22348(b)

[interactive_e]

What is the name of your state? California

Today I was happily driving driving NB on I-5. I had a previous ticket and I knew that the cops are out because of the holiday - that was why I was using the cruise control of the rental car. I made sure it was EXACTLY at the speed limit - no need to risk more tickets.
And no surprise - there was a CHP parked on the side of the road, waiting. I used proper signaling , went to the left lane, bypassing him. Going back to the right lane, truck in front of me (their speed limit on I-5 is 55 or 65 I believe). So, there I go again, left signal, left lane, overtaking him. While I was doing that I saw in the rearview mirror that the cop took off and started following me. I overtook the truck, again right signal (in general, I am very punctual with the signals, not just because of the cop), going in the right lane. He followed me and in about a minute and stopped me. Everything by the book and he gave me ticket for 101 (why excatly that, I wonder? . I asked to see the radar - he refused.
The interesting part was that there was no way I was doing 101! He also claimed that I slowed down when I saw him - how could I do that when I was overtaking the truck?! And my friend, who was in the car with me, also said that I was within the limit (that was why I was using the cruise control).
Clearly, this guy was going after the fee from the ticket. But this time I did not speed and I am going to contest it, for sure. My friend was ready to show as a withness.
Does anyone have any advice?

 

[CdwJava]

So, there I go again, left signal, left lane, overtaking him.

If you were overtaking a vehicle doing the speed limit, then you were speeding. But, as you inferred, trucks generally have to travel at less than the max. speed on I-5.

He followed me and in about a minute and stopped me. Everything by the book and he gave me ticket for 101 (why excatly that, I wonder? .

Perhaps you were doing 101? Or, he cut you a break and decided not to cite you for what he thought you were doing: 106.

Also, 101 IS a break because it gives you wiggle room to plea down if the DA or the court will accept it.

I asked to see the radar - he refused.

(a) He is not required to show you the radar, and, (b) It is a poor safety practice to allow this in most circumstances.

The interesting part was that there was no way I was doing 101! He also claimed that I slowed down when I saw him - how could I do that when I was overtaking the truck?! And my friend, who was in the car with me, also said that I was within the limit (that was why I was using the cruise control).

You used cruise control to PASS a vehicle?

Bring your friend with you to court.

Clearly, this guy was going after the fee from the ticket.

Neither the officer nor the CHP office he works out of directly sees a penny from the fine. So just HOW was he going after "the fee"?

There are a number of books out there that have varying qualities of information on how to fight a ticket. Be wary of many claims as they often serve to do little more than piss off a judge. In that respect a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

The BEST way to contest a ticket is to hire an attorney that specializes in this. The hardest way is to do it yourself as it takes a lot of time, energy, and reading to even try to mount an effective defense.

- Carl

 

[interactive_e]

Thanks for the response, Carl!
The cruise control was engaged the whole time at 70mph (the cars speed limit). The trucks speed limit was 55mph. Hence, I overtook the truck.

Now, when I am reconstructing the events with my friend, there was a car that overtook me and slowed down significantly just before all that happened. I am wondering if the cop actually took its speed. Unfortunately, by the time I was stopped, that car was behind me because it slowed down to like 50mph, while my cruise control was steady at 70. I think he might have had a radar detector.

Look, there was no way I was doing 100mph. I had tickets before and I know when I am guilty - what it hurts the most this time is that I am not

It looks like it is going to be "he said, she said" in court. How much weight does the cop's word have against two sworn statements?

Thanks!

 

[CdwJava]

It looks like it is going to be "he said, she said" in court. How much weight does the cop's word have against two sworn statements?

It depends on the court and the officer. if the officer admits that he MIGHT have been in error and that he MIGHT have locked on to the other car, then you MIGHT prevail.

However, since radar operators are trained to testify somethign to the effect of ... "I made a visual estimation of the speed of the vehicle to be approximately 100 MPH. This estimation was confirmed by the use of my Stalker Dual II radar and I locked in a speed of 101 MPH for the defendant's vehicle ..."

It's also possible the officer will not show.

Keep in mind that Cruise Control is not always accurate. Granted there is a big difference between 70 MPH and 100, but if you are relying solely on the Cruise Control argument that might not tip the scales too much. If you have a prior history of speed violations, be prepared for the judge not to consider your statements with too much weight. If your record is otherwise clean, he may choose to buy it.

- Carl

 

[Pugilist]

If you still have the rental car in your possession, go out and calibrate the speedometer by using the mile posts on the highway. 60 mph is a mile a minute.

