Speeding ticket from CHP officer who was driving in front of me. 70 in a 55.(CA)

[Weaverwelder]

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

I was traveling south bound on I5 Heading into Stockton. The speed limit is 70 mph. I was going 70 mph behind a CHP who was also going 70mph. He was at least 6 car lengths ahead of me. We travels like this for about 10 miles. Then he started to blink the very left yellow light on his yellow light bar, as if he was turning left. He did this for approximately 8 to 10 seconds. Then a minute later he turns his full twirly lights on for about 10 seconds. Now the hole time he is not slowing down or changing lanes. But after his light display i moved over one lane. Continued to drive 70. Suddenly the CHP slows down quickly so I slow down as well, but he slows down faster gets behind me and lights me up. When he lights me up I am down to 60 mph and now get off the freeway. I give him my info, he says I was doing 70 in a 55 construction zone. He asked me if I had noticed his signals. I said I did but did not know what he was doing. The CHP says " I was giving you a warning about the construction zone". I said "I probably didn't notice the construction zone because I was watching you and your signals".
Anyway. He wrote me a ticket for 70 in a 55. I don't think it mentions construction zones so no double fine. My question is this. Can I fight the ticket based on the fact that he was going 70 in the construction zone, therefore breaking the law himself? IS there any legal precedent for such a thing. Something like you can't commit a crime to catch a person in the act of a crime. Any constitutional angles on this?

Please help.

 

[quincy]

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

... My question is this. Can I fight the ticket based on the fact that he was going 70 in the construction zone, therefore breaking the law himself? IS there any legal precedent for such a thing. Something like you can't commit a crime to catch a person in the act of a crime. Any constitutional angles on this?

Please help.

No, you cannot fight your ticket based on the fact that the highway patrol was going 70.

 

[Weaverwelder]

No, you cannot fight your ticket based on the fact that the highway patrol had to chase you to ticket you.

He did not chase me down. he was in front of me. then he slowed down got behind me and pulled me over.

 

[quincy]

He did not chase me down. he was in front of me. then he slowed down got behind me and pulled me over.

Sorry. I saw that and changed my post. But the gist stays the same.

Even if the highway patrol officer is going 100 in a construction zone then makes a U-Turn, you cannot go 100 in a construction zone and make the same U-Turn. You are not the police.

 

[CdwJava]

Ditto. The fact that he was doing 70 is not a defense to you doing 70. You can complain to the agency involved, and you can even mention this to the court should you care to, but, it is not a defense.

Now, if you'd care to relate the code section you were cited for, there might be other angles that can be brought into play. But, if you go to trial and lose, it is possible that you will lose the option of traffic school. So, you might want to consider that in your long term planning as well.

 

[Weaverwelder]

VC C22350 is the ticket description.

 

[CdwJava]

VC C22350 is the ticket description.

You're lucky if there is no mention of a Construction Zone on the cite, but it might be mentioned at trial. It might behoove you to seek a copy of the officer's notes (usually the back of the citation) by way of discovery to see what he'll likely testify to.

It might be hard to justify going 15 over the temporary posted speed limit, but, it's possible. If cited for 22350 then they have to show that your speed was unsafe for conditions. However, merely exceeding a posted speed limit is prima facie evidence that you were travelling at an unsafe speed. The law allows you to argue that the speed was NOT unsafe, but that burden would be on you. Factors that might make that difficult could include artificially narrowed roads, the presence of construction personnel and equipment, heavy traffic, debris in the roadway, etc.

Remember, arguing that your speed was safe would be YOUR burden, and it won't be easy.

 

[FlyingRon]

Sorry. I saw that and changed my post. But the gist stays the same.

Even if the highway patrol officer is going 100 in a construction zone then makes a U-Turn, you cannot go 100 in a construction zone and make the same U-Turn. You are not the police.

Even if someone else who is NOT the police does 100 in a construction zone and makes a U turn, it doesn't mean anything to the your case. The fact that someone else broke the law (cited or not) is not going to have any bearing on your guilt.

As your mommy told you, two wrongs don't make a right (but three lefts do).

 

[Weaverwelder]

How do you pronounce prima facia

 

[TheGeekess]

How do you pronounce prima facia

Very carefully.

