Officer put the wrong vehicle code?

[chadeayne21]

I got a ticket for going 100 in a 65, on the ticket the officer wrote i was doing approximently 100. in the VC states (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:. As you can see it states that a speed GREATER than 100. he wrote i was doing 100 which is obviously not greater than 100. How should i handle this and what will is the punishment be?

this happened in CA by the way

 

[ecmst12]

Approximately 100 could be a few miles over or under. I would not bring up that particular argument in court.

 

[chadeayne21]

Approximately 100 could be a few miles over or under. I would not bring up that particular argument in court.

yeah but that could be the diffrence betwen a 400$ ticket or a 1700$ ticket plus license suspension. i was doing 94 when he lit me up. Any other suggestions to get the fine lowered below the 100 mph mark?

 

[sandyclaus]

yeah but that could be the diffrence betwen a 400$ ticket or a 1700$ ticket plus license suspension. i was doing 94 when he lit me up. Any other suggestions to get the fine lowered below the 100 mph mark?

Sure. Prove you weren't going 100 or over, or successfully challenge whatever method the officer used to record your speed.

How do you know that when he clocked you, you weren't driving 100 MPH? You could have been slowing down by the time you realized it (6 MPH is not much in the scheme of things), or your speedometer could be a little off.

Either way, you're probably getting the more expensive ticket, unless you can do something fast to prevent it. For that kind of difference, you might want to hire yourself an attorney to fight the ticket. That would put you in a better position to challenge it (through the proper discovery and all), and you might get them to negotiate a lesser violation to save you those bucks. Of course, an attorney wouldn't be free, but you'd still likely pay far less than just paying that ticket - plus you're more likely to avoid a suspension that way as well.

 

[CdwJava]

What code section was cited?

 

[Jim_bo]

If you were cited for 22350 or 22349, then you may have a problem. However, if you were cited for 22348b, you should not. In fact, if it were me and I was cited for 22348b under the same circumstances, I would go to an arraignment AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (you don’t have to wait for the date on the ticket). At arraignment, I’d move for dismissal there is no sufficient complaint before the court (i.e. 100mph is NOT greater than 100mph). Worst case scenario is that the judge denies your motion to dismiss and he sets a trial date (after you plead not guilty). Once you have been arraigned, the cop cannot change the charge. However, if you don’t get to arraignment quickly enough, the cop (or his supervisor) could find the obvious error and simply amend the ticket to say 101+. Then you would have a much harder time of beating the ticket.

 

[tranquility]

Sure. Prove you weren't going 100 or over, or successfully challenge whatever method the officer used to record your speed.

How do you know that when he clocked you, you weren't driving 100 MPH? You could have been slowing down by the time you realized it (6 MPH is not much in the scheme of things), or your speedometer could be a little off.

Either way, you're probably getting the more expensive ticket, unless you can do something fast to prevent it. For that kind of difference, you might want to hire yourself an attorney to fight the ticket. That would put you in a better position to challenge it (through the proper discovery and all), and you might get them to negotiate a lesser violation to save you those bucks. Of course, an attorney wouldn't be free, but you'd still likely pay far less than just paying that ticket - plus you're more likely to avoid a suspension that way as well.

Nope. The state must prove he was going over 100. (Assuming the statute is as stated. Like Carl, I'd like to know the code cited.) "Approximately" is not going to help the state if the officer later claims over 100. While you never know what beyond a reasonable doubt means in traffic court, if a misdemeanor crime, I bet the state will have to come up with more.

 

[chadeayne21]

The code sited was V C Section 22348b

 

[CdwJava]

The code sited was V C Section 22348b

Well, unless amended, you stand a good chance of beating this it would seem. Assuming the officer doesn't testify that you were EXCEEDING 100.

On the citation where there is a box that indicates the speed you were traveling, does that also indicate "100"? Or, is there some other speed indicated somewhere on the cite?

 

[tranquility]

Well, unless amended, you stand a good chance of beating this it would seem. Assuming the officer doesn't testify that you were EXCEEDING 100.

On the citation where there is a box that indicates the speed you were traveling, does that also indicate "100"? Or, is there some other speed indicated somewhere on the cite?

Even with the testimony, imagine the cross.

Q: "On the date of the citation at the time of the purported offense, you wrote "approximately 100", is that correct?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "Today, three months later, your testimony here is that the OP was traveling 102, is that correct?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "What caused you to believe the OP was traveling 102?"
A: "I clocked him with my speedometer (Or, whatever), for such and such a time."
[Q&A establishing why measuring device or opinion is accurate.]
Q: "Why did you not put the correct speed on the citation?"
A: "It was the correct speed. It was approximately 100."
Q: "Is the purpose of the citation to help you refresh your memory about the events of the date?"
A: "That and to start the charging process for the courts."
Q: "So, it is your testimony today you wrote "approximately 100" on the citation to help you remember he was traveling 102?"
A: "Yes."

I'm thinking I'd have a reasonable doubt.

 

[davew128]

Approximately 100 could be a few miles over or under. I would not bring up that particular argument in court.

I would. There is a specific charge in the VC for moving greater than 100, in fact its a misdemeanor. If the OP was charged with that section, lack of a radar gun or pacing at something like 105 would be a defense.

 

[Zigner]

I would. There is a specific charge in the VC for moving greater than 100, in fact its a misdemeanor. If the OP was charged with that section, lack of a radar gun or pacing at something like 105 would be a defense.

Yet, our OP was cited with traveling greater than 100, an infraction.

 

[Jim_bo]

Well, unless amended, you stand a good chance of beating this it would seem. Assuming the officer doesn't testify that you were EXCEEDING 100.

On the citation where there is a box that indicates the speed you were traveling, does that also indicate "100"? Or, is there some other speed indicated somewhere on the cite?

Carl,

You are right to be concerned about what the officer may testify to. That’s why I said that the OP should be seeking dismissal at arraignment as the prosecution has failed to bring forward a prima facie case. If that doesn’t work, the OP should make a motion to dismiss at trial BEFORE the officer testifies. Once the officer testifies, then the record will show evidence of speed greater than 100mph. This shouldn’t be hard… but the OP MUST be diligent.

 

[CdwJava]

That depends on what the officer wrote for the speed. I doubt he wrote in his notes or in the box for the vehicle's speed "approximately 100 MPH" ... sorry, the box is NOT that large. He may have written that as part of a description of the offense after writing 22348(b), but that description is not testimony - it is simply the shorthand used to write a summary of a code section, not details of the offense.

The OP might be best served by seeking the officer's notes through discovery unless an exact speed is written on the face of the ticket in the appropriate box. The officer's notes may indicate what speed he estimated, and how it was estimated.

 

[Jim_bo]

I think what the OP really should do is post a redacted copy of his ticket here so as to eliminate any speculation.