 | | 
05-09-2008, 06:50 PM
| | Junior Member | | Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1
| | | Speed Trap (22350VC)
What is the name of your state? California
So these young kids were laughing and throwing coins at my car for fun while moving. I was ticked off so I decided to try and remove myself from the situation by "speeding" away. Fortunately, there were two mortorcycle cops that pulled both of us over. I explained the situation to the officer so he said that he would only write me up for going 55mph in a 40mph. He showed me the laser gun which displayed me actually going 63mph. So, there is a flaw between what the laser gun displayed and what the officer wrote on the ticket. Should I fight this ticket? If so, what are the odds of winning? |
05-09-2008, 06:58 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 10,149
| | | Would you rather be charged with your actual speed? The cop gave you a break.
__________________
It is our unanimous opinion that you are damn right and it should be obvious to any moron that your (ex) (SO’s ex) (boss) (landlord) (local police) should be immediately (jailed) (fired) (reprimanded) (arrested) (demoted) (shot) (evicted).
In fact, you are so astonishingly correct in this matter, it will not surprise us one bit if you are offered a generous settlement, because, by golly, that’s just how it should be.
You Rock,
Love,
Us
Last edited by Shay-Pari'e; 05-09-2008 at 09:24 PM.
|
05-09-2008, 08:39 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California
Posts: 15,427
| | | He saved you over $100 by citing you for 55.
If you wish to fight the citation, plead "not guilty" at the arraignment and go to trial.
- Carl
__________________
A Nor Cal. Cop Supervisor
"Make mine a double mocha ... and a croissant!"
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you: Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom! |
05-13-2008, 02:41 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: California
Posts: 180
| | | ... and if you do choose to fight it, don't fight it on the grounds that the officer cited you for going 55 in 40 as opposed to 63 in 40.
Find another reason to fight it... which from what you posted, isnt that difficult to do! And it being a "speed trap" isnt one of them. |
05-13-2008, 07:13 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,456
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by occharge  Find another reason to fight it... which from what you posted, isnt that difficult to do! | On what grounds would the OP fight it? If the OP was in such a dangerous situation, he should have slowed down, not sped up.
__________________
Due to popular demand, I have edited my signature:
I may have "Senior Member" status, but that's because I know more than you!  |
05-13-2008, 01:10 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 155
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by The Occultist On what grounds would the OP fight it? If the OP was in such a dangerous situation, he should have slowed down, not sped up. | When you are in a dangerous position if someone trowing things at you, YOU SLOW DOWN, next time you MIGHT see out the window is a gun barrel pointing at you, at this point you should STOP and wait for the cops right?  (please don't think that I am attacking your post, i'm not. It's just these days and time, I'm sure you would of not slow down or stop for that matter, right?)
As for the OP, why are you going even try to fight it, as mention you probably go no grounds to fight it on. You have a brake, take it and thank god for it. Did the police wright the kit a ticket for trowing coins at your car? or littering? or anything beside speeding?
Because if you both got speeding ticket, sounds to me like racing..
GL |
05-13-2008, 01:17 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13,316
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by OP85063 When you are in a dangerous position if someone trowing things at you, YOU SLOW DOWN, next time you MIGHT see out the window is a gun barrel pointing at you, at this point you should STOP and wait for the cops right? (please don't think that I am attacking your post, i'm not. It's just these days and time, I'm sure you would of not slow down or stop for that matter, right?) | This is an idiotic response. Instead of slowing down and letting the kids speed off, you suggest "racing" with the kids, adding fuel to the fire. Nice.
__________________
*
*
The information I gave is based on my 7 seconds of research on Google. Review the information yourself to make an informed decision. Also, the information I posted may no longer be accurate.
Communication is KEY - 10 mins of talking now can save you months of headaches later!
Masterfully stating the obvious to the oblivious! (Thanks SP!)
Tell it like it is! |
05-13-2008, 10:01 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: California
Posts: 180
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by The Occultist On what grounds would the OP fight it? | I'm no attorney but first, from what I understand, LASER citations are not difficult to beat. Second, He noted that the officer cited him for CVC22350 which states: Quote: |
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
| You're the attorney, right... I'm sure you can poke a hole or two in that code section...
