Question about speed trap

[toyirkfm]

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

Okay. Here is my situation.
I got a ticket for speeding 77mph for 60mph limit zone.
The officer used laser. And I submitted TBD and lost.
So I requested trial de novo. My trial date has been set one month after. This is my first time to get a ticket and fight in court. The citation I've been charged was 22349(a).

So the first thing that I've searched for was speed survey and visited city hall.
And I found the critical speed to be 65.4mph and there was no justification to lower speed limit.(And base on MUTCD, the speed limit should be established at the nearest 10 km/h (5 mph) increment to(not below! that was for old edition!) the 85th percentile speed, which means the speed limit should be 65mph base on survey) Also, base on the speed limit, more than 50% of surveyors were violating speed limit.

So what I am going to do is point out that there was speed trap base on the above facts. But I am not so sure where I need to bring this issue. Do I need to bring this during my cross examination?

Also, I am not so sure if I should take on stand since I am afraid if anything I answer would act against me.

Still, some people told me that the speed trap law cannot be used for 22349(a) because of VC 40802 (C) (ii) which states that "The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406."

But to me, that statement seems that the prosecution is not under any obligation to provide any evidence that there was no speed trap during the time for 22349, unlike 22350.

So can I still argue about speed trap applicable for 22349(a) by submitting speed survey myself?(Plus bringing three case laws, people vs. Difiore and people vs. Goulet for speed trap law an people vs. wonziak to get grant for traffic school)

Lastly, when I checked the officer's TBD statement, he wrote that no speed survey required as the road that I've been caught had maximum speed of 60mh.

But can I argue that the posted limit was not maximum speed but prima facie speed limit base on 22354(a), which states that "Whenever the Department of Transportation determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the limit of 65 miles per hour is more than is reasonable or safe upon any portion of a state highway where the limit of 65 miles is applicable, the department may determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30 or 25 miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe, which declared prima facie speed limit shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the highway."?

Sorry for long posting. But I am really frightened as the traffic school not guaranteed due to my attempt of TBD. Actually, I asked the court clerk if I am qualified for traffic school when I plead guilty before submitting form for the trial de novo and she said that it was up to judge.

So I just decided to submit it, as both ways do not give me any guarantee for traffic school.(Although there was traffic school option before my TBD. But that option is gone after I've submitted my TBD)

P.S. Even after planning the strategy, I am frightened because English is not my first language(I am okay with writing the post, but don't speak smoothly under pressure). Therefore, I requested a translator and was not granted. So should I hire a lawyer instead?

P.S.2. I've noticed that I focused too much on explaining my strategy. My questions are:

1. Does my strategy seem affective enough to get the case dismissed?
2. You think I should hire lawyer as my case is kind of weak to win without a lawyer?
3. Is there any good way to get traffic school as option beside submitting people vs. wonziak case?
I actually had a bad experience in other forum as there was a guy who simply stated my situation as 'trying to grap a straw by requesting traffic school after went this far.'

P.S.3. I hope this thread is helpful if there is anyone who is trying to fight for 22349(a) or 22350. I will definitely post up reply about how the trial went later.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

And I found the critical speed to be 65.4mph and there was no justification to lower speed limit.(And base on MUTCD, the speed limit should be established at the nearest 10 km/h (5 mph) increment to(not below! that was for old edition!) the 85th percentile speed, which means the speed limit should be 65mph base on survey).

There might be other reasons why the survey could not justify the 65mph speed limit. Unless you can post the survey itself, can quess whether those reasons existed in this case or not.

Also, base on the speed limit, more than 50% of surveyors were violating speed limit.

Just because other people broke the law does not mean you get to have your citation dismissed...

I actually had a bad experience in other forum as there was a guy who simply stated my situation as 'trying to grap a straw by requesting traffic school after went this far.'

Are you sure he said "trying to grap a straw by requesting traffic school after went this far." ???

Maybe he meant "you're grasping at straws as you have no case"?

 

[reactive]

The officer's statement seems to be right.
"California does have a speed trap law. It does not apply where the speed limit is over 55 mph."
California Speeding Ticket Help

I advise you to drop that argument and hope that, if the officer shows up (no dismissal), you can plead guilty to speeding within 15 miles of the legal limit (radar guns can be off slightly) and that the judge would agree to traffic school. A clean record would help. Unless you have other reasons to worry, read the following article and be positive.
It pays to avoid a speeding ticket -- or fight one - MSN Money

 

[Maestro64]

as it was pointed out the speed trap law and speed survey is not a valid defense on Highways and speeds above 55MPH.

You defense should focus on the LIDAR itself, they are a number of valid defense for LIDAR, first there is no judicial notice for the evidences to be used in court. It is going to require more work on your part to use this defense. Also you can demonstrate how errors can be generated by the use of LIDAR causing a higher speed then the actual speed.

This is your better defense not the speed trap law.

 

[toyirkfm]

I finished my trial today!

And guess what! The commissioner dismissed my case base on the speed survey. So I guess the speed trap law even works for 22349(a), exceeding maximum speed limit. So don't be frightened even if all other people are saying that speed trap law does not apply for 22349(a). Refer to people vs. Studley and people vs. Difiore case laws!

 

[CdwJava]

It is also likely that the commissioner was not aware of the law in this regard and dismissed based upon his belief that it should apply.

Since there is no prosecutor, there is no one to object to the judge's application of the law or to appeal his decision. You got fortunate.

- Carl

 

[I_Got_Banned]

You got fortunate.

- Carl

You got very fortunate!

 

[Jim_bo]

Well... there is People v. Studly:

This case presents the following question: where a motorist is cited, by the use of radar, for speed in excess of the state maximum speed limit on a nonlocal road with a prima facie speed limit of 50 miles per hour, and where a traffic and engineering survey is not proved at trial, do California's speed trap laws apply to compel exclusion of all evidence of speed? We hold the answer is "yes."

That's pretty compelling. There is other case law that contradicts this, but there is nothing that I know of that puts an end to the argument. I know that the going school of thought is that speed trap laws don't apply in 22349 cases... but I won one with a speed trap defense also.

There is also 40803(b):

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.

and 40802(a)(2) as referenced above says:

A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed
limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section
22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3,
if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering
and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of
the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves
the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the
speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local
street, road, or school zone.

So, 40802(a)(2) doesn't say anything about a max speed. It only addresses an unjustified speed limit. 40803(b) says in ANY prosecution involving speed, the prosecution must establish there was no speed trap as per 40802(a)(2).

And finally, there is the incorrect interpretation of 40802 from the OP where he said:

Still, some people told me that the speed trap law cannot be used for 22349(a) because of VC 40802 (C) (ii) which states that "The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406."

The reason that is an incorrect interpretation is that the above quote comes under subsection (c) which only establishes how a speed survey can be extended beyond 5 years.

That seems like black letter law to me. As per the way the vehicle code is written, you could be doing 115mph and not be cited if the speed limit was unjustified. Sounds like the commissioner was smarter than you guys give him credit for!!!