Incorrect Speed on Ticket Question

[JamaalJ]

What is the name of your state? California

Ok,
I was driving through Winterhaven on a christmas trip to our family in Arizona. I was speeding but driving the flow. The speed limit was 70 and I was driving around 80. I understand that I was speeding and possibly deserved a ticket, but were any of my rights violated here?

A police car comes up fast from behind and then gets behind me and pulls me over. I thought oh well. I guess I deserve a ticket for speeding.

The officer then tells me that he was driving the other way on the freeway and clocked me going 95. I know I wasn't going 95. I was passed by 2 other vehicles that looked like mine that were driving very fast.

He stated that he pulled over, exited the freeway and got onto our side of the freeway and caught up with me.

at 95mph, he would have lost sight of the vehicle by the time he slowed down , exited, and reentered the freeway.

I tried to explain to him that it wasn't me who was driving 95 and he told me he didnt care and didnt believe me. He was anxious to get the next speeder on the way to their families on the weekend before christmas.

I assume that a 25mph over the speed limit is a much bigger ticket than 10mph over the speed limit. The ticket amount was pretty high.

I tried to fight the ticket via written declaration. I asked the court to prove that it was my car that was going 95. The court had 45 days to make a decision. On exactly the 45th day, they found me guilty and kept the bail amount fine.

Here are my questions:

If I was not going remotely close to the speed on the ticket, is the ticket invalid?

I assume that the judge obviously did not get any proof that I was driving that fast, since he waited until the last hour to make a decisiion. I have seen many judges assume that the person is guilty and the police officer is always right without proof. Did the judge violate due process here? Can I ask for the proof?

It isn't worth fighting, and I wont dispute the judges decision. I was speeding and I will eat it. I just want to know if any of my rights were violated in this process.

 

[Zigner]

All you gotta do is prove that it WASN'T you speeding.

 

[JamaalJ]

All you gotta do is prove that it WASN'T you speeding.

How do you do that? It is my word versus the officer's word.

I stated that I was not going 95.

I stated that I was passed by 2 similar looking vehicles that were going at a speed near 95.
I stated that the police officer would have lost sight of the vehicle by the time they slowed down, exited and reentered the freeway.

I asked for them to proove that I was going 95. Aren't we innocent until proven guilty.

The judge still found me guilty without any proof besides the officer's lies and incorrect testimony.

 

[Zigner]

The judge still found me guilty without any proof besides the officer's lies and incorrect testimony.

The officer has no reason to lie. The officer is considered an expert witness (in this case). As such, you have a pretty high level to reach to prove his testimony wrong. The old "it was the other car" defense does not rise to that level.

 

[JamaalJ]

The officer has no reason to lie. The officer is considered an expert witness (in this case). As such, you have a pretty high level to reach to prove his testimony wrong. The old "it was the other car" defense does not rise to that level.

I want to reiterate that I have no reason to lie here. I am not going to fight the verdict. I already paid the fine. I just simply want to know a couple of things stated at the bottom of this post for peace of mind.

#1. I don't know if he lied or not as I was never provided his testimony. I do know for a fact that he was mistaken. Officers lie quite freqyently in these small towns. I have witnessed it first hand many times. If you disagree, then you are an ignorant fool.

Officers have many reasons to lie. They are pressured to bring in income. They are pressured to give out more tickets. They have big egos.

Again, I am not stating that he lied, but I know he was mistaken. I just dont know how he could have convinced the judge without telling a lie.

And before you think I hate all police officers, I would like to state that my father used to be a police chief before he retired and I grew up around police officers. I know there are good officers, not so good officers, and bad officers.

#2. The "it was the other car" should be considered. Especially since the officer lost sight of the car and has no way of identifying one car vs another car. What are the chances that there are two similar cars on a freeway? I would say it is very high. The officer can't pull over the first car he sees that looks similar to the one he thought he saw.

Furthermore, if the officer was driving 70 one way, and the other car was driving 95 the other way and it was dark enough to require headlights, it would be near impossible for him to make a positive identification on a car he lost sight of. On top of that, the "Expert Witness" is going to be able to remember the incident 4 months ago. I doubt it.

