CA Speed Trap Law Question

[davew128]

Fact of the matter is, when it comes to speed measuring devices, and for the purposes of deciding whether vehicle Code Section 40802 is applicable to a particular case/citation, a speedometer is NOT considered part of what is described as radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects; and obviously by the way the appeals court has interpreted that statement) it certainly is not what the legistlature had intended for that statement/description to mean.

We will have to agree to disagree. I continue to contend the issue has never been argued in the manner we are discussing. That doesn't mean it would win, but as a practicing tax accountant I have seen similar cases go to tax court with different outcomes on similar underlying facts because of a better argument based either on the facts or the law.

 

[Zigner]

Again - post back when your results...you will likely lose, but it's worth a shot, huh?

 

[davew128]

Again - post back when your results...you will likely lose, but it's worth a shot, huh?

I will absolutely let people here know the results but I have another month before I need to appear and post the $400 bail and I plan on waiting up until the last day to appear and then do my TBWD. I know its an uphill fight and I think its because of the general mindset of traffic court judges, not whats in the law. Again, I think I have a better chance of winning on the basic 22350 argument than on speed trap issues, but hey if I win on the speed trap issue, imagine the ramifications for other drivers. Which of course is likely the reason a judge would find any reason he can to find against me....

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Your abbreviated notes and my posted text only indicate the appellant argued against pacing in terms of a speed trap.

Dude, I posted every single word that was related to pacing… all the rest of the crap was regarding the 3 other grounds he tried to appeal upon.

In that regard, yes he was going to lose. Pacing in and of itself doesn't constitute a speed trap. What the officer uses to determine speed while pacing does.

Huh… Are you listening to yourself?
When an officer paces a vehicle, he get behind, next to or draws some sort of connection or reference to the vehicle he is pacing, speeds up (or slows down) until he can visually see that he is at the same speed as the other vehicle, then he glances down at his speedometer, reads the speed and makes a note of it.
That is what a PACE is!

From what little we've seen, that issue wasn't addressed.

The issue is nonexistent… i.e. there is not issue.

The judge was clearly wrong based on black letter law in regards to what the law says.

Wait, wait… FIRST: You’re suggesting that the trial court judge was wrong when he found the defendant guilty due to an invalid argument. Then the case went to the appeals court, where two judges issued a decision affirming the trial courts decision, and a third appellate judge concurred. All four of them are right, and yet you are right?
SECOND: you just said “that issue wasn’t addressed” so how could they be wrong about an issue that was not addressed!

I see nothing to indicate it has been tried at an appellate level. There is no case argued that I can find where anyone argued that a speedometer is an electronic device and therefore the speed trap law comes into play.

Could it be that the point is moot? Invalid? Does not fall within the scope of what the legislature intended for it to mean? And therefore no one would consider it as a valid argument…
But then again, I shouldn’t be that critical… And I assure you that I’ll be the first to congratulate you if you do somehow manage to convince the court of its validity.

Electronic speedometers didn't exist when this law was originally written. That they do now probably constitutes what I would consider a loophole. An exploitable one at that.

A judge might respond to that by saying then when the law was originally written, it did not include speedometers, and until someone makes an attempt to change it, the fact that it excludes them still stands.

There actually is or was a case pending where a kid called in the manufacturers of his car's GPS system as a rebuttal to the officer's RADAR. I know from my own experience that my GPS typically shows me at 2-3 MPH less than what my digital speedometer shows. Which is more accurate? Probably the GPS because the speedometer is based on assumed values for tire size which can fluctuate based on the age, wear, and brand of tire mounted to your wheel.

Are you trying to say that a tire wearing by fractions of an inch might affect the accuracy of speedometer MORE than a satellite that is pinpointing your location from miles away?

I guess anything is possible…

 

[davew128]

Dude, I posted every single word that was related to pacing… all the rest of the crap was regarding the 3 other grounds he tried to appeal upon.

Huh… Are you listening to yourself?
When an officer paces a vehicle, he get behind, next to or draws some sort of connection or reference to the vehicle he is pacing, speeds up (or slows down) until he can visually see that he is at the same speed as the other vehicle, then he glances down at his speedometer, reads the speed and makes a note of it.
That is what a PACE is!