It's true that the OP admitted to speeding, and I think he/she should pay the fine, I know I've paid my share... He should take traffic school (if he can) and put it all behind him but that's only my opinion... He has a right to fight it if he chooses... A right to be proven "guilty" in a court of law rather than just submit and "pay the fine"...  Quote:
Originally Posted by The Occultist If the OP was in such a dangerous situation, he should have slowed down, not sped up. | Why slow down and impede traffic behind him? Why not park his car, get out onto the sidewalk and take a chance at what those "KIDS" could have had in mind?
OP85063, I am with you 100%... As for why is the OP gonna try and fight it, have you ever heard of anyone getting a traffic ticket who has not vowed to fight it? My guess is that 80 to 90% of people end up pleading "guilty" paying the fine anyway... Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigner This is an idiotic response. | That is your opinion, right? Well, keep in mind that I usually am pretty impressed with your posts, however, this time, your response is more idiotic. Just my opinion!!! Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigner Instead of slowing down and letting the kids speed off, you suggest "racing" with the kids, adding fuel to the fire. Nice. | How do you know those kids would have sped up?
Also, OP85063 never suggested that the OP should have engaged those kids in a street race; he was eluding to the fact that the officer had given him an even BIGGER break than just a cut in the speed he noted on the citation.
Last edited by occharge; 05-14-2008 at 11:14 AM.
|
05-14-2008, 12:10 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California
Posts: 15,427
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by occharge I'm no attorney but first, from what I understand, LASER citations are not difficult to beat. | Only under certain circumstances ... generally, they can be a much more accurate tool than radar. Quote: |
Second, He noted that the officer cited him for CVC22350 which states:
| It is also the section used when exceeding the posted speed limit. Exceeding the posted limit is prima facie evidence if an unsafe speed and it forces the defendant to make the difficult argument that his actions were actually safe and prudent. Quote: |
He should take traffic school (if he can) and put it all behind him but that's only my opinion...
| It is also generally the wisest move to make.
- Carl
__________________
A Nor Cal. Cop Supervisor
"Make mine a double mocha ... and a croissant!"
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you: Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom! |
05-14-2008, 01:07 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13,316
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by occharge How do you know those kids would have sped up?
Also, OP85063 never suggested that the OP should have engaged those kids in a street race; | Get real.
OP should have slowed down. That's a basic fact and I'm sorry you can't grasp it.
__________________
*
*
The information I gave is based on my 7 seconds of research on Google. Review the information yourself to make an informed decision. Also, the information I posted may no longer be accurate.
Communication is KEY - 10 mins of talking now can save you months of headaches later!
Masterfully stating the obvious to the oblivious! (Thanks SP!)
Tell it like it is! |
05-14-2008, 09:37 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 155
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigner This is an idiotic response. Instead of slowing down and letting the kids speed off, you suggest "racing" with the kids, adding fuel to the fire. Nice. | yeah, you are driving, people trowing things at your car, and let me slow down so they can probably do more damage. Um.. Very Smart you must be indeed.
Hope if this ever happen to you and people trowing bullets at you, please do us all a favor and slow down.
I'll be the idiot try to get the hell out of there instead of slowing down like a smart person you are 
good luck to you |
05-14-2008, 11:23 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: California
Posts: 180
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by CdwJava ...It is also the section used when exceeding the posted speed limit. Exceeding the posted limit is prima facie evidence if an unsafe speed and it forces the defendant to make the difficult argument that his actions were actually safe and prudent....
- Carl |
I am not an attorney but am I mistaken in thinking that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove that the defendants actions, under the conditions when he did them, were actually neither safe nor prudent?
Also, i though that CVC22350 (which I quoted previously) makes no mention of a "posted speed limit" and is also refered to as "The basic Speed Law".... If we're gonna talk about "posted speed limit" and prima facie evidence... Then we're talking about other CVC sections...
Actually, what you stated there appears to be the same as what Quote: |
CVC section 22351.(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.
| Again, maybe I'm misreading something there... Still, I appreciate your response and respect your opinion...
Thank you Carl!  |
05-14-2008, 11:35 AM
| | Member | | Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: California
Posts: 180
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigner Get real. | Dude… I am real! For real!!! Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigner OP should have slowed down. | Irrelevant! Can I say that?
