CVC22349(b), multiple errors on ticket, is demurrer an option?

[Zigner]

Well since you brought car maintenance into the argument and didn't actually address my point about 30mph+8% being reasonable or not...

Again...huh? Of course I addressed it, but I'll address it again. Yes, it's reasonable to obey a 30 mph speed limit.

 

[nstymatt]

Again...huh? Of course I addressed it, but I'll address it again. Yes, it's reasonable to obey a 30 mph speed limit.

Cool, I guess we should never question any speed limits because authorities have our best interests at heart.

 

[Zigner]

Cool, I guess we should never question any speed limits because authorities have our best interests at heart.

Again...huh?
Do you enjoy putting out tons of money and rolling the dice that you will prevail in court? Do you enjoy insurance increases? Do you enjoy the time you have to commit to dealing with the officer on the side of the road, and dealing with the court? All without the hope of changing anything...

The logical way to effect change is NOT by exceeding the posted speed limit.

You really don't make sense.

 

[nstymatt]

Again...huh?
Do you enjoy putting out tons of money and rolling the dice that you will prevail in court? Do you enjoy insurance increases? Do you enjoy the time you have to commit to dealing with the officer on the side of the road, and dealing with the court? All without the hope of changing anything...

The logical way to effect change is NOT by exceeding the posted speed limit.

You really don't make sense.

Dude what are you talking about.. I never said any of this. Did I say I'm intentionally speeding, 63 in a 30, as a way to somehow rebel against the law?

I'll tell you what I told the officer. I honestly thought the speed limit was 55mph. Because this is the same as the other twisty road next to the one I was driving on.

Is ignorance an excuse for breaking the law? No, but to imply that I knew the speed limit was 30 and chose to drive 63 is incorrect (to have a good time at court and paying money? Rebelling against the law? as you imply) . Under what I thought was the speed limit of 55, I chose to drive 63. Now if you want to say speeding 8mph over is still egregious, then so be it.

"The logical way to effect change is NOT by exceeding the posted speed limit."

What? Again, I never said that I intentionally drove 30mph over to effect change. I'm merely pointing out that based on the road itself, 30mph for the entire stretch is unreasonable. I could have this opinion if I was driving 30mph, 60mph, being a passenger, cycling on the road, whatever.

And imo that is a terrible view of encouraging change in society. So by your logic, no one in history should ever speak out or act out against the law because it is "All without the hope of changing anything..."

 

[Zigner]

I'll tell you what I told the officer. I honestly thought the speed limit was 55mph. Because this is the same as the other twisty road next to the one I was driving on.

Wait, now you're saying that you don't bother checking the speed limit when you drive? That you just blithely assume it's the same as some other nearby road?

My post was in direct response to your (non-sensical) post.

My advice to you? Pay attention to the road that you're actually driving on, and at least try to drive at something close to the speed limit.

Best of luck to you - I'm done here.

 

[nstymatt]

Wait, now you're saying that you don't bother checking the speed limit when you drive? That you just blithely assume it's the same as some other nearby road?

My post was in direct response to your (non-sensical) post.

Oh my god. What kind of arguments are these? I only said that I thought the speed limit was 55mph. I even said that this is not an excuse literally in my next sentence - "Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law". But how convenient for you to leave this out. I didn't say that I intentionally do not check speed limits. But good for you to continue making assumptions.

My advice to you? Pay attention to the road that you're actually driving on, and at least try to drive at something close to the speed limit.

No offense, but I really do not want to take advice from someone who believes that the best way to effect change is to not do anything at all. Because according to you, if the government can impose punishment it's not worth taking a stand for. And it's "All without the hope of changing anything... ". What a terrible point of view and literally goes against how this country was founded.

Best of luck to you - I'm done here.

Well I hope you do come back. As frustrating as it is talking to someone who constantly takes things out of context and doesn't address the point I'm trying to make, I admit this was quite entertaining.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Oh my god. What kind of arguments are these? I only said that I thought the speed limit was 55mph. I even said that this is not an excuse literally in my next sentence - "Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law". But how convenient for you to leave this out. I didn't say that I intentionally do not check speed limits. But good for you to continue making assumptions.