The issue is nonexistent… i.e. there is not issue.

Wait, wait… FIRST: You’re suggesting that the trial court judge was wrong when he found the defendant guilty due to an invalid argument. Then the case went to the appeals court, where two judges issued a decision affirming the trial courts decision, and a third appellate judge concurred. All four of them are right, and yet you are right?
SECOND: you just said “that issue wasn’t addressed” so how could they be wrong about an issue that was not addressed!

Step back and read what's posted. Take a deep breath. Count to 1,000. Clearly you're too wrapped up in the outcome of the case and not what was argued. First, I never said anything about the trial court judge. Period. Second, the opinion in the appeal states a speed trap applies only to radar. ONLY RADAR. Not radar or any other electronic device capable of measuring speed such as LIDAR, no he said ONLY RADAR. That IS wrong on its face and in direct contradiction of black letter law. Now perhaps he meant radar and other electronic devices and referred to radar as a generic term. We don't know, but in reality it doesn't matter. The issue that wasn't raised is that the officer used an electronic device used to measure speed. If the appellant doesn't claim he did (or for all we know it was an older car with a mechanical speedometer), then its not a speed trap issue. His other somewhat offbeat arguments aside, thats why he lost. It's not up to the judges to be all knowing on all things. It's the appellant's responsibility to introduce evidence on his behalf. The burden is on him to show an electronic device was used, and he didn't. He didn't even argue the point. That doesn't mean the point is or would be invalid, it simply doesn't exist. If he had argued what I am attempting to do and got the same result, I wouldn't be here discussing it now.

I imagine the questioning went something like this:

It's a speedtrap.

Why is it a speed trap sir.

He was pacing me.

Pacing doesn't constitute a speed trap sir.

Uhh.....

Case closed. To make it a speed trap, one has to convice a judge that a speedometer is an electronic device. If one never even raises it as an issue, it'll never be ruled on. Let's face it, until somebody pointed it out to me on MY OWN THREAD_I_never knew it was an electronic device. I seriously doubt the appellant had ANY idea and its unlikely the judges do either. I doubt most non-mechanic types would.

Could it be that the point is moot? Invalid? Does not fall within the scope of what the legislature intended for it to mean? And therefore no one would consider it as a valid argument…
But then again, I shouldn’t be that critical… And I assure you that I’ll be the first to congratulate you if you do somehow manage to convince the court of its validity.

I think the intent of the legislature was VERY clear. Unfortunately for what you're trying to convince me of, intent of the law only comes into play when the law is ambiguous on its face. I don't see any ambiguity here, do you? It's pretty clear what the law says. A speedometer is an electronic device, ergo it falls under the speed trap law. If the legislature realizes the technology has progressed beyond the original terminology of the statute and they think the loophole should be closed, they will close it. These type of loopholes do pop up from time to time in the law as the world changes beyond the original written language of the statute.

Example: A few years ago, the Massachusetts law for responsible person for unpaid payroll taxes included sole proprietors, corporate officers, general partners, etc. It did NOT include members of an LLC. Why? LLCs didn't exist when the law was written. Unfortunately someone with a big mouth pointed it out to the legislature and a new statute was passed.

A judge might respond to that by saying then when the law was originally written, it did not include speedometers, and until someone makes an attempt to change it, the fact that it excludes them still stands.

I think that type of judicial opinion is more likely to be reversed the higher you go on the food chain, no? That's poor logic at best. It would effectively exclude anything other radar. It's not that speedometers were excluded when the law was written. It's that they were mechanical at the time and so not INCLUDED. Well now they're electronic and should be included.

Are you trying to say that a tire wearing by fractions of an inch might affect the accuracy of speedometer MORE than a satellite that is pinpointing your location from miles away?

