I pulled up some bits of the case from another source (I couldn't get the whole thing) and I agree with your take on what it says. There was one very disturbing passage in it though where I do not agree with the opinion.
"Appellant's argument that the judgment must be reversed because of the failure to produce a current traffic and engineering survey is without merit because evidence of appellant's speed was not obtained through radar. The settled statement makes no mention of radar, and instead indicates the officer issued appellant a citation after conducting a pace of appellant's vehicle. The requirement of a traffic and engineering survey is unique to radar cases, and appellant has failed to cite any authority which would require a traffic survey in an unsafe speed prosecution based upon an officer's pace of the offender's vehicle."
Disturbing? Why is that disturbing? It is clear, concise, it shows that the appellant did a bad job of arguing his case... In fact he had no case to argue. He either misunderstood the Speed Trap law or he tried to misrepresent it to the appeals court and they would have nothing of the kind.
And in all honesty, this is the case here. You and Jim are both convinced that a speedometer should be included under the description of "electronic speed measuring devices"... and yes it is... But not in the scope of what was intended by the legistlature when the Speed Trap Law was enacted. Not because I said so, but because the authority on such matters of law that typically need to be clarified -that being the appeals court- concluded that it is not the case.
You have been presented with a number of different arguments, definitions and opinions that should leave no doubt that your argument is not only invalid but that it has been tried, tested and it failed!
If the legislature had really intended on including speedometers as part of the devices used to measure speed, do you think it would have been that difficult for them to include that one word in that one line?
Probably not!
I must say that it took some creativity there for a minute. But unfortunately, and as it turns out, it will not serve your purpose to use it. So rather than continuing to beat a dead horse, and if I were you, I would direct my energy at trying to find another way to make my case! But that's me!
Of course the statute says radar and other electronic devices capable of measuring speed, which even if we don't accept to include an electronic speedometer would include LIDAR, VASCAR, and theoretically GPS. According to the judge's opinon, only RADAR would ever matter for speed trap purposes which is flat out wrong on its face.
Dave, explain to me hoe they would use GPS to measure your speed? They would have to follow you (i.e. pace you) and look up the GPS information so might as well use the “electronic speedometer” that they already have to PACE you and notate your speed.
As for VASCAR, there’s an opinion on that… This is not an appeals case though. This is what’s called Opinions of the Attorney General… That means there is no case law on the matter and until one challenges the court and can prove otherwise, this will suffice. Here is what it says:
The “VASCAR” device does not constitute a “speed trap” prohibited by the Vehicle Code, and evidence obtained through its use would therefore be admissible. 52 Ops. Atty. Gen. 231, 11-14-69.
As for LIDAR, hey, there might be a case out there that mentions that… I haven’t seen any…
Lastly, the fact that the court only referred to RADAR and your stating
its wrong on its face, you have to understand that Radar is the method most widely used in California. The court has already established and has taken Judicial notice of radar as a reliable, accurate, understandable and like I said, widely used method. And until someone can show fault to it or a downside to using it, why change it. In other words,
if it ain’t broke, why fix it?
Do you have anything from the opinion or the case where an argument is made that the speedometer is an electronic device or did the appellant merely appeal on the issue of pacing and a speed trap? I'm guessing the appellant only argued that he was paced and didn't even mention the speedometer as an electronic device.
Like Jim said… you are correct… he didn’t argue that a speedometer is an electronic device… But obviously, that point is moot… it’s pointless… Well, I’ll answer that in my reply to Jim’s post.
Here you go… here why Mr. Cooper appealed. . . He got shut out on all 4 reasons. . . (Check out #2 and tell me what this guy was thinking… “two to three times the speed limit? So if they’re on the freeway, everybody is driving at 2 or 3 times the posted 65mph which would equal 195mph):
On appeal, appellant asserts the following contentions.
1. The trial court committed reversible error by violating appellant's statutory right to a trial by declaration.
2. Appellant was denied equal protection under the law because the officer admitted that everyone drives two or three times the posted speed limit.
3. The officer's admission that he lacked territorial jurisdiction in Beverly Hills precludes appellant's conviction.
4. The judgment should be reversed because the prosecution failed to introduce an engineering and traffic survey, and failed to establish the absence of a speed trap.
Here’s the part that is related to #4 above…
Finally, we address appellant's contention that the judgment should be reversed because the prosecution failed to introduce an engineering and traffic survey, and failed to establish the absence of a speed trap.
Where a defendant is charged with violating the basic speed law based on evidence that he exceeded a prima facie or posted speed limit and evidence of that speed is obtained through radar, the People are required to produce a current traffic and engineering survey, even in the absence of a request by the defendant. ( People v. DiFiore (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d Supp. 26, 28 [243 Cal.Rptr. 359].) A certified copy of the engineering and traffic survey taken within the past five years, justifying the speed limit imposed on the section of the highway, must be lodged with the court, or judicial notice of the survey must be taken, or a copy of the survey must be produced in open court. ( People v. Peterson (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d Supp. 7, 10 [226 Cal.Rptr. 544].) "Whenever radar is used in conjunction with the enforcement of a posted speed limit on a nonlocal roadway, the speed trap laws are invoked, giving rise to the need for a current engineering and traffic survey that justifies the posted speed. Absent the survey . . . the officer is incompetent to testify as to the speed of the defendant's vehicle, even if his testimony is confined to his visual determination of that speed." ( People v. Conzelman (1994) 33 Cal.App.4th Supp. 6, 8, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 156 fn. omitted.)
Appellant's argument that the judgment must be reversed because of the failure to produce a current traffic and engineering survey is without merit because evidence of appellant's speed was not obtained through radar. The settled statement makes no mention of radar, and instead indicates the officer issued appellant a citation after conducting a pace of appellant's vehicle. The requirement of a traffic and engineering survey is unique to radar cases, and appellant has failed to cite any authority which would require a traffic survey in an unsafe speed prosecution based upon an officer's pace of the offender's vehicle.
The judgment is affirmed.