Ask the rental car company if the car keeps a record of how fast it was going. It it did, and the record shows a peak speed lower than 100, then you could not be guilty of 22348(b) - exceeding 100. To get a copy of the record, do a subpena duces tecum. (If the record shows a peak speed fairly close to 100, then you will also want to get an official written speedo calibration on the car. You get those from AAA.) Also ask, or find out, if there is a speed governor on the car.

Pug

 

[sukharev]

In parallel, do a discovery request for the radar calibration and test logs, as well as officer's training records. There are requirements in all 3, and sometimes you do find one missing. Also, look up time/distance calculation, and when you are in court use it if needed. You can look up details in the web.

Yet on another note, do know how to use your friend's testimony. In particular, make sure you ask him how long he has been driving, and whether he has practical experience estimating the car speed (would be silly to say that he was watching speedometer all the time, but he can indeed tell the difference between 70 and 100 mph).

 

[interactive_e]

Thanks everyone!

The car was fairly new - '96 Pontiac G6 - and I did not notice that its speedometer was THAT inaccurate (30 mph is a lot!). It has a speed governor at 112mph (no starter here). And, of course, it does not have speed logging.

I think what happened was that the cop got a fix on the wrong car. He was sitting on the side of the road and about a mile before that another car passed me from the right and slowed down immediately. He could have easily be going with 100mph. The cop got on me because I was in the left lane (stupid me, I changed the lanes because of safety, did not want to fly by him at 70mph, now I wish I could have stayed).

That by itself creates a reasonable doubt (I think). What independant evidence the cop could show to support his version of the events (I have my friend's testimony, does he have something like a picture of what the radar was tracking?) Is there a web site with radars technical data (effective range, angle, accuracy, etc.)?

Also, what are my chances of changing venue? The court is 3.5 hours from where I live and I have to take time off to defend myself. That would surely jeopardize my job.

This really sucks folks. I had tickets before (both with less than 10mph above) and I was guilty then. Since the last one I was especially careful not to speed and that was why I was so adament about the criuse control - I cannot watch the speedometer all the time. And to get nailed for someone else... I am seriously considering a lawyer - how much do you think that would increase my chances of throwing this away?

 

[CdwJava]

The officer's testimony is evidence - and it carries a lot of weight. the testimony of a driver and the passenger is also testimony, but it tends to carry slightly lesser weight as there is a greater motivation for the driver to lie. I'm nto implying you are lying, just that it does not come down to a game of who has the most witnesses. If on cross examination you can somehow get the officer to admit there might have been another car that the radar locked on, that would help.

Also, you can only request a change of venue within the same county hearing the violation - not to another county. You MIGHT be able to get the court changed to a court in the same county that is closer to you, but this is not a guarantee.

- Carl

 

[interactive_e]

Carl,

It looks like you know a lot about this I understand the social incentive behind the citations but what is the economical? Who gets the money from the fee? What drives the cops to write tickets (do they get a percentage, do they use the money for the department's budget, do they rely on the overtime pay from court appearances, etc.)?

 

[CdwJava]

It looks like you know a lot about this I understand the social incentive behind the citations but what is the economical? Who gets the money from the fee?

An assortment of state and local agencies get the lion's share of the fees. Local law enforcement agencies get approximately $22 of every $100 levied in the fine. However, there is also a cap on the total amount of monies a local agency can receive in this way, and most agencies reach that cap about halfway through the fiscal year.

What drives the cops to write tickets (do they get a percentage, do they use the money for the department's budget, do they rely on the overtime pay from court appearances, etc.)?

Public safety is why we write tickets. The naysayers may say otherwise, but as a supervisor and manager I have never told my people to go write tickets to make my city money. If it were all about the money, I would hire meter maids and order my officers to write a lot of parking tickets ... we get to keep almost ALL of THAT money! In fact, when done properly, parking enforcement can be a self-sustaining operation. Traffic enforcement in general can never be ... DUI programs are another animal and CAN be almost self-sustaining.

Writing citations is a money-losing affair. The amount of funds reimbused to local law enforcement does not compensate for the dollar cost of time spent in enforcement and court.

Law enforcement is not in the business of making money. At least not in CA ... I cannot speak for other states and other state's agencies. The funds from the state from traffic fines goes to the city - not the police department. The budget does not suddenly go up if my people write a ton of traffic tickets. The added revenue (if any) from citations might be taken into effect at budget time, but it is a very small aspect (percentage wise) of the total revenue for the city in any event - especially when you consider the cap.

When budgets are tight, no agency in CA realistically considers writing more traffic tickets to improve their financial picture. They DO, however, consider increasing parking enforcement and increasing vehicle release fees for impounded vehicles.

And with the CHP revenues coming from the state in the first place, they don't see any direct result of the fines from traffic citations at all.