No offense, but I really do not want to take advice from someone who believes that the best way to effect change is to not do anything at all. Because according to you, if the government can impose punishment it's not worth taking a stand for. And it's "All without the hope of changing anything... ". What a terrible point of view and literally goes against how this country was founded.



Well I hope you do come back. As frustrating as it is talking to someone who constantly takes things out of context and doesn't address the point I'm trying to make, I admit this was quite entertaining.

You admit you were going 63.

Even if the speed limit were 55, you were exceeding it noticeably.

If you don't like a law, you try to change the law - you don't go breaking it.

 

[nstymatt]

You admit you were going 63.

Even if the speed limit were 55, you were exceeding it noticeably.

"Noticeably", by what definition. Yours? The law puts 1mph-15mph violations in the same speeding bracket. So if 63 in 55 is "noticeable" then so is 56 in 55. If that's what you believe, then cool you got me.

And I never complained about being charged for 63 in a 55. If that's what the judge says, then I'll happily take traffic school. My original post is questioning the validity/errors of the ticket, NOT the questioning how to get out of going 63 in a 55.

If you don't like a law, you try to change the law - you don't go breaking it.

Ok this argument has got to stop unless you guys can back up where I said this. Where did I say that the reason I drove at 63mph is to rebel against the law? My infraction has nothing to do with my opinion on a particular speed limit. I can have an opinion on a speed limit regardless if I'm driving above or below.

But probably the most ironic thing about your post is that going above the speed limit IS how speed limits are changed. You do realize that this is exactly how speed surveys are used to set prima facie speed limits right?

 

[demurringdude]

I know this is a bit late for the OP, but having tried the demurrer thing myself in traffic court I thought even a late reply might be useful to someone.
Generally speaking, demurring in traffic court is not a good strategy for lots of reasons.

1. The judge is not guaranteed to be familiar with the rules of real court, and unless you can authoritatively give him every last reason why he has no alternative but to grant your demurrer, he probably won't. If you aren't an attorney, it's not likely you will be able to be this effective. If you can't marshal a good argument on a web forum, you aren't going to be able to do it on your feet in court.

2. A demurrer is only applicable if you are conceding that that facts as alleged, even if true, do not warrant you being there in court. If it's a simple case of clerical error about which part of the code is cited, then that can be amended and given to you (there's a process, sure). So at best it's just a delay. And that's just causing you a headache with multiple appearances.

3. You can't introduce any evidence in a demurrer. So if your defense is "I wasn't doing that" then you won't be able to demur. The only thing you can use is the complaint. This is a very strict requirement. For example, you can't use the envelope that the complaint came in to show that it was mailed late or to the wrong address.

4. Even if you convince the judge that you have a legitimate demurral request, and he knows how to handle it, he isn't going to just grant your demurral and dimiss the ticket. He will schedule a hearing on your demurral, and you will have to come back. You will have to serve your motion on the other party, if you can figure out who that is. This will involve you in a lot of research, clerical work, trips to the court, and trips to the DA. Make one error and it is all for naught.

For these reasons I would say it's a poor strategy. There's a lot of work and the most likely outcome is that it won't succeed and you are then paying the fine you would have paid anyway AND you wasted extra time on top of that.

In my own case, my demurrer was eventually denied after three hearings at successively higher courts, but the traffic court was ordered to dismiss my ticket, for the reasons given in my demurrer (ticket not mailed within 15-day limit). Was it worth it to save $500? Only as an educational project.

 

[Just Blue]

@demurringdude Please don't post to old threads.

 

[demurringdude]

Why not? There's nothing going on this forum anyway.

 

[Just Blue]

Why not? There's nothing going on this forum anyway.

Because it against the "netiquette" of this site. If you wish to post something helpful for others then start a thread.

 

[demurringdude]

Where can I find the "netiquette" rules for this forum?

 

[Just Blue]

Where can I find the "netiquette" rules for this forum?

You've been a member for over a decade...you know that members and Admin frowns on necroposting. Just start a thread with your helpful advice.