Do you need to be educated on how both work? From Wikipedia: Speedometers are not totally accurate, and most speedometers have tolerances of some 10% plus or minus due to wear on tires as it occurs. Modern speedometers are said to be accurate within 10% but as this is legislated accuracy, this may not be entirely correct. This can make it difficult to accurately stay on the speed limits imposed; most countries allow for this known variance when using RADAR to measure speed, although levels of some 3 km/h or 3% are also used in areas of tough enforcement. This causes many arguments due to motorists complaining that they were not doing the speed as reported. Revenue is being increasingly blamed for these stricter measures. There are strict United Nations standards in place but it seems not being enforced leaving this matter in limbo for many countries. Excessive speedometer error after manufacture can come from several causes but most commonly is due to nonstandard tire diameter, in which case the

percent error = 100x("standard diameter"/"new diameter" - 1).
Nearly all tires now have their size shown as "T/A_W" on the side of the tire (See: Tire code), and the tire's

diameter in inches = TxA/1270 + W.
For example, a standard tire is "185/70R14" with diameter = 185x70/1270 + 14 = 24.196850 in. Another is "195/50R15" with 195x50/1270 + 15 = 22.677165 in. Replacing the first tire (and wheels) with the second (on 15" wheels), a speedometer reads 24.19*****22.67..=1.0670139 times the correct speed or 6.7% too high.


GPS: The position calculated by a GPS receiver requires the current time, the position of the satellite and the measured delay of the received signal. The position accuracy is primarily dependent on the satellite position and signal delay.

To measure the delay, the receiver compares the bit sequence received from the satellite with an internally generated version. By comparing the rising and trailing edges of the bit transitions, modern electronics can measure signal offset to within about one percent of a bit time, or approximately 10 nanoseconds for the C/A code. Since GPS signals propagate at the speed of light, this represents an error of about 3 meters.

Position accuracy can be improved by using the higher-chiprate P(Y) signal. Assuming the same one percent bit time accuracy, the high frequency P(Y) signal results in an accuracy of about 30 centimeters.

Electronics errors are one of several accuracy-degrading effects outlined in the table above. When taken together, autonomous civilian GPS horizontal position fixes are typically accurate to about 15 meters (50 ft). These effects also reduce the more precise P(Y) code's accuracy.

Bottom line, yes I would say GPS is more accurate, without a doubt. The margin of error is much smaller.

 

[JIMinCA]

Interesting debate, but I believe IGB is wrong. A black letter reading of the statute leaves no ambiguity. If a speedometer is not a device that measures speed of moving objects... then what the hell is it?? I think it is hard (and unreasonable) for the state to use the argument, "don't worry about what the legislature SAID, worry about what they were THINKING!!!"

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Do you need to be educated on how both work?

No Dave, no need for me to be educated on how either works? Certainly not from you!!!

If anybody NEEDS anything here its you... and you'd do so much better with a little more common sense.

You know I could have backed up your theory too... Sat back here and watched... Its not my $400 nor is it my license that will carry the point "when" you lose. But, I did the opposite... I even posted information that you didn't even bother looking for, you just assumed it wasn't there... And once it appeared, you disqualified it as erroneous and unfair. Suit yourself...

Good luck on your fighting your citation Dave... Although with your logic, luck will fall way short of helping you even come close to prevailing!

. . . Electronics errors are one of several accuracy-degrading effects outlined in the table above. . .

What table above?

Acting all educated, knowlegeable and verbose...

You know, I never mentioned this on here before, but my 5 year old nephew can copy and paste too...

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Interesting debate, but I believe IGB is wrong.

If I am wrong, I'll make sure its not my last time!!!

I think it is hard (and unreasonable) for the state to use the argument, "don't worry about what the legislature SAID, worry about what they were THINKING!!!"

It is even more difficult and far more unreasonable for you and Dave to assume that you can guess what they would have thought if they were to have enacted the law after speedometers became electronic.

 

[seniorjudge]

I think everyone on this thread is under the assumptions that legislators actually read laws before they are passed and that laws are written clearly so that everyone can understand them.


Both assumptions are wrong.


I suspect that laws are written poorly so lawyers will have lots of work!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I suspect that laws are written poorly so lawyers will have lots of work!

HAHAHAHAHA... true dat!

 

[Maestro64]

I think everyone on this thread is under the assumptions that legislators actually read laws before they are passed and that laws are written clearly so that everyone can understand them.