- Carl

 

[interactive_e]

Carl,

I wish the perfect world you described was true

If the real reason behind writing tickets is the public safety then the cops would do everything to make sure they preserve the appearance of fairness in the system. In my case (and after some searching in this forum - many other) that seem not to be true. The officer is not required to provide any evidence, only his word. In some countries the policeman is actually obligated to show you the radar reading, some go even further - they show you a picture of your car with the speed reading. That is not a space technology, it is commercially available, would pay for itself with one ticket fee, and there is no way to object it. We have similar technology in the form of the red-light cameras.

Additionally, the claim that "the driver has more incentive to lie, therefore his/her testimony is less credible" flies directly into the face of the Latin law ("innocent until proven guilty" - "Homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus"), which is the base of all modern law systems, including ours. It resembles the medieval law when the word of the landlord was the law. If the officer's word in court is regarded as the (almost) absolute truth then what is the difference between writing citations and racketeering? In both cases the income is ensured and the victim (who did not brake any rules) pays to be left alone.

Yes, I had speeding tickets before, and yes, I was indeed speeding. That was why I did not contest them, I believed in the fairness of the traffic court system. However, this time I am innocent and I am wondering why should I prove it? Isn't the other side supposed to prove that I am guilty?

Let's for a moment we presume we have a really innocent driver who received a speeding ticket from a cop who happened to have a bad day and decided to punish someone for that (this is not as far-fetched as it seems, I am sure the majority of the police officers are decent people and I admire what they are doing but you would agree that there are also "rotten apples"). What chance does that driver have in court? And how many more such drivers will be "punished" until that cop is finally caught?

System, that lacks checks and balances, always achieves the effect that is opposite of the one intended. I hope, sincerely hope, that would not be the case with the traffic court system.

 

[CdwJava]

I wish the perfect world you described was true

Which part is not? We're working out our budget right now, and if I can make more money by writing big tickets I'd sure like to know how!

If the real reason behind writing tickets is the public safety then the cops would do everything to make sure they preserve the appearance of fairness in the system.

The cops don't control "the system" - that is the arena of the courts. If you don't like "the system" please contact your state legislator.

The officer is not required to provide any evidence, only his word.

The officer's statement IS evidence. The defendant's statement IS evidence. The judge is then free to evaluate the word of the two parties and weigh the statements based on believability, experience, training, assignment, and almost whatever other criteria they wish to.

The same is true with ANY evidence - even blood tests. ALL evidence can be challenged. And if the standard were proof beyond ALL doubt, then there would be no such thing as a conviction in any court.

In some countries the policeman is actually obligated to show you the radar reading,

In some countries first time DUI arrests result in prison.

What other countries do does not make it right.

some go even further - they show you a picture of your car with the speed reading.

Nifty. I'll let you know when we start deploying those radar cameras in our cars. Currently I do not know of ANY agency that uses them.

That is not a space technology, it is commercially available, would pay for itself with one ticket fee, and there is no way to object it. We have similar technology in the form of the red-light cameras.

HOW would a $5,000+ device pay for itself with one ticket?? Our vehicle mounted systems are about $3,000 apiece without the camera, our Lidar is about $5,000 without the camera, and a handheld radar is about $1,500 ... no HOW would ONE fee of about $33 (the city's take of the average speed fine) pay for that?

Additionally, the claim that "the driver has more incentive to lie, therefore his/her testimony is less credible" flies directly into the face of the Latin law ("innocent until proven guilty" - "Homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus"),

It is all part of credibility - an issue that a court is perfectly able to weigh.

If the officer's word in court is regarded as the (almost) absolute truth then what is the difference between writing citations and racketeering?

There is no legal due process in racketeering.

The issue is to provide reasonable doubt. Simply saying, "I didn't do it," does not meet that standard.

However, this time I am innocent and I am wondering why should I prove it? Isn't the other side supposed to prove that I am guilty?

They are required to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. if you can cast doubt on the officer's observations or evidence, then you can prevail ... it is far from proving innocense which would not be possible in any event.

Let's for a moment we presume we have a really innocent driver who received a speeding ticket from a cop who happened to have a bad day and decided to punish someone for that (this is not as far-fetched as it seems, I am sure the majority of the police officers are decent people and I admire what they are doing but you would agree that there are also "rotten apples"). What chance does that driver have in court? And how many more such drivers will be "punished" until that cop is finally caught?

Yes, it COULD happen, and I am sure that it has happened. Just as an officer could plant evidence, an officer could lie about his observations. We do not shut down the system because someone COULD be lying.


- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

And a quick check for vehicle mounted photo radar units located one manufacturer in England ... no price available.

