what do you think about my defense?

[evor1]

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

First a question regarding trial by written declaration. If I do it and am still found guilty, am I still given the option of taking traffic school?

Anyways I got a ticket for speeding due to being in a school zone. I was traveling around 35 MPH (the normal speed limit) down the road next to a high school. I travel this way everyday and there are never any students present. This was at around 7:50 AM. This school starts at 7:15 AM which is why I never see any students, they are already in class. Since the sign states 25 MPH only when children are present so I continued on at my normal speed. However I was still pulled over. Officer claimed there was a student waiting at the intersection stop light to cross the street.

OKay yes technically i can be pulled over since even 1 student will cause the 25 MPH speed limit to be in effect. However I find this ridiculous. I think it was the intentions of lawmakers to implement the 25 MPH speed limit to slow down traffic when an abnormally high amount of pedestrians are present, typically before and after school, not for simply 1 or 2 lone children. If this were the case, it would be deemed unsafe to travel above 25 MPH on any street in the city when a child is present which is a common occurrence. Now if I can show that my speed is safe for the given conditions then I should be found not guilty according to basic speed law VC 22350. (that is the VC written on my ticket)

Lets take the same exact situation and change the day to a saturday. The 25 MPH speed limit would not be in effect and my speed would have been considered safe for the present conditions. So how can my speed be considered unsafe when I was pulled over if the environmental conditions are exactly the same? My vehicle posed no threat to a student who is on the opposite side of the street, waiting for the light to change. Not to mention we are talking about a high school student who is well aware of their surroundings, not some little grade school kid who may run into the street without looking.

Now I have a question on whether or not I should talk about this in my defense. When i was pulled over the officer said i was doing 37 MPH (He didnt write a speed down on the ticket). Now lets say the judge agrees with me that the original 35 MPH speed limit is safe for these conditions. Is he going to be a stickler and see that the officer claimed I was doing 2 MPH over and still find me guilty? Should I include a part in my defense discrediting the officers determination of my speed? Its certainly possible that the radar can be off by 2 MPH. Manufacturers admit themselves there is a measure of uncertainty in the readings. Does anyone know exactly what the uncertainty is for police radars? I am guessing maybe around 1 or 2 MPH? Not to mention real world conditions will make a radar less accurate than when they are tested in a laboratory and can certainly attribute to giving a slightly higher than actual reading.

 

[The Occultist]

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

First a question regarding trial by written declaration. If I do it and am still found guilty, am I still given the option of taking traffic school?

The option of traffic school is generally removed from the table once you decide to fight.

Anyways I got a ticket for speeding due to being in a school zone. I was traveling around 35 MPH (the normal speed limit) down the road next to a high school. I travel this way everyday and there are never any students present. This was at around 7:50 AM. This school starts at 7:15 AM which is why I never see any students, they are already in class. Since the sign states 25 MPH only when children are present so I continued on at my normal speed. However I was still pulled over. Officer claimed there was a student waiting at the intersection stop light to cross the street.

That sucks.

OKay yes technically i can be pulled over since even 1 student will cause the 25 MPH speed limit to be in effect. However I find this ridiculous.

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what the judge thinks.

I think it was the intentions of lawmakers to implement the 25 MPH speed limit to slow down traffic when an abnormally high amount of pedestrians are present, typically before and after school, not for simply 1 or 2 lone children.

Only judges are allowed to interpret laws, not you.

If this were the case, it would be deemed unsafe to travel above 25 MPH on any street in the city when a child is present which is a common occurrence.

No, just where there is a higher potential for a child to be there. Woah, crazy, 25mph is the typical residential speed limit; I wonder why?

Now if I can show that my speed is safe for the given conditions then I should be found not guilty according to basic speed law VC 22350. (that is the VC written on my ticket)

That's up to the judge. Oh, by the way, judges really hate it when people try to play lawyer.

Lets take the same exact situation and change the day to a saturday.

Please don't.

The 25 MPH speed limit would not be in effect and my speed would have been considered safe for the present conditions.

That's because children are less likely to be hanging around school on a Saturday.

So how can my speed be considered unsafe when I was pulled over if the environmental conditions are exactly the same?

See above.

My vehicle posed no threat to a student who is on the opposite side of the street, waiting for the light to change. Not to mention we are talking about a high school student who is well aware of their surroundings, not some little grade school kid who may run into the street without looking.

Take that up with your legislatures.

Now I have a question on whether or not I should talk about this in my defense. When i was pulled over the officer said i was doing 37 MPH (He didnt write a speed down on the ticket). Now lets say the judge agrees with me that the original 35 MPH speed limit is safe for these conditions. Is he going to be a stickler and see that the officer claimed I was doing 2 MPH over and still find me guilty?

It's possible.