If the judge ignores that defense then the judge is neglecting his duty.

I am a very reasonable and logical person. The fact that the judge waited until the last hour to make his decision, is suspicious itself. I think that he rushed to a decision at the last minute to get it in before the deadline. He had 45 business days.

-------
Lets get back on topic here.

If the officer writes down 95 and I was going 80, is the ticket voidable?

If the officer lost sight of the vehicle and there are a lot of similar vehicles on the freeway, how can he prove that this was the right vehicle?

 

[Zigner]

If the officer writes down 95 and I was going 80, is the ticket voidable?

No - you would have to prove that you weren't doing 95

If the officer lost sight of the vehicle and there are a lot of similar vehicles on the freeway, how can he prove that this was the right vehicle?

How can you prove it's the WRONG vehicle? (After he testifies that it was the right one)


You really don't get it...

 

[JamaalJ]

No - you would have to prove that you weren't doing 95

How can you prove it's the WRONG vehicle? (After he testifies that it was the right one)

You really don't get it...

I get it. You are stating that if the officer is mistaken or lies, then I am screwed. You are stating that the one person with reason to lie or be stubborn on a mistake is considered valid proof.

That isn't justice.

Anyone else have any input?

 

[Zigner]

I get it. You are stating that if the officer is mistaken or lies, then I am screwed. You are stating that the one person with reason to lie or be stubborn on a mistake is considered valid proof.

That isn't justice.

Anyone else have any input?

The officer doesn't have a reason to lie. You do.

 

[caslerst]

Do some math. Prove that if you were going 95 and the office was going the other way at 70, it would take him x amount of time to slow down, make a u-turn, accelerate, and travel at x speed for x amount of time in order to catch you. By that time you would have been x distance away if you were going 95.

I did it. I showed that the officer would have to have been traveling at 170mph in order to catch me.

 

[Maestro64]

First off you are going about the defense all wrong,

it sounds like the officers was using what is known as Moving Radar which has issue if you research this you see what I talking about. Once such issue is its ability to know the speed of the police car at the time which it said it measure another vehicle speed. Next the radar beam goes out and the farther from the car it is the wider the beam is and because of this fact the person operation can not be 100% sure what car or object he received the return signal from. Specially if there are other cars on the road at the time. Most time they look up and happen to observe one car passing another so they assume they must be the speeder. But unknowingly to him the car being passed actually had a radar detector and slammed on the brakes making the slower car look like the speeder.

Anyway, you get the idea radar systems are not perfected and neither is the person operating them, ask the guys who saw the Japanese Zeros coming in to bomb Pearl Harbor and thought they were birds.

Next thing, if the officer lost sight of the suspect vehicle you now have what is know as the evidence chain of custody issue or the vehicle is outside officer situational awareness or control. So you have situation where the officer can no longer say he had sight of the suspect vehicle and be 100% sure he got the right vehicle especially among other cars.

So the only problem you have is the traffic ticket consider a civil or criminal matter in your state, if it is civil the officer just has to prove the he is at least 50% sure he got the right person with the right speed. However, if it criminal then he has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you were the right car at the right speed, So the above it the doubt you have to create.

Walking in and making up excuse will not create doubt, but attacking his evidence and the method he used will. The judge can only assume the office is right unless your show otherwise. Show the judge the officer is not that expert witness he seems to think he is and I can not tell how many people in law enforcement think radar does not have issues they think it is perfect.

Oh police do have reason to make sure you loose, it is called maintaining their traffic conviction rates, there are "No Quote" (wink wink) but officer do get evaluation on their conviction rates.

PM me if you would like more information.

 

[Maestro64]

Yes in Calif you can request what the officer provided to back up his position that he got the right person. But it does not seem like your TBD was done correctly. You do know your can appeal the finding and go face to face.

 

[CdwJava]

Yes in Calif you can request what the officer provided to back up his position that he got the right person. But it does not seem like your TBD was done correctly. You do know your can appeal the finding and go face to face.

The appeal will not be "face to face" with anyone but a court judge - not the officer.