None of the state-side distributors we use list this even as an option or as an upcoming product ... this says a lot for either the reliability of this type of device, or, for the expense.

EDIT: I found two major manufacturers that claim to SOON provide integration between in-vehicle video and radar systems, but the price will be a deal breaker for most agencies in most cars ... I know that WE would never pay for one. I suspect the price for a camera and radar system shall be minimally between $10,000 and $12,000 per unit! From a purely economical standpoint, this would be ridiculous. Maybe if we had one or two cars dedicated solely to speed enforcement it might be worthwhile for those cars. But, for most agencies in CA even vehicle-mounted camera systems are a luxury we can ill afford.

- Carl

 

[interactive_e]

Carl,

From the economical stand point - the PD will save money from the overtime it would otherwise pay for the officers' court appearances (I do not know what is the rate of contested red-light camera tickets but I would assume it would be very low). I believe you would rather use that overtime for something more useful - police the streets for example.

From the social point of view - you will increase the perception of the system fairness.

Social and economical benefit - what a nice proposition

Back to reality. I think in my case the cop clocked the car in the right lane. From 2 miles away (that is when he passed me and slowed down immediately) both cars would be in the radar's cone (15 degrees). So it was up to the operator to decide which one was the radar locked on. The cop assumed it was the car in the left lane, which happened to be me.

The other car was Mitsubishi Evo - the one from "The Fast and the Furious". This time he was the Fast, I am the Furious He has a 280hp racing car, I have 180hp sedan, which, according to the citation, is flying with barely 10mph below its physical limits. Who is more likely to speed?!

I will put all that together and, with the passenger's testimony, send it to the court. I think it amounts to a reasonable doubt but will see what the judge has to say about it.

 

[CdwJava]

From the economical stand point - the PD will save money from the overtime it would otherwise pay for the officers' court appearances (I do not know what is the rate of contested red-light camera tickets but I would assume it would be very low). I believe you would rather use that overtime for something more useful - police the streets for example.

It is very doubtful that an agency that does not do a lot of designated speed enforcement would see any cost savings due to overtime in the lifetime of the system. Since it would be used mostly in the daytime by officers working the daytime shifts, they would likely be attending court on straight time anyway.

And many people contest speed tickets as they try for the brass ring by showing up in court to see if the officer is there.

From the social point of view - you will increase the perception of the system fairness.

I already see it as fair. When/if the local community views the system as unfair, then the impetus may exist to buy such expensive systems. Until that happens, we're going to spend that money elsewhere on things that our community DOES want.

As a side note, we tried to buy 4 video systems for my department's cars a couple years back and we were turned down flat by the City Council. We were told that this was not necessary and the money should be spent elsewhere.

Not every jurisdiction's citizen's or governing bodies see the system as you do.

Social and economical benefit - what a nice proposition

Nice ... in a perfect world. But we tend to operate on a shoestring budget anyway, and that kind of expense just isn't in the cards for most agencies. When I worked for a larger agency with some 40 patrol cars we had TWO vehicles equipped with cameras and two other cars equipped with radars ... and 6 handheld radars for motor officers and traffic officers as needed. These are expensive propositions and they do not generally pay for themselves over the life of the device. When you take into account the cost of the officer - even on straight time - they almost certainly will not pay for themselves.

Now, if you want to make the unrealistic proposal and presumption that the systems can operate 24/7 with 3 speed stops per hour, then the system COULD pay for itself quickly. But this just doesn't happen.

Back to reality. I think in my case the cop clocked the car in the right lane. From 2 miles away (that is when he passed me and slowed down immediately) both cars would be in the radar's cone (15 degrees). So it was up to the operator to decide which one was the radar locked on. The cop assumed it was the car in the left lane, which happened to be me.

And you might be able to make a case for reasonable doubt with that argument. But, the officer will also likely argue that he made a visible speed estimation as well ... but you will have your passenger.

Many judges might find that sufficient to be reasonable doubt.

The other car was Mitsubishi Evo - the one from "The Fast and the Furious". This time he was the Fast, I am the Furious

Cute.

My eldest son has liked those movies ... I get annoyed by them because right after they come out everyone wants to try the tricks in the latest movie! Ugh!

He has a 280hp racing car, I have 180hp sedan, which, according to the citation, is flying with barely 10mph below its physical limits. Who is more likely to speed?!

I guess it depends on the driver. If it were my mom, it might make it to the speed limit ... if it were my wife, it would be flying!

I will put all that together and, with the passenger's testimony, send it to the court. I think it amounts to a reasonable doubt but will see what the judge has to say about it.

It might.

Are you doing a TBD first?

- Carl