Should I include a part in my defense discrediting the officers determination of my speed?

You? Absolutely not. If you wish for this to happen, bring a lawyer with you.

Its certainly possible that the radar can be off by 2 MPH. Manufacturers admit themselves there is a measure of uncertainty in the readings. Does anyone know exactly what the uncertainty is for police radars? I am guessing maybe around 1 or 2 MPH? Not to mention real world conditions will make a radar less accurate than when they are tested in a laboratory and can certainly attribute to giving a slightly higher than actual reading.

When an officer is trained on using RADAR, they are not actually being trained on how to use the device, but rather they are trained on how to determine your speed visually; the RADAR is there for confirmation.

If you wish to challenge the calibration, there are millions of posts on this site on how to do that in CA, so go ahead and use the search function.

I really don't recommend you attempting to fight this without a traffic attorney. A local attorney knows best what the courts want to hear (and also tend to have a decent rapport with the DA's office, assuming they're any good), and as such present the highest potential for yielding the most favorable results. Many attorneys will offer free/cheap consultations, so you should take advantage of that and sit down with a couple to see what insight they may have to offer.

 

[Maestro64]

Some semantics,

Does the sign say Student or Students,

If it is students then one person standing at a signal is does not meet the plural requirement of being more than one.

Next, because someone is standing there it does not automatically make them a student, it could have been anyone standing there. Did the officer verify that this one person standing there was in fact a student, the person could have been 19 or 20 thus no longer in school and therefore no longer a student.

I personally would focus on those facts and less about the 2mph over the 35MPH. Did you get a copy of the officers ticket to see what he wrote on the back, he might not even noted anything about your actual speed.

If you are going to attach the radar evidence it is not work doing in a TBD since it really requires you to be fact to face to attack whether it was properly used.

Just my 2 cents worth

Lastly, you might want to check out radardetector.net since there is few people there who know CA traffic laws really well and understand the use of Radar

 

[cyjeff]

Anyways I got a ticket for speeding due to being in a school zone. I was traveling around 35 MPH (the normal speed limit) down the road next to a high school. I travel this way everyday and there are never any students present. This was at around 7:50 AM. This school starts at 7:15 AM which is why I never see any students, they are already in class. Since the sign states 25 MPH only when children are present so I continued on at my normal speed. However I was still pulled over. Officer claimed there was a student waiting at the intersection stop light to cross the street.

OKay yes technically i can be pulled over since even 1 student will cause the 25 MPH speed limit to be in effect.

There you go.

However I find this ridiculous.

Your opinion of the law makes no difference.

I think it was the intentions of lawmakers to implement the 25 MPH speed limit to slow down traffic when an abnormally high amount of pedestrians are present, typically before and after school, not for simply 1 or 2 lone children.

Are you psychic? If not, I would not say that you can read the minds of lawmakers.

Especially, since the speeds are there to protect CHILDREN... even only one or two. Even in areas where there ARE no pedestrians.

If this were the case, it would be deemed unsafe to travel above 25 MPH on any street in the city when a child is present which is a common occurrence.

We call those "residential".

Residential streets have a speed limit of 25 MPH.

Now if I can show that my speed is safe for the given conditions then I should be found not guilty according to basic speed law VC 22350. (that is the VC written on my ticket)

I don't understand.

You are going to say that since you were only endangering ONE child that the law shouldn't be in effect upon you?

Lets take the same exact situation and change the day to a saturday.

Okay, on a day when children are not assumed to be present.

The 25 MPH speed limit would not be in effect and my speed would have been considered safe for the present conditions. So how can my speed be considered unsafe when I was pulled over if the environmental conditions are exactly the same?

Because the conditions were not the same.

My vehicle posed no threat to a student who is on the opposite side of the street, waiting for the light to change. Not to mention we are talking about a high school student who is well aware of their surroundings, not some little grade school kid who may run into the street without looking.

You, apparently, know different student than I do.

And your assessment will mean nothing to the court.

Now I have a question on whether or not I should talk about this in my defense. When i was pulled over the officer said i was doing 37 MPH (He didnt write a speed down on the ticket). Now lets say the judge agrees with me that the original 35 MPH speed limit is safe for these conditions. Is he going to be a stickler and see that the officer claimed I was doing 2 MPH over and still find me guilty?

From what you have said, I would think you will be charged with 12 over in a school zone.

Should I include a part in my defense discrediting the officers determination of my speed? Its certainly possible that the radar can be off by 2 MPH. Manufacturers admit themselves there is a measure of uncertainty in the readings. Does anyone know exactly what the uncertainty is for police radars? I am guessing maybe around 1 or 2 MPH? Not to mention real world conditions will make a radar less accurate than when they are tested in a laboratory and can certainly attribute to giving a slightly higher than actual reading.

