Speed trap defense, local road definition

[MikeMc5506]

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

I'm appealing a conviction for speeding. The basis for the appeal includes what I believe is an incorrect judgement about how the uninterupted length of a street or road is measured. The judge (actually supervisor) contended that interuptions include intersections, not just traffic signals or stop signs, and therefore the road is local and not subject to the need for a traffic survey. Section 40802b states that interuptions "Shall include traffic control signals" which might leave open the possibility of other measurements.

The judge stated that "Considerable legislative research has been done by the court" to determine this ruling.

How can I find (on line hopefully) this legislative history?

Anybody had experience with this specific definition of a local street or road?

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

 

[mk3377]

http://www.fight-the-speeding-ticket.com/dnload2367/StateCaseLaws.zip you could try this link and download the zip file which i believe is free. but it almost sounds like this is a kangaroo court-type ruling where the judges will say anything convenient to get the "ruling" they desire... unfortunately the courts are more corrupt than people know.

other links
Introduction

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/speedlaws501/Content_SPEED.htm

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/speedlaws501/summary_schoolzone.htm

Problems with Police Radar.

 

[MikeMc5506]

Thanks for the reply. I read all the cases, but none of them deal with the specific definition of a local street. My next step is to the library to see the anotated vechicle codes for that particular section 40802 (b) (1) (B).

The question is whether intersections with no stop signs or traffic lights can be considered as an interuption.

Another question from 40802 (b) is the statement "A local street means a street that primarily provides acess to abutting residential property". I was ticketed on a street that is a major thoroughfare, with zero residential driveways on the side of the road I was traveling for the 1/4 mile before the CHP radar car, and only 9 driveways on the other side.

How can I prove the road is not a local road?

 

[Maestro64]

There are a few people here who know the CA laws, however, I do believe the CA Speed Trap Law applies to any road, I do not think CA makes any sort of distinction. I am sure the one who know for sure will comment.

 

[JIMinCA]

OK, here is the definition of local road:

40802(b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is
defined by the latest functional usage and federal-aid system maps
submitted to the federal Highway Administration, except that when
these maps have not been submitted, or when the street or road is not
shown on the maps, a "local street or road" means a street or road
that primarily provides access to abutting residential property and
meets the following three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length.
Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as
defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.

So, the first issue is that the state should have the burden to show that the road is NOT shown on the federal-aid system maps. This must be shown before the other definitions are considered.

Next, the interuptions include traffic control signals as defined here:

445. An "official traffic control signal" is any device, whether
manually, electrically or mechanically operated, by which traffic is
alternately directed to stop and proceed and which is erected by
authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction.

So, are you saying that there were no stop signs or other traffic control signals at the intersections? If not, that is good for you.

Finally, a nice picture showing the lack of residential properties would be helpful also.

You need to keep in mind that the state had the burden to prove that this was a local road. You did NOT have the burden to disprove it. Therefore, if all of the elements above were not addressed, then the state simply did not meet its burden of proof and the court erred in its ruling. Your appeal should be from that perspective... keeping the burden on the state. Truth is... it doesn' t matter if it is a local road or not... what matters is if the prosecution proved that it was at trial. So, you can argue that they didn't meet the burden of proof AND that they couldn't have met that burden because the road does not meet the definition of local.

 

[MikeMc5506]

Thanks for the reply. My defense, and appeal boils down to the definition of interuption in determining if a street or road is local. The Vehicle Code 40802 b 1 B says a local road is "Not more that 1/2 mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions SHALL INCLUDE official traffic control signals...." Which leaves open the possibility of including other measurements as well.

I argued during trial that the road (Lopez Road) had 1.3 miles of uninterrupted length measuerd between stop signs. The officer testified that it was a local road, and not subject to the traffic survey because there was a stop sign within less that 1/2 mile of his radar car. I objected based on the VC definition. The judge took over and questioned the officer about where the interesections were relative to his patrol car, and then said that "interuptions" included intersections not just traffic signals, and that it was less than 1/2 mile between intersections where I was stopped. Further, he stated the court has done significant research on the legislative history of this issue, that Lopez was a local road and no traffic survey was required. End of trial!

I was also refused the opportunity to make a final argument, which is also grounds for appeal.

 

[JIMinCA]

Don't get in such a hurry. As I said before, your first argument is that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the road was not in the federal aid system maps (assuming that is correct). That is the first burden the prosecution had to overcome. Once that was established, then the issues of uninterupted length and residences come into play.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I was ticketed on a street that is a major thoroughfare, with zero residential driveways on the side of the road I was traveling for the 1/4 mile before the CHP radar car, and only 9 driveways on the other side.

How can I prove the road is not a local road?

You can't. The road, and although itis divided (partitioned) into lanes (parts), some of these lanes (parts) are headed in one direction while the other lanes (parts) are headed in the other direction, the sum of all these parts makes up the road.

So saying "there ware no residential driveways on your side of the road" while "there are 9 residential driveways on the other side of the road"... Your side and the other side make up the road.

So using that argument might not get you what you're after.

 

[MikeMc5506]

Well but, This from the California Vehicle Code which relates to where a prima facia speed limit of 25 mph can be posted. It's an important part of my defense as the section of the road where I was ticketed doesn't even meet this ordiance. It's the uninterrupted length from 40802 b that is the center argument, whether that's measured between traffic control devices like stop signs and traffic lights or just intersections with out such. Thanks for you input.