 

[CdwJava]

How do you pronounce prima facia

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie

 

[Jim_bo]

Well, this is a very interesting case.* It has many interesting ways of looking at it.* First, there is the moral outrage that we should all have.* Cops believe they are above the law.* Especially traffic laws.* Carl has even said openly that he would NOT write a traffic ticket to another cop.* He has stated that cops don’t ticket cops.* I don’t know about the rest of the population here… but that is terrifically offensive to me.* As a former military officer, I was not only expected to follow the rules, but I was held to a HIGHER level of accountability to the rules.* The same should apply for cops… but it seems they believe the opposite is true.****

A traffic ticket is a criminal offense and should be treated by the same rules as any other criminal offense.* So, let’s change the scenario just a bit… what if the cop was recreationally snorting cocaine in the bathroom of a bar while you were snorting cocaine.* Would it be legitimate for him to arrest you for illegal drug use?* Does the theory of unclean hands not apply?* If not, shouldn’t that cop be charged with the same offense as you?* Or does he get a pass because of where he works?* There just isn’t a way to make it smell good.* Moral of that story, go to the cop’s department and demand that he be charged with the same violation.* Demand that you will testify against him in court and that he should not be held to a different standard.* If the cop claims that he was required to speed because of his duty, then let him use that as a defense and explain it to the same judge who will hear your case.* But his case should not be heard by one of his buddies (who will not want to file a charge) while yours is heard by a judge.

Now on to a real defense.** Carl is partly right.* Exceeding a posted speed limit IS prima facie evidence that you were traveling at an unsafe speed.* However, you were doing 70 which IS the posted speed limit.* Therefore, the burden would be the officer’s to CLEARLY prove that your speed did in fact create a danger to persons or property.* See VC 22351(a).**

Next defense.* If the cop says that the speed limit was 55 (i.e. a construction zone limit), then he must prove that 55 was a valid posted limit.* You’ll notice that VC22363 gives specific authority to DOT or local authorities to set a temporary speed limit due to snow or ice, but 22362 does NOT give that authority for construction zones.* In fact, 22362 does NOT even mention a construction zone speed limit.* It only talks about a posted speed limit.* In your case the only speed limit that has been posted under specific statutory authority is 70mph.** Certainly the state police are not going to claim that they have the right to enforce a speed limit sign randomly posted by a construction contractor when it is likely that he may have posted a particular limit merely because that was the only sign he had available on his truck.* Well… they may claim that they can enforce that kind of randomness… but I disagree.

Next defense.* VC22362 has very specific requirements for a construction zone speed limit sign to be valid.* It must be placed within 400 feet of EACH end of the zone and the signs shall indicate the purpose of the speed restriction.* If the officer does not testify that these conditions were met, then you can declare that the prosecution has failed to make a prima facie case and that your case must be dismissed.* Furthermore, 22362 states that officers, agency employees or contractors must actually be present ON the roadway or within the right of way.* Likewise, if the cop does not claim that there were actually people present and on the roadway or right of way then the prosecution has failed to make their prima facie case.

And the best for last…* Violating VC22350 does NOT mean you exceeded the posted speed limit.* It means you drove at a speed that endangered persons or property.* It is NOT specifically illegal to exceed a posted speed limit as long as you can show, by competent evidence, that your speed did not endanger persons or property.* So, since you were driving behind the cop… he obviously believed that his speed did not endanger persons or property.* Unless the officer would like to testify otherwise, it is reasonable for you and the court to assume that the cop IS a competent authority.* Since you were matching his speed, and his competent judgment was that the speed did not endanger persons or property, then competent evidence exists that you clearly must be not guilty of violating the basic speed law as per VC22351(b).*

So, if I were you, I would file the complaint at the cop’s department.* I would be loud about it and I would insist that my complaint be heard directly by the officer’s commanding officer.* This will fail, but it will send the message that you are pissed off and you intend to make a stink.* Next, I would file a trial by written declaration with the above defenses.* You will likely lose if the cop files any kind of a statement (which he may not after your complaint at his department).* However, if you do lose, then you file for a trial de novo.* My bet is that the cop will NOT show up for trial.* It will be hard enough for him to explain to his commanding officer why his actions were reasonable, but yours violated the law.* I’m betting that he would NOT want to make that explanation to a judge.

 

[Jim_bo]

Please forgive all the stars. For some reason my phone inserts them

 

[quincy]

Please forgive all the stars. For some reason my phone inserts them

That's okay, Jimbo. Those are probably the only stars you will receive if Weaverwelder tries out your advice.

I am betting that going to the cop's "department," being loud when filing a complaint, showing how pissed he is and expressing his intent to cause a stink, will not go too well for Weaverwelder.

It is certainly not the smartest way to handle a traffic ticket.

 

[Jim_bo]

Quincy,

You have already shown yourself to be of the opinion that cops are above the law but the OP is not. You were plainly wrong to tell the OP he could not use the cop's speed in his defense as I pointed out above. To the contrary, the cop's speed could be a vital part of the OP's defense.