VC 22350 - w/o Radar or Pace

[TicketJust]

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

I was cited for unsafe speed in San Francisco. The officer approximated my speed at 45mph. Needless to say, this is not an accurate estimate of my speed. On my citation the officer indicated that the Max Speed on the roadway is 30mph. However, there are signs clearly indicating the speed limit is 35mph.

When the officer observed my vehicle, his vehicle was stopped at a light, on a street perpendicular to my line of travel. In other words, I was traveling eastbound and his vehicle was facing north. When the officer was speaking with me, I asked him how fast I was traveling. All he responded with was, "too fast." Basically, he had no evidence of my actual speed other than his brief observation of my car passing in front of him. Does the law allow an officer to make this type of observation of my speed?

Furthermore, the Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350, states: "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."

On my citation, the officer fails to note any of these relevant conditions. I can attest that the road was dry with clear visibility and traffic was very light at the time of my stop. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions when I was stopped.

--------------------------------

My real question here is:

Do I have a case based on unreasonable approximation of my speed?

Thanks!

 

[CdwJava]

Exceeding the posted speed limit is a prima facie violation of CVC 22350. That means that the burden falls back on you to prove, at trial, that given the conditions at the time your speed was NOT unsafe.

The issue of the visual speed estimate is certainly a valid form of inquiry at trial. But, if the officer is radar qualified, then he is also trained and certified at visual estimation. Even if not radar certified, the court may decide that the officer's training and experience is sufficient for him to make such an estimate.

- Carl

 

[TicketJust]

That means that the burden falls back on you to prove, at trial, that given the conditions at the time your speed was NOT unsafe.

Even if not radar certified, the court may decide that the officer's training and experience is sufficient for him to make such an estimate.

- Carl

So, I have to prove each of the following?

- road was dry
- clear visibility
- traffic was very light
- persons or property were not endangered

Given that these were the conditions at the time I was stopped, what evidence would the court accept as proof?

Weather report from that evening?

Any thoughts as to how I can prove persons or property were not endangered?
The roadway is four lanes wide and straight, providing lots of visibility.

 

[CdwJava]

So, I have to prove each of the following?

- road was dry
- clear visibility
- traffic was very light
- persons or property were not endangered

Given that these were the conditions at the time I was stopped, what evidence would the court accept as proof?

Pictures of the street at about the same time of day might help, plus your testimony of the observed conditions.

Weather report from that evening?

Sure.

Any thoughts as to how I can prove persons or property were not endangered?

All you can really do is testify as to your observations - much the same the officer will do. It's likely he might agree with you on at least some elements of the issue - perhaps traffic, weather, unobstructed view, or the like. He may disagree with the speed of other traffic or the presence of pedestrians and such, but you won't know until trial.

You can also try a trial by written declaration first and then go for the court trial if you lose the TBWD.


- Carl

 

[TicketJust]

Thanks for the help Carl. I will be requesting a TBD.

Here is the statement I will be providing:
---------------
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.

The facts of my case are as follows: While driving east bound on Geary at 9:14pm on 3-08-2009, I was stopped by SFPD Officer ____ (I.D.#___) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. Officer ____ has alleged that I was driving approximately 45mph in a 30mph zone based on an observed estimation. The officer did not accurately estimate my speed because the perpendicular orientation of Officer ____ vehicle to my line of travel could not have allowed him to do so. Furthermore, Officer ____ was unaware that the posted maximum speed for Geary is 35 mph, (indicated by the incorrect notation on my Notice to Appear) providing evidence that the officer was not aware of the Safe and Reasonable speed for Geary St. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions at the time of my stop, and was therefore not in violation of the Basic Speed Law

The Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350, states: "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."

On my citation, the officer fails to note any of these relevant conditions. I can attest that the road was dry with clear visibility and traffic was very light at the time of my stop. Attached is a weather report from that evening showing that San Francisco weather conditions at the time I was stopped were dry with visibility of approximately 10 miles. Additionally, the section of Geary I was traveling on is four lanes wide, straight and has no side streets from which cars can suddenly appear. I have attached an image of the roadway for your reference.

Based on this evidence, I know that I was not in violation of the Basic Speed Law at the time and place of my citation and, pursuant to the common sense spirit of CVC 22350, contest that my speed at the time of my traffic stop was therefore not per se unlawful as I was not endangering life and property.
--------------

Thoughts anyone?

 

[Jim_bo]

That's pretty good. I don't think I'd change much as it really doesn't matter. If the judge is predisposed to a guilty verdict for a TBWD (as most are), you are going to be found guilty. If you are, you should request a Trial de Novo and have your case heard in court.

You should pay attention to what Carl has said. You have two elements to your defense:

1. You can raise reasonable doubt that your speed exceeded the posted speed limit. Your perpendicular observation is a good argument. Maybe a couple of illustrations and some trigonometry to show that your speed would be constantly changing to the perspective of the officer will demonstrate how difficult it is to make an accurate estimation of speed from his vantage point. If you loose this point and the judge says the officer proved your speed to be above the posted limit, then:

2. Your speed did not endanger persons or property. The best way to explain how to do this defense is to simply refer you to: 30 Questions

 

[I_Got_Banned]

If I may... I think your arguments are less than solid... Here is what I mean:

The officer did not accurately estimate my speed because the perpendicular orientation of Officer ____ vehicle to my line of travel could not have allowed him to do so.

Unless you can provide some sort of citation that a trained officer is unable to visually estimate a vehicles speed from a perpendicular standpoint, then this line is pointless.A trained officer, and one can safely assume that the citing officer herewas sufficiently trained, has received training to estimate speed from a variety of different standpoints; perpendicular, being one of them. Personally, I would venture to guess that a perpendicular position gives an officer the best ability to estimate speed, but that is a layman's opinion.

On my citation, the officer fails to note any of these relevant conditions. I can attest that the road was dry with clear visibility and traffic was very light at the time of my stop.

That is good. However, you have no idea what notations the officer might have in his personal notes (which they typically write on the back of his copy ofthe citation). So until you can hear him testify in court and assuming he makes no mention of those conditions, then your point is inneffective. You can, by the way, request a copy of the officer's copy of the citation via what is referred to as an "Informal Discovery Request".

Based on this evidence, I know that I was not in violation of the Basic Speed Law at the time and place of my citation and, pursuant to the common sense spirit of CVC 22350

Laws do not necesserily have to meet a certain "common sense spirit". After all, what might seem as common sense to you might be different than what it means to me!

I was not endangering life and property.

You offeed nothing that proves or disproves that... You might want to jog your memory as to the number and distance you were from other vehicles; and the presence or lackthereof of any pedestrians that you might have endangered.

I'm sure other will chime in as well... Good luck!

 

[TicketJust]

Thanks for the advise. I'll make a couple tweaks to the statement and proceed with the TBD. I'll post the outcome!

Thanks...