Both assumptions are wrong.


I suspect that laws are written poorly so lawyers will have lots of work!

Actually I do not assume this, It well known fact most legislators pass laws and have no clue whether the law is valid or constitutional, they will tell you it is not their job to do that but for the courts and lawyers to sort it all out. Fact is and we are all trying to figure out what their intent was behind a law or rule, that is a joke since the people who wrote many of them can not tell you themselves. So for anyone to say it is clear what the law means is only kidding themselves.

Face it people, legislators pass laws so they can tell the people they represent they are doing things for them, then when the courts toss it they tell those same people it is not their fault but the judges who tossed the law.

There is an area I lived where the local laws were so confusing that lawyers joked the laws were a job program for lawyers.

 

[davew128]

It is even more difficult and far more unreasonable for you and Dave to assume that you can guess what they would have thought if they were to have enacted the law after speedometers became electronic.

What they WOULD have thought is wholly irrelevant. In fact what they DID think is also WHOLLY IRRELEVANT. You're the one trying to get into a pissing match because those of use who read black letter law believe the law means what it says. The case you cited ISN'T ON POINT. What part of that did you not understand? Not only did the majority opinion incorrectly cite the statute , the issue I am raising wasn't introduced. There is a difference between arguing "I was paced, it's a speed trap" and "I was paced using an electronic device so its a speed trap". It's a shame you can't or won't understand such a fundamental difference.

I think everyone on this thread is under the assumptions that legislators actually read laws before they are passed and that laws are written clearly so that everyone can understand them.

Nope, I see it all the time. Every time Congress enacts changes to the tax laws, there's a technical corrections bill passed within a year for the unintended consequences or poor wording of the new law. In this instance its merely a case of the law not keeping up with the technology. I am under no false impression that what I am trying to achieve is an intended consequence of the law as written. The intent of the speed trap laws were very clear. However as I stated earlier, intent of the legislators is not relevant unless the wording of the law is ambiguous, and here it is most definitely not.

 

[seniorjudge]

Actually I do not assume this, It well known fact most legislators pass laws and have no clue whether the law is valid or constitutional, they will tell you it is not their job to do that but for the courts and lawyers to sort it all out. Fact is and we are all trying to figure out what their intent was behind a law or rule, that is a joke since the people who wrote many of them can not tell you themselves. So for anyone to say it is clear what the law means is only kidding themselves.

Face it people, legislators pass laws so they can tell the people they represent they are doing things for them, then when the courts toss it they tell those same people it is not their fault but the judges who tossed the law.

There is an area I lived where the local laws were so confusing that lawyers joked the laws were a job program for lawyers.

I don't disagree with anything in your post.

 

[JIMinCA]

It seems to me that IGB is correct in his research that would indicate there is case law that suggests speedometers/pacing do not bring speed trap laws into play. However, it is time that we had a zealous defendant to push this issue for clarification. Dave is likely to loose as traffic judges are typically just prosecutors that sit on the bench when it comes to traffic court. His point will be made on appeal. He is correct in his reading (and so am I) that a speedometer IS an electronic device which measures the speed of moving objects. To say it is not is simply silly. The black letter reading of the law means this is clearly a speed trap issue.

So, as I see it Dave, you have two choices:

1. Go in with the black letter law/speed trap defense as your only defense. It will likely be a lot of work since you will probably have to do an appeal. But, we will all benefit from your efforts.

2. Go in with several defenses including the speed trap defense. Any judge that sees he is about to establish precedence that is contrarty to prior case law will look for another reason to dismiss. Hell, he'll make one up if he has to... I've seen it done.

Anyway... I don't see the point in arguing with naysayers any further. Their point has been made... the court is NOT about the LAW. On that point I agree with them.

Please let us know how you intend to proceed. Also, if you do get convicted and you do appeal... please come back here and let us see your briefs before you submit. Since there will be community benefit from the precedence you will set, there should be community effort.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

So what you're saying Dave is that each time you address me, you're gonna be spewing **** out of both sides of your mouth but only because I disagree with you! Right?

