• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Re: California Section 22349

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

insidereye

Junior Member
Re: California Section 22349

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? California

I have lurked on the boards for a few days reading all the various posts pertaining to speeding laws in California and while this topic has continually been brought up, I am sure my post can add value to those seeking future advice on speeding tickets in California.

I have been issued a ticket for going approximately 75 mph in a 65 mph zone (I-5), a violation of Section 22349; “Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.” Section 22356 paraphrased states that there are some highways in California that may be 70 mph zones as deemed by signage (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=7309576808+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve).

I received the ticket because I was stupid enough to pass a moving CHP unit (supposedly going 70 mph) by mistake. I was going between 70-75 mph and to my detriment believed that I was in a 70 mph zone. I have a clean driving record so I know I can attend traffic school. However, I would like to find out more about contesting the ticket (not necessarily to do that, but curiosity has gotten the better of me).

First, I assume that because I passed the CHP unit on the highway that constitutes “pacing”? And if so that means that even though the officer did not have an exact speed based on radar, it becomes a he said/she said deal (where the officer has the benefit of the doubt)?

Second, my understanding is that California has a combination of absolute and presumed speed limits depending on the road/highway in question (http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/insure/basics/10281.asp). Thus, it is up to the discretion of the officer/court to fine a motorist if he/she was going 7-8 mph above the posted speed limit. In my case, would it be a strong argument if I contested the ticket based on a combination of the approximation of the officer writing the ticket and the absolute versus presumed speed limits (I could indeed have been going less than 7-8 mph above the 65 mph speed limit)? This doesn’t seem like a strong argument; yet, I believe it is a valid argument.

Third, I understand that if I do not live near the area of where the ticket states to go, I can request a change of venue to a county seat from the judge. Has anyone done this? I can’t seem to find the exact procedure to follow for this in regards to traffic violations (http://education.occourts.org/GoFAQ/FAQ.asp?id=1 and http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/ and http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/titlefive/title5-3-112.htm).

Fourth, I understand that if I do contest the ticket (hoping the officer decides not to show up) and the officer does indeed show up, before the trial begins I may plead no contest and take traffic school. Is this a wrong assumption? In other words, if I decide to go to trial, am I at the mercy of the court in regards to taking traffic school?

And before all the trolls come by and say I should swallow the pill like an adult, my response is, “Thank you.” Nonetheless, I am not interested in that advice, so please save your key taps.


Thanks,

LS
 
Last edited:


Curt581

Senior Member
insidereye said:
First, I assume that because I passed the CHP unit on the highway that constitutes “pacing”?
No. Passing the unit is what brought you to the officer's attention. Pacing means the officer measured your speed by maintaining pace with you over a set distance.
And if so that means that even though the officer did not have an exact speed based on radar, it becomes a he said/she said deal (where the officer has the benefit of the doubt)?
Maybe, maybe not. Any reading from a speed measuring device, whether it was radar, pace, lidar, or whatever, will be admitted into evidence in the form of the officer's testimony. What you term a "he said/she said" deal. No such device prints out a receipt with your speed on it.

And just to confuse you further, all speeding citations are based on the officer's visual estimation of you traveling at an illegal speed. The speed measuring device is simply used to confirm that estimate.
In my case, would it be a strong argument if I contested the ticket based on a combination of the approximation of the officer writing the ticket and the absolute versus presumed speed limits (I could indeed have been going less than 7-8 mph above the 65 mph speed limit)? This doesn’t seem like a strong argument; yet, I believe it is a valid argument.
You are correct. It's not a strong argument. It's rather weak. You could even call it 'tepid'.
Fourth, I understand that if I do contest the ticket (hoping the officer decides not to show up) and the officer does indeed show up, before the trial begins I may plead no contest and take traffic school.
It's likely that you'll be offered that at the initial appearance. If you refuse it, and proceed to trial, that offer would most probably be off the table on trial day.
And before all the trolls come by and say I should swallow the pill like an adult, my response is, “Thank you.” Nonetheless, I am not interested in that advice, so please save your key taps.
If you prefer not to swallow any pills, ask the prosecutor if it comes in liquid or suppository form.

You're welcome.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Curt pretty much answered the questions you asked.

As for Traffic School, this is generally offered prior to taking the stand at court. If you wish to take traffic school, then you wil have to do that before you take the stand at trial.

In CA it usually works like this - after the roll is called, the court will annnounce that anyone who wishes to change their plea from "not guilty" to "guilty" or "no contest" may opt for traffic school if they are eligible. They will further advise that the option of traffic school may not be available after trial. In my experience, it is very rarely offered after trial ... but this may differ by jurisdiction.

If you want traffic school, be ready to take it on the day of trial if the officer shows.

- Carl
 

insidereye

Junior Member
CdwJava said:
If you want traffic school, be ready to take it on the day of trial if the officer shows.
Thanks. My understanding is that the court has roll call to see if all defendants and officers, etc. are present? So if I await roll call on day of trial and the officer is not present during roll call is my case dismissed immediately during roll call, immediately after roll call, or dismissed whenever my case is called upon the court?

Also, no response yet on change of venue. After doing more research, it is my understanding that one may request a change of venue from the citing officer before one signs the notice to appear--if refused, officer must note on ticket that you requested a change of venue. I also understand one may also file a motion to change venue to a judge. Again, has anyone tried this yet?

LS
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
insidereye said:
Thanks. My understanding is that the court has roll call to see if all defendants and officers, etc. are present? So if I await roll call on day of trial and the officer is not present during roll call is my case dismissed immediately during roll call, immediately after roll call, or dismissed whenever my case is called upon the court?
It may vary where you are, but they could make the request for a change of plea PRIOR to calling the roll. When they do ask they will ask for those that wish to dispose of their matters to stand or come forwward. Those cases are generally handled first so the parties can leave.


Also, no response yet on change of venue.
This can generally only be done at the time of the stop. However, it is my understanding that if you make a timely motion (usually before the first court date) to change venue to the county seat it might be granted. You can always ask about this at your initial arraignment if it's too late to try and figure out how to file a proper motion.

- Carl
 

insidereye

Junior Member
Just thought I would update the change of venue issue with some information I found from this forum. Thanks to I AM ALWAYS LIABLE for posting this ages ago.

Change of Venue Motion

If I decide to dispute this ticket I have decided on a strategy.

1. Send in written Not Guilty Please with request for Trial by Declaration
2. Request Discovery of officer's notes, calibration and maintenance of speedometer, and any witnesses being called (if not received within 15 days, send court order for Discovery)
3. If I fail to receive Discovery include that in my Trial by Declaration and request a dismisal of case; If I receive Discovery see if everything is correct, if not use in my Trial by Declaration
5. If found guilty, request trial de novo
6. File Motion of Change of Venue
7. If request granted or not granted, show up on appointed date of trial
8. If officer shows up for roll call, plead no contest and take traffic school

All told, besides taking a bit of time and perhaps an increase in fine (if I lose Trial by Declaration) this strategy seems relatively safe.

I hope this helps others who are looking for ways to fight speeding tickets.


LS
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top