This whole paragraph is useless.

You are assuming you can convince a judge that you can speed in a school zone when only one or two children are in danger.

That would be incorrect.

The only part in your defense would be if the sign had to have a blinking light.... was the blinking light on? or, is the school zone attached to a specific time... what was that time frame?

If the blinking light was on and/or you were there during the designated time, you lose.

 

[Maestro64]

Ops double post not sure how that happen

 

[The Occultist]

Some semantics,

Does the sign say Student or Students,

If it is students then one person standing at a signal is does not meet the plural requirement of being more than one.

Next, because someone is standing there it does not automatically make them a student, it could have been anyone standing there. Did the officer verify that this one person standing there was in fact a student, the person could have been 19 or 20 thus no longer in school and therefore no longer a student.

I personally would focus on those facts and less about the 2mph over. Did you get a copy of the officers ticket to see what he wrote on the back, he might not even noted anything about your actual speed.

If you are going to attach the radar evidence it is not work doing in a TBD since it really requires you to be fact to face to attack whether it was properly used.

Just my 2 cents worth

Are you serious??

I was going to multi-quote your post to nitpick details, but I decided the whole thing is hogwash.

 

[Jim_bo]

first... yes, you can ask for traffic school after failing in a TBWD.

Now... if you were written for 22350, you were NOT written for a school zone. That is a different section of the VC. If the officer did not put down a speed on your ticket, that makes things interesting. If you were going over the PF speed limit (i.e. 35mph), you are presumed to be guilty of 22350 unless you can show that your speed did not create a danger to persons or property. However, if you were under the PF limit, then it is the burden of the prosecution to show how your speed endangered persons or property.

Then there is the issue of speed traps.

You should review VC sections 22350, 22351, 40800 - 40805

 

[evor1]

it was vc22350 and he wrote (school zone) next to it

What should I do then to pay as little as possible? SHould I just go to court and ask for a reduced fine and traffic school?

 

[evor1]

Some semantics,

Does the sign say Student or Students,

If it is students then one person standing at a signal is does not meet the plural requirement of being more than one.

Next, because someone is standing there it does not automatically make them a student, it could have been anyone standing there. Did the officer verify that this one person standing there was in fact a student, the person could have been 19 or 20 thus no longer in school and therefore no longer a student.

I personally would focus on those facts and less about the 2mph over the 35MPH. Did you get a copy of the officers ticket to see what he wrote on the back, he might not even noted anything about your actual speed.

If you are going to attach the radar evidence it is not work doing in a TBD since it really requires you to be fact to face to attack whether it was properly used.

Just my 2 cents worth

Lastly, you might want to check out radardetector.net since there is few people there who know CA traffic laws really well and understand the use of Radar

I was thinking about that too. The officer would need a clear view of a persons face to be able to ascertain their age. If i argued that its unlikely that an officer is able to do this across 4 lanes of traffic while driving by at 35 MPH and determining the speed of my vehicle maybe that would be enough doubt? I mean we are talkign about high school students here who are nearly full grown.

 

[cyjeff]

I was thinking about that too. The officer would need a clear view of a persons face to be able to ascertain their age. If i argued that its unlikely that an officer is able to do this across 4 lanes of traffic while driving by at 35 MPH and determining the speed of my vehicle maybe that would be enough doubt? I mean we are talkign about high school students here who are nearly full grown.

I wouldn't do that.

It would be way too easy to turn this around on you... "So, you are saying that it was impossible, at 35, for the officer, a trained observer, to identify the teenager as a teenager, but YOU could tell that it was safe... and that the teenager was a teenager as opposed to a younger kid?"

 

[evor1]

Well I didnt even see anybody so Im not trying to argue that I saw the person and determined them to be over the age of 18. I just scanned down the block and saw nobody walking along the side walk. I guess this person either just arrived at the intersection from the cross street as I was coming to it or they were just standing next to the pole partially blocked.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Does the school have a fence or gate separating it from the street?

ETA: Never mind that, I missed where you said it's 22350

 

[The Occultist]

Well I didnt even see anybody

The judge will not like hearing this at all. Perhaps you didn't see anybody because you were going too fast?

I'm standing by my original advice: if you must fight it, do so with an attorney.

 

[Jim_bo]

OK... slow down and stop chasing your tail.

The 1 student vice students is irrelevant. You were not charged with a school zone violation. You were charged with violating the basic speed law (22350). It is irrelevant that the guy wrote "school zone" on the ticket.

Once you review the sections of the VC I told you to, you should come back here and ask relevant questions. 22350 is the EASIEST of all charges to beat. You DON'T need a lawyer to beat it.

 

[evor1]

Well okay since you say the school zone is irrelevant will my fine be normal rather than doubled?