What they WOULD have thought is wholly irrelevant. In fact what they DID think is also WHOLLY IRRELEVANT.

Exactly what I said! But you've got your head up too far into where the sun don't shine to realize what I'm saying!

You're the one trying to get into a pissing match because those of use who read black letter law believe the law means what it says.

I'm not trying to get into a pissing match. I am merely expressing my opinion as to how I read the law. An opinion that happens to fall inline with existing case law. And case law, if you don't realize it yet, happens to be the basic ground work for any winning trial or successful appeal. My opinion happens to also fall inline with the "majority opinion" and you are suggesting that the "majority opinion" is incorrect but you are right!

The case you cited ISN'T ON POINT. What part of that did you not understand?

It isn't?
* Cooper was "PACED" therefore no Traffic & Engineering Survey was required of the people;
* you were "PACED" therefore no Traffic & Engineering Survey will be required of the people.
Sounds to me like you're the one who's missing A CLEAR & CONCISE point! But only because you "black letter" read what you want & you convolute matters to your advantage! If I'm still not making myself clear, I'm sure the trial judge will explain it to you further when he yells out "GUILTY" in your face.

Not only did the majority opinion incorrectly cite the statute , the issue I am raising wasn't introduced.

So you're suggesting that the issue that you're raising is against "majority opinion", it has never been introduced, discussed, debated or even mentioned, and yet you're gonna win your case either at trial or after an appeal by raising it!
You'd have to be Johnny Cochran to win that, and Dave, you are no Johnny Cochran!

There is a difference between arguing "I was paced, it's a speed trap" and "I was paced using an electronic device so its a speed trap". It's a shame you can't or won't understand such a fundamental diffettrence.

Hahaha... You almost pulled your head out... Give another push Dave... One more push & then you can breath some air for your oxygen starved brain!

I am under no false impression that what I am trying to achieve is an intended consequence of the law as written.

So its not a "black letter" reading of the law; instead, it is the intended consequence. That is kind of contradictory to your first statement I quoted above; isn't it?
Keep harboring your impression & continue to feed your expectation. The more you do that, the more sadly disappointed you will be!
It all boils down to this... You posted a question on a public forum expecting to hear what you wanna hear. When the responses came, you grabbed onto the one which was in agreement with yours & you dismissed the ALL others.
Along with your dismissal of other opinions that conflicted with yours, you opted to insult me by suggesting that I am the one missing the point & I am the one who's under a false impression & understanding all while you admit that my opinion falls inline with that of the majority opinion; that the majority opinion is wrong.
You expect to walk into court, armed with no case law to cite, no expert witness testimony to back up your claim, no proof or justification for being over-analytical of a simple & obvious sentence from the vehicle code.
You expect the court to oblige you with as much time as you need to try and present an issue that lacks any substance, one that has no factual basis and one that is unique enough that it has never been mentioned in legal circles anywhere.
You obviously haven't been to traffic court before.
Regardless of how much my opinion varied from yours, it is still valid, whether you can admit it or not. I personally would have appreciated an opposing view, and I would have utilized it to develop some sort of strategy; I would have used it as an example of what I might hear in court; and I would have used it as a basis for me to hone my answer, responses, arguments & ideas.
You've done none of that. Instead, your expectations remain high; you feel your case will set precedent for the people of the state of California. But the sad reality is that you will get slapped silly for even attempting to argue your illogical and twisted idea that the law should have been amended long ago but only to accommodate your case.
Your idea might gain some value if presented to an interested member of the state legislature who might be willing to give it a go as to attempt to amend the vehicle code. But until the vehicle code is amended you're bound to be so sorely & sadly disappointed in court each and every time.
Lastly, when you post on a public forum, chances are you will get some responses that you like. Cherish those that do if you choose to. But you will also get some responses that you will not like. In reply, you can act like the immature closed minded e-thug that you are, or you can scroll past those that you don't like in search for ones you do. Show me some respect Dave. Not only because I deserve it, but also because you have to show it in court as you try and present the same arguments that you have here before a Judge who not only expects your full respect, but one who will not tolerate any less than a full serving of it!