That is not the question that the OP is asking… That decision has been made… Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigner OP should have slowed down. That's a basic fact and I'm sorry you can't grasp it. | A “basic fact”? Where does it say that under the circumstances that the OP describes, that he/she should have slowed down? Does it say that in the California Driver’s handbook? Now that would have made it a “basic fact”…
Also, whether "I" grasp it or not is not the issue here... nor is it the topic that needs to be discussed in this thread.
The OP asked a question as to whether he should fight this citation and what his odds of winning would be?
Not really sure why is it that “some” people here feel the need to attack a thread like a pack of hungry wolves... All while some other threads and despite the fact that they were viewed by many, receive no responses whatsoever... (Example: [url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=405327[/url] = 66 views and not a single word posted in response... Now keep in mind that I found my answer so don't go out of your way).
My guess is that the latter, might require an answer that takes an effort, may be a little research… something other than "pay the fine" or "you already got your answer" or "why would you fight it"...
This is a "FORUM" isn’t it? And saying "this is my opinion, I am right, and everbody should agree with me" is a bit immature... You want me to agree with you? Convince me, don't force your opinion on me but more importantly, dont expect me to just accept it just because you have 8400+ posts...
Last edited by occharge; 05-14-2008 at 11:37 AM.
|
05-14-2008, 11:41 AM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13,316
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by occharge Dude… I am real! For real!!!
Irrelevant! Can I say that?
That is not the question that the OP is asking… That decision has been made…
A “basic fact”? Where does it say that under the circumstances that the OP describes, that he/she should have slowed down? Does it say that in the California Driver’s handbook? Now that would have made it a “basic fact”…
Also, whether "I" grasp it or not is not the issue here... nor is it the topic that needs to be discussed in this thread.
The OP asked a question as to whether he should fight this citation and what his odds of winning would be?
Not really sure why is it that “some” people here feel the need to attack a thread like a pack of hungry wolves... All while some other threads and despite the fact that they were viewed by many, receive no responses whatsoever... (Example: [url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=405327[/url] = 66 views and not a single word posted in response... Now keep in mind that I found my answer so don't go out of your way).
My guess is that the latter, might require an answer that takes an effort, may be a little research… something other than "pay the fine" or "you already got your answer" or "why would you fight it"...
This is a "FORUM" isn’t it? And saying "this is my opinion, I am right, and everbody should agree with me" is a bit immature... You want me to agree with you? Convince me, don't force your opinion on me but more importantly, dont expect me to just accept it just because you have 8400+ posts... | You're just a tad bit sour, aren't you?
My response to your prior thread: Your FTA is a separate matter from your original offense.
__________________
*
*
The information I gave is based on my 7 seconds of research on Google. Review the information yourself to make an informed decision. Also, the information I posted may no longer be accurate.
Communication is KEY - 10 mins of talking now can save you months of headaches later!
Masterfully stating the obvious to the oblivious! (Thanks SP!)
Tell it like it is! |
05-14-2008, 01:42 PM
| | Senior Member | | Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: California
Posts: 15,427
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by occharge I am not an attorney but am I mistaken in thinking that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove that the defendants actions, under the conditions when he did them, were actually neither safe nor prudent? | Because when a 'prima facie' fact under the law has been met, it becomes a rebuttable presumption returning the burden from the state to the defense.
From the CA Attorney General: The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in section 22352 (prima facie speed limits) or established as authorized in the Vehicle Code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law (reasonable or prudent).
The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in section 22352 or established in the Vehicle Code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law (Veh. Code, § 22350) at the time, place and under the conditions then existing. Quote: |
Also, i though that CVC22350 (which I quoted previously) makes no mention of a "posted speed limit" and is also refered to as "The basic Speed Law".... If we're gonna talk about "posted speed limit" and prima facie evidence... Then we're talking about other CVC sections...
| No, we're talking case law and the CVC. 22351(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima
facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in
this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by
competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not
constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and
under the conditions then existing.
It says, in a nutshell, if you go faster than the lawfully posted limit than that excess speed is proof "on its face" that the speed travelled was unsafe.
- Carl
__________________
A Nor Cal. Cop Supervisor
"Make mine a double mocha ... and a croissant!"
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you: Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom! | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | |
|
