looked into that. Maybe you can call the station but I doubt they'll give you his schedule. In fact I know they won't... Maybe you can ask him when you're in court during your trial de novo!

Good luck!

 

[Mossman]

That is obvious... Judging by how much respect you have for the law/authority and the amount of discipline that you show...

You are correct. I don't have much respect for the law/authority. There are too many laws that protect you from yourself (I.e. Seatbelts, helmets, etc). Need more population control. Statistics have already proven that they save lives, but why make it a law? If people choose not to wear them, so be it. Perhaps, if that was the case, there wouldn't be so much traffic in California.

There are too many ridiculous laws out there. If I had followed every law that is imposed by the military, I would not be able to perform cunnilingus, had fellatio performed on me, or doing it doggie-style. Because according to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), the only position that is authorized is the missionary position. No thanks. I'd like to enjoy all the pleasures that life has to offer.

BTW. Thanks for the answer.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

You are correct. I don't have much respect for the law/authority. There are too many laws that protect you from yourself (I.e. Seatbelts, helmets, etc). Need more population control. Statistics have already proven that they save lives, but why make it a law? If people choose not to wear them, so be it. Perhaps, if that was the case, there wouldn't be so much traffic in California.

There are too many ridiculous laws out there. If I had followed every law that is imposed by the military, I would not be able to perform cunnilingus, had fellatio performed on me, or doing it doggie-style. Because according to the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice), the only position that is authorized is the missionary position. No thanks. I'd like to enjoy all the pleasures that life has to offer.

I didn't need to read all that. In fact one of my own rules about what other people do is "what you do in your barracks is your business"...

What does concern me though is you going out on a public roadway/highway, driving like an idiot, breaking laws that were intended to protect me and my loved ones from careless idiots, all while expecting to get away freely based on your belief that it simply is "population control"... Its too bad they couldn't increase the fine and it really sucks that you won't be serving some time.

BTW. Thanks for the answer.

I'm glad I didn't answer! You don't deserve anyone's help!

 

[CdwJava]

All I need to know is... is there a way to find out what the officer's shift was on the day of the incident?

Yes. You can ask for that in discovery. It might also be available as a phone call. Not that it will be all that relevant.

I'm told by our local CHP that their offices right now have a choice of working 12 hour shifts or 8 hour shifts.

If they want my money, they're going to have to work for it. What are they going to do? They're not going to increase the fine, they're not going to put me in jail. Piss them off a bit? So the hell what? If anything, it's going to keep that CHP off the streets for a while from giving other people unfair tickets.

Well, one thing it might do is prevent you from being able to obtain traffic school. You certainly have a right to fight the ticket if you believe you were not speeding. But, you should consider all the possibilities.

They may have a law against "quotas," so they just change the terminologies they use for the number of tickets they are supposed to give people.

Random variable "X" is still a quota. It is unlawful.

I have many non-CHP officers living all around me. They mentioned that there is no quotas imposed on the officer, but it does affect their performance evaluation if they don't have enough on file.

To some degree, sure. If all the officers on a shift managed to write a dozen citations ina month (for a municipal agency) and the officer in question wrote one, then you have to ask what he has been doign all day? is he shagging a lot of reports and criminal investigations? or is he sitting on his ass?


- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Well, one thing it might do is prevent you from being able to obtain traffic school. You certainly have a right to fight the ticket if you believe you were not speeding. But, you should consider all the possibilities.

What Carl is doing is recognizing that many courts tend to ignore the law with respect to traffic violations. When you go to court, before you start the trial, you should ask the court if traffic school is available. If he says yes, then he must offer the same consideration AFTER a trial (which means he has to give it to you). You can cite People v. Wozniak when you ask for traffic school after the trial... assuming that you loose.

 

[CdwJava]

Of course, Wozniak merely says the court must consider it - not that they must offer it. Also, the court does not have to cite a reason for its decision one way or the other.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Of course, Wozniak merely says the court must consider it - not that they must offer it. Also, the court does not have to cite a reason for its decision one way or the other.

- Carl

No... Wozniak says the court must offer the same consideration before trial or after a conviction.... there is a difference. So, if the court offers it before the trial... then there is no reasonable excuse for not offering it after the trial. If he doesn't offer it, he subjects himself to being overturned on appeal as in Wozniak.

 

[CdwJava]

Same difference. After the court has heard the defense, he can view the matter in a different light and decide that his previous blanket offer was not appropriate.

In any event, it does not require the court to grant traffic school.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

I didn't disagree with that. However, it does make his decision subject to being overturned on appeal. The bottom line is... if traffic school was ok before trial, it should be ok after trial. There is no reason, other than a failure to follow the law as described in Wozniak, for it not to be. If your argument is that judges believe that they don't have to follow the law and few if any people will ever challenge them on that fact... then we are in agreement. If you are suggesting that a judge refusing to award traffic school, simply because the defendant was found guilty at trial, is legal, moral, or ethical... then we have a sound disagreement.


You and I tend to have several disagreements here. They all have the same pattern. I recognize the LAW... you recognize common practice in lieu of the law. I am offended by a judge who ignores the law and rules based on the way he thinks the law should be. I am also disappointed in any other State official (i.e. a cop) who would simply accept such behaviour and even advise people to yield to common practice over the law.

 

[CdwJava]

I recognize that a judge has discretion - just as an officer does. A judge is free to decide - for whatever reason he so chooses - that a person is not a good candidate for traffic school. If, after he testifies, the judge wishes to allow the option of traffic school, the judge knows he can permit it - local practice be darned. If, after listening to the tale the judge decided NOT to grant traffic school, he is free to do that as well. Nothing unlawful on either account.

Just as an officer is free to decide that a warning will suffice to deter a bad driving practice, he is also free to decide that a citation is most appropriate. Sometimes even citations don't work and more direct methods have to be taken. Just last night we had a thrice caught driver with a perpetually (it seems) suspended license popped in yet a third car. So, in addition to the 30 day impound, she went to jail rather than be released with a citation. Obviously the lesser methods were not working.

Discretion is just that, it is discretion. A judge has it, and an officer has it. If the judge wants to grant traffic court he can. If the judge states that the only reason he is not permitting traffic school is because of the errant practice debated in Wozniak, then bad on him ... bad judge, no green fee.

- Carl