As for requesting info from the officer, that is done in Discovery before trial or TBWD. You CAN request the info afterwards, but unless the matter is appealed, the decision cannot be overturned.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Next the radar beam goes out and the farther from the car it is the wider the beam is and because of this fact the person operation can not be 100% sure what car or object he received the return signal from.

But, if you have a group of vehicles going the same speed, then logically they are all going the speed of the one you hit - regardless of which one the reading might be from. Plus, radar certified officers are also rained in visual estimation. The radar is used to CONFIRM that estimation.

ask the guys who saw the Japanese Zeros coming in to bomb Pearl Harbor and thought they were birds.

Actually, they were told it was a flight of B-17s from the mainland. Note that it was a different TYPE of radar, and the radar DID detect the incoming planes - the operators just received bad intel from the Ops Center ... not nearly the same as a speed radar used by the police.

Next thing, if the officer lost sight of the suspect vehicle you now have what is know as the evidence chain of custody issue or the vehicle is outside officer situational awareness or control.

Okay, I know what you are trying to say and its valid to a point, but that particular string of phrasing is just gobbly-gook. An argument can be made that when the officer lost sight of the vehicle that he could no longer testify with certainty that the vehicle he stopped was THE vehicle he observed speeding ... whether a court buys that defense or not will depend on whether or not the time delay was significant and how likely it is that another identical or very similar vehicle could have been there.

So the only problem you have is the traffic ticket consider a civil or criminal matter in your state,

In CA they are criminal matters.

However, if it criminal then he has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you were the right car at the right speed, So the above it the doubt you have to create.

Unfortunately, the judge did not buy the TBWD. Now, the OP will have to try at a new trial (and if he loses the TBWD he gets the right to a trial de novo - effectively a second trial).

Show the judge the officer is not that expert witness he seems to think he is and I can not tell how many people in law enforcement think radar does not have issues they think it is perfect.

On the other hand, the officer may come in and be very knowledgeable and articulate on the subject. It's a crap shoot.

Oh police do have reason to make sure you loose, it is called maintaining their traffic conviction rates, there are "No Quote" (wink wink) but officer do get evaluation on their conviction rates.

No they don't - not in CA, anyway. When/if a quota or similar device appears, the unions, the agencies, or the state comes in and intervenes.

And I have never heard of an agency here that checks the conviction rates for citations. There may be one somewhere, but I have never heard of one ... and if they evaluated officers on that criteria, it would be a lawsuit waiting to happen by the officer or a defendant.


- Carl

 

[JamaalJ]

Thank you for your input (caslerst, Maestro64, CdwJava).

An appeal is not worth it to me. I think that these small towns in the middle of nowhere know this. They know it isnt worth it for you to dispute. It would take me about 4-6 hours to drive down there depending on traffic and another 4-6 hours to drive back, unless I wanted to prove a point. Even if I got the ticket reversed, nobody would care. To top it off, I was still speeding and deserved a ticket. (although a 25mph ticket is probably much more than a 10mph ticket)

The ticket is $300. I am a contractor and make $40 per hour ($320/day). I would rather spend a day working in a comfortable environment working than sit in my car for 8 hours.

I did explain clearly in my written defense that the officer would have lost sight of me. I actually did the math as well. I explained that there was no possible way he could have kept me in sight at those speeds. He would also need to take his eyes off the car in order to see what he was doing in order to cross the freeway.

Let me ask a new question... What if the Officer responded "when I caught up with him, he was going 80"? If I was going 80, I was still speeding. Does the 95 on the ticket mean anything, when the officer can still prove without a doubt I was going 80? If this is the case, then maybe the officer didn't lie. I have yet to see his testimony.

 

[CdwJava]

The cost of the ticket would be about $100 less if the speed was 10 MPH over rather than 25 over.

If you attend court you can also ask for traffic school from the judge. At least that might prevent a big insurance bump.

From personal experience, I can tell you that it does NOT take long to make the transition from one direction to the other in a marked unit (unless in very heavy traffic), and it is not that difficult to articulate that the car you caught up with was the same car ... you can see ahead and note that there was no other vehicle of similar make, model and color, and very often we key on something about the car that makes it unique. Whether that happened here, I couldn't say. But, it's not all that difficult.

- Carl