Plead Guilty or Fight

[freddyhernandez]

- I apologize if this is a duplicate. I originally posted this on the wrong forum by accident. Thanks, so much to those of you who have already replied. I will now close the other thread. -

State: California
Issued by: California Highway Patrol
Violation: 22349(a) Exceeding the Maximum Speed (65) on a highway by 19 mph.

Not that it matters, but I'm a 46 year old male with a clean record for over 10 years and I'd like to keep it that way.

Ticket is written correctly. No errors there however, she posted the approx. speed at 84. No radar was used. Conditions were cloudy but a very clear day. Traffic was mild as school was still off for the winter holidays.

When I noticed her pull behind me, I looked down at my speedometer and I saw that I was following the car in front of me at approx 74 mph.

Now, I know I did violate the law by exceeding the maximum speed limit of 65, but I would like to see about having the fine reduced.

Being that it's an infraction (not a misdemeanor), and that I did not exceed the speed by more than 20 mph, and it's been several years since I've received a citation, I should be allowed to take driving school to remove the point. However, that means an admission of guilt or at the very least no-contest.

Would it be best to go in front of the judge, plead guilty with an explanation or plead no-contest? Then ask for my fine to be reduced and given drivers training, or plead not-guilty and hope the officer does not show and if she does, mention the speed difference and see if I get a reduced fine at that point?

If I plead not-guilty, how can I prepare or prove that I was not traveling at 84, but at 74 and does that really matter since the law states the maximum speed limit is 65? If I lose can I then ask for drivers training?

Any and all opinions are welcome. I'm still debating how to handle this.What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?

 

[Zigner]

There will be others along to give you advice on what "technicalities" you may be able to use to get out of the ticket. However, if you lose, you likely won't be able to take Traffic School. It's your choice...

 

[JIMinCA]

There will be others along to give you advice on what "technicalities" you may be able to use to get out of the ticket. However, if you lose, you likely won't be able to take Traffic School. It's your choice...

I'm one of those guys who will tell you about the "technicalities" that Zigner refers to. I don't call them "technicalities", I call them the law.

1. You can fight the ticket, lose and still ask for traffic school. There is an appellate court case, People v. Wozniak, that states:

both the present language of Vehicle Code section 42005 and People v. Enochs... require trial courts to consider the merits of a defendant's request for traffic violator school whether that request is made before or after conviction.

2. I think that it is the burden of the State to prove guilt. I don't like the idea of doing that job for them.

3. There are several good defenses that you can use. If you are interested, let me know.

 

[freddyhernandez]

Let me Hear What You Have to Say

Zigner - I've heard this before about not offering Traffic School after a trial loss. That really worries me. It will depend on my chances in court, if I decide to fight.

JIMinCA - I did do some research on fighting the ticket, and the time it takes should not be a problem for me, but it does sound like a lot of work. Things like noting all the particulars of the case. Every little detail about the car, the traffic, the weather, the road conditions, the officers vehicle, the exact conversation, etc., etc., etc... Then asking for discovery, checking for any inconsistencies in the officers testimony, checking the actual citation wording to make sure of all the points that the ADA would have to prove, all while keeping track of any of the 6 things that can lead to a dismissal or mistrial. It's crazy, I can see why we pay so much for attorneys. The fact remains though, I was speeding in excess of the maximum posted speed. So proving I was only going 74 vs 84, "may" only get me a reduced fine, but still makes me guilty.

So if I claim "not guilty" they only have to prove that I was the one driving the vehicle, that I was driving on a highway, and that I exceeded the speed of 65 mph. -- seems like an easy burden for them to prove, particularly if the CHP officer had any visual estimation training, which I believe most do.

I'm not seeing a way to win here, but if you feel I have a good chance to win and have some ideas on how to do it, I will gladly take that into consideration. Particularly if traffic school is still an option after a conviction.

Thank you both for your input, it really helps me to think things out and come up with the best option for myself.

Freddy

 

[clean record]

Good luck Freddy. I have a clean record as well and would hate to have a mark on my record.

 

[JIMinCA]

Freddy,

Here are some starters that I posted on another thread:

1) Request discovery from the District Attorney. Frequently, once the DA's office sees that they will have to work for a conviction, they will simply ignore the case (i.e. fail to prosecute). A failure to prosecute is grounds for dismissal. This approach has worked many times. As a matter of fact, I have never seen it not work. However, if the DA provides your discovery, then you will have much information to add to your defense. So, requesting discovery is a win/win for you.

2) If the discovery produces useful information, you can use it. However, if it appears that the cop had his stuff together (i.e. justified speed limit, up to date calibration/maintenance records, appropriate training certificates, etc.), just remember that he has to produce those same documents in court if you ask for them. Furthermore, the documents he produces must be an original or a certified true copy, else the evidence is heresay. I have used this defense successfully.

3) Trial By Written Declaration. Some judges simply rubber stamp these guilty. However, if the cop doesn't submit a statement, you'll likely get a dismissal. If you are found guilty, you simply request a new trial. I have seen this work simply by the cop not showing up for the new trial (for whatever reason) in which time you'll get your dismissal.

4) Section 40803(b) of the vehicle codes states:

In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the
speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or
other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects,
the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case,
that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a
speedtrap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section
40802.​

Since prosecuting attorneys typically do not appear at traffic trials, the prosecution obviously cannot establish that a speed trap didn't exist. Therefore, you can request dismissal based on failure to prosecute. Although I have never used this defense (I haven't needed to yet), I know that it has been used successfully several times. However, I would save this defense for a last ditch effort.

 

[clean record]

If you don't mind me butting in Freddy, how does one request discovery - call the DA's office? Will the "last ditch" work in Oregon?