posted speed limit

[mgunsur2]

What is the name of your state? california

My son got a speeding ticket for allegedly doing 50 at a 35 mph zone. The officer did not use radar, did not even tail him. He passed in front of her where she was at, and she approximated his speed to be 50 mph, so her ticket says "approx 50 mph".

The sign posted on the street is 45 mph, not 35 mph as she indicated on her ticket.
I got the court paper, it also says 35 mph. I took a digital photo of the sign where he got the ticket, and I will show the judge the discrepancy.
Can this ticket be dismissed on the grounds that her observation may be flawed because she thought the speed limit was 45 not 35 as she indicated ?

 

[racer72]

Possibly.

 

[abezon]

I note you did not say he was going 45 or slower, but I will assume so for purposes of this answer. There are 2 issues: whether the speed limit where she observed him was 35 or 45 and how accurately she was able to judge his speed without using mechanical devices.

You first call the officer & challenge her ability to judge his speed. Factors to argue/question her about on the stand include: She wrote "approx 50 mph" on the ticket; what is the range on that? Could he have been travelling any speed between 45 & 50? How about 43? What is her personal threshhold for pulling over drivers she hasn't been able to radar? When she thinks they were 15 mph over the limit? Is that 15 mph cushion there because she knows that "observed speed" is notoriously inaccurate?

How long did she observe him? What angle did she observe him at? (It's much harder to judge speed when someone is approaching you head-on.) How much training has she received in visually judging speed ? Has she surveyed the street & noted the distance between landmarks? How long should it take a driver travelling 45 mph to travel that distance? Travelling 50? Did she use a stopwatch? Didn't the police dept switch to radar & other mechanical devices because officers can't judge speed by eye very well?

Once you get the officer to admit he could have been going 45 mph, you offer the pictures showing that the limit *was* 45 on that section of road. Don't talk about the limit first, the officer will then be absolutely sure he was going 50. Be sure you can demonstrate that the 45 mph sign was posted *before* where she observed him driving. (Close up signs and distance shots to show where the sign is located.)

Be sure to subpoena the officer's report before trial. The ticket should have instructions for doing so. Also subpoena the officer. The report will tell you where she was when she observed him & allow you to take a picture from that point showing how much space she had to observe him. (Which may or may not be helpful.) Watch for discrepancies between the report & her testimony -- new details should be challenged on the grounds that a good officer writes all pertinant facts in the report at the time.

If she doesn't show, move for dismissal with prejudice. You might pick up a book on fighting your traffic tickets for tips on how to subpoena the report, the officer, & move for dismissal.

 

[lwpat]

Abezon has given you some very good advice. There are a few additional points that apply to CA.

In CA you can do a trial by declaration which means that everything is done by mail. If you lose at this level you can then appeal and a new trial date will be set. This is when you would file a motion for discovery and get a copy of the officer's report. The discovery motion must be in the proper format and be properly served.

The only changes I would advise is to not subponea the officer. In CA if the officer does not show you can make a motion for dismissal and the judge will usually dismiss. In a lot of other areas they will just grant the state a continuation. I would also not use a digital camera. Some jurisdictions will not allow digital photograpy since they can be altered.

Send me an email and I can forward some resources on trial by declaration and discovery.