CVC 22348(b) - 101MPH in California

[shigity]

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

Hey guys, i live in Contra Costa County and will have to go to the Walnut Creek superior court. I am charged with going 100+ (101 specifically) on highway 24. I'm 18 years old and i have trial in one month for a previous moving violation (unsafe turn). I know what i did was stupid, please, don't try to reiterate that. It was about 11PM on 3/5/10 and there was almost no traffic out and the conditions were very good. I was cruising around 80, stepped on it and got off at about 95 and i saw the lights when i was going about 70. When the officer came up to my window, he said he used LIDAR but on the ticket, there is nothing in that box. I am completely prepared to deal with the consequences but over 100 is just ridiculous, especially because he stated it was only 101 mph(speed approx). I truly believe that i was under 100, but i neglected to ask to see the lidar. So, is there anything i can do to help my case? Would hiring a lawyer save me any money or points or keep my license? Any possibility of getting it bumped down? Any and all advice is appreciated.

Thanks

 

[JIMinCA]

I'm confused. Does the ticket say 100+ or does it say 101???

 

[shigity]

Ahh sorry about that. The first part says 22348(b) vc - speed 100+ and the box that says Speed Approx. is 101.

 

[JIMinCA]

OK... you should be able to beat this ticket easily... but you have to be smart. First of all, look at what you have been charged with:

22348(b) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed
greater than 100 miles per hour is guilty of an infraction

So, if you were driving 100mph, you would not be in violation of this statute. However, the cop clocked you at 101. So, assuming he was using lidar, he would need to bring the calibration certificates to court (he needs them because you will ask for them in discovery: more on that later). His calibration certificate likely won't show calibration at 100mph. However, if it does, you should look at the data to see if he can support his argument. Theoretically, his equipment does not read out in fraction of mph (if I am wrong, someone tell me... I don't think I am). So, it has to do some rounding. If you were going 100.49mph, it would register as 100. If you were going 100.51mph, it would show as 101. So, the device would have to be calibrated to be accurate within .02%. There is no way his lidar is that accurate. Even if it were, any minute panning error (look that up) would produce an error large enough to overcome a .02% tollerance.

So, you need to force the calibration records to court. I don't know of any law that requires the cop to bring calibration records automatically (does anyone else?) However, if you ask for it in discovery, it becomes possibly exculpatory evidence. So, you should go to Help! I Got a Ticket! to get information on doing a discovery request. Pay attention and do it right. Don't treat it like an algebra exam!!

Do the discovery request and keep us informed on your progress. If you do enough research and rehearse a bit, you will be fine. Remember, you are not proving that you are not guilty... you are only raising reasonable doubt.

 

[FlyingRon]

I'm no math wiz but 100.51 is more than 100 MPH.

 

[shigity]

Alright I've read up about the TBD and it seems simple enough. One thought i have though, is what would make more sense to do. Plead guilty and possibly have the fine reduced or plead not guilty and possible have the fine reduced? Or would the judge likely not reduce it if I plead not guilty since it is over 100? Or should i just talk to a lawyer?

 

[FlyingRon]

If you plead not guilty and give nothing to refute the testimony of the officer, you'll be found guilty. If you don't feel comfortable in making the assertions alluded to by Jim to challenge that you were over 100, then a lawyer is highly advisable. Another advantage of a lawyer, is that he is most likely familiar with the SPECIFIC court you will appear in and know what will fly and what negotiations may be open.

 

[JIMinCA]

I'm no math wiz but 100.51 is more than 100 MPH.

I agree.... you aren't a math wiz.

 

[JIMinCA]

Personally, I would NOT hire a lawyer. A lawyer, almost assuredly, will only plea it down to a 22348(b) violation and stick you with 1 point and a fine that is nearly $500 and then he'll tell you how lucky you are that you hired him.

To me, $500 and 1 point is not a good deal. I'd shoot for $0 and 0 points. I think this cop was stupid and arrogant to charge you with 22348. As such, he has to PROVE to the court your speed within an accuracy of around .02%. I'm sorry, but that is just impractical. Reasonable cops wouldn't charge you with speeding unless you were at least 10mph over the posted limit (given the limit is 45 - 65). However, this rocket scientist cites you with 1mph over at 100mph!!! The court would bounce him out on his ear if he charged you with 66 in a 65. So, the same logic applies... only it is amplified. If he would have charged you with 22349 like he should, I would have a much different opinion.

 

[Zigner]

Personally, I would NOT hire a lawyer. A lawyer, almost assuredly, will only plea it down to a 22348(b) violation and stick you with 1 point and a fine that is nearly $500 and then he'll tell you how lucky you are that you hired him.

To me, $500 and 1 point is not a good deal. I'd shoot for $0 and 0 points. I think this cop was stupid and arrogant to charge you with 22348. As such, he has to PROVE to the court your speed within an accuracy of around .02%. I'm sorry, but that is just impractical. Reasonable cops wouldn't charge you with speeding unless you were at least 10mph over the posted limit (given the limit is 45 - 65). However, this rocket scientist cites you with 1mph over at 100mph!!! The court would bounce him out on his ear if he charged you with 66 in a 65. So, the same logic applies... only it is amplified. If he would have charged you with 22349 like he should, I would have a much different opinion.

But that's not what he was charged with

Furthermore, what YOU would have done is to wait until he hit 110 mph.

Your post is totally unhelpful Jim.