515. A "residence district" is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A residence district may be longer than one-quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists.

 

[MikeMc5506]

Don't get in such a hurry. As I said before, your first argument is that the prosecution failed to demonstrate that the road was not in the federal aid system maps (assuming that is correct). That is the first burden the prosecution had to overcome. Once that was established, then the issues of uninterupted length and residences come into play.

I didn't lean on the statement in the VC "40802(b) (1) (For purposes of this section, a local street or road is defined by the latest functional usage and federal-aid system maps submitted to the federal Highway Administration, except that when these maps have not been submitted, or when the street or road is not shown on the maps,)" during my defense because it is ambiguos. I already knew it's not listed because it's a private road owned by Pebble Beach Corp. So the argument is of no consequence since the prosecution would just go to the next argument which is 40802 b 1 B definition of a local road. Thanks for your persistent inputs! I spent all afternoon in the local county law library and became convinced I have a pretty good case for appeal.

 

[JIMinCA]

I think you do have a good case, but I don't want you to throw away a potentially good argument. Just because you knew the road wasn't listed did not relieve the prosecution from establishing that fact. Since that fact wasn't established by the prosecution, the court erred in finding that the road was a local road.

I'm not saying that your argument doesn't have merit. I'm saying use ALL of your arguments.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Well but, This from the California Vehicle Code which relates to where a prima facia speed limit of 25 mph can be posted. It's an important part of my defense as the section of the road where I was ticketed doesn't even meet this ordiance. It's the uninterrupted length from 40802 b that is the center argument, whether that's measured between traffic control devices like stop signs and traffic lights or just intersections with out such. Thanks for you input.

515. A "residence district" is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A residence district may be longer than one-quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists.

Not sure if this post was in reply to my previous one. If it is, I was only rebutting your definition of a local road as it relates to residential driveways on your side versus the other side of the SAME ROAD.

Like Jim said, you seem to be struggling with all these minor issues of each definition of each term used when in fact, there is the ONE major issue that clearly states how to resolve your question.

Step back and look at the whole picture for a while... Or take a break and rest your mind a bit...

 

[MikeMc5506]

Not sure if this post was in reply to my previous one. If it is, I was only rebutting your definition of a local road as it relates to residential driveways on your side versus the other side of the SAME ROAD.

Like Jim said, you seem to be struggling with all these minor issues of each definition of each term used when in fact, there is the ONE major issue that clearly states how to resolve your question.

Step back and look at the whole picture for a while... Or take a break and rest your mind a bit...

Wish I'd have discovered this forum before the trial. Those are helpful inputs from both of you. Now that I'm in appeal, from what I've read, I'm obligated to focus on the prejudicial errors during the trial and can't introduce any new evidence. I'm stuck with the testimony during trial, and the only objections I made were related to that local road definition about interruptions, and the denial of my closing argument.

Maybe I am misreading this flip floping statement in 40802 about the local road being registered with the Federal Highway Administration. I read it as if the road is registered as local, end of argument and I'm toast. It it is not, then it still could be a local road and you go to the next criteria in that same section: A. Roadway width of <40 feet, B. < 1/2 mile of uninterrupted length, C. Not more than one lane of traffic in each direction. I could put that argument in the appeal, and make the point that the officer failed to prove it, but if I'm reading it correctly, I'm not getting how it helps at this stage. Is your's and Jim's interpretation from court experience or how you read the sentence?

Thanks for sticking with me on this!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

... and the denial of my closing argument.

Wanna elaborate on that part?

Maybe I am misreading this flip floping statement in 40802 about the local road being registered with the Federal Highway Administration. I read it as if the road is registered as local, end of argument and I'm toast. It it is not, then it still could be a local road and you go to the next criteria in that same section: A. Roadway width of <40 feet, B. < 1/2 mile of uninterrupted length, C. Not more than one lane of traffic in each direction. I could put that argument in the appeal, and make the point that the officer failed to prove it, but if I'm reading it correctly, I'm not getting how it helps at this stage.

It is not a flip flopping statement. It says that a street or a road is defined as a "Local Road" if:

Line 1. Is it shown on latest "functional usage and federal-aid system maps"?

If "yes" then it is a "Local Road";
If "NO" then go to line 2

Line 2. Does it a street or road primarily provide access to abutting residential property?
If "YES" then go to line 3.
If 'NO" then it is "NOT" a local road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 3. Is is "LESS" than 40 feet wide?
If "YES" (meaning it is "LESS" than 40 feet wide") then go to line 4.
If "NO" (meaning it is "MORE" than 40 feet wide") then it is NOT a local road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 4. Is it "LESS" than 1/2 mile of "uninterrupted length"?
If "YES" (meaning it is "LESS" than 1/2 a mile of "uninterrupted length") then go to line 5.
If "YES" (meaning it is "MORE" than 1/2 a mile of "uninterrupted length") then it is NOT a local road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 5. Is it one lane in each direction?
If "YES" (meaning it only has one lane in each direction) then it is a local road.
If "NO" (meaning it has two or more lanes in each direction) then it is "NOT" a local road.
---THE END-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is your's and Jim's interpretation from court experience or how you read the sentence?

I can only speak for myself. And my answer is "NO".

 

[JIMinCA]

I think IGB is hitting the nail on the head. The issue is that the prosecution had the burden of establishing a prima facie case, which they did not since they never answered "line 1".