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

[CdwJava]

Nowhere in VC 22349 does it state that the violation requires disobeying a posted speed sign. Not even subsection (c). You are certainly free to make such an argument if you wish, and given that it's traffic court and you might have a Commissioner or pro tem who may have a particular feeling about traffic laws, you MIGHT prevail. However, if keeping your costs low into the future is important to you, you might want to consider pleading "guilty" or "no contest" and asking for traffic school.

 

[Zigner]

If this is the case, then I would need to exceed 55MPH AND be in a 55MPH speed limit zone for 22349(b) to be valid

Nope - there (apparently) was reasonable signage, because you KNOW that the speed limit is 30mph.

 

[quincy]

Can you address post #13?

22349(c) clearly indicates that highways in (b) have a 55mph speed limit

Essentially, nstymatt, the speeding ticket you received indicates the speed limit in the area where you were stopped and the speed you were going over that limit, as recorded by the officer using radar. The code violation number can be amended to reflect the appropriate code violation.

 

[Zigner]

Again you miss the point. The statute you were cited with doesn't have anything to do with the speed limit where you were cited. It's a MAXIMUM SPEED law. It is illegal to drive over 55 anywhere, be it on a 55 zone or a school zone or a 30 MPH zone. The only exception is the case in (a).

That's not quite what it means. The law means that it's illegal to drive over 65 anywhere, except for a 2 lane undivided highway (as per (b)), in which case the max speed is 55.

 

[nstymatt]

Still have some some confusion between 22349(b) and 22350 and which one is correct in my case.

For those who are saying that the actual cvc # doesn't matter since I am guilty regardless, I disagree. If the ticket is amended to use 22350 instead of 22349, then speed traps come into play and my defense changes entirely.

But for those who are saying that 22349(b) is still valid in a 30mph zone, then would I be charged for 63 in a 30 or 63 in a 55?

 

[CdwJava]

Still have some some confusion between 22349(b) and 22350 and which one is correct in my case.

They can BOTH be correct.

From the officer's perspective, the advantage of NOT using VC 22350 is that it cuts out a couple of defenses you might have otherwise been able to use. The downside is that if the road is not as described in the section, the driver will prevail easily.

One of two things may have been going on here. Either the officer had a brain fade or or had a lapse in training and cited 22349(b) because he did not know any different, or, he cited 22349(b) because in his jurisdiction it's been a winner. Frankly, I wouldn't have thought to use VC 22349(b) for 55+, so I'm going for the latter.

For those who are saying that the actual cvc # doesn't matter since I am guilty regardless, I disagree. If the ticket is amended to use 22350 instead of 22349, then speed traps come into play and my defense changes entirely.

Which is probably why you were cited for VC 22349(b). And if there was proper signage and a survey, the speed trap issue wouldn't be there anyway - not to mention the fact that doing 63 in a 30 is pretty egregious!

But for those who are saying that 22349(b) is still valid in a 30mph zone, then would I be charged for 63 in a 30 or 63 in a 55?

Good question. I'm going to guess you'd be charged for the 55 limit. So, about ... $283??

 

[Zigner]

Good question. I'm going to guess you'd be charged for the 55 limit. So, about ... $283??

Plus all the surcharges, etc., right?

 

[CdwJava]

Plus all the surcharges, etc., right?

Nope. All told it should be about $238 for 1-15 MPH over the limit ... I transposed the two numbers. A bit more if he is able to receive traffic school.

 

[nstymatt]

Ok that makes sense. If it is 63 in 55, I will accept this and do traffic school. If the officer pushes for 63 in a 30, then I would try to fight this with speed trap laws.

Java, not sure if you've been on hwy 9. It is a curvy road with some straight sections. Guess where I was pulled over? The officer was sitting at the end of a straight, and the road was downhill and empty. Not saying that this excuses me from breaking the law. But just a bit frustrating that any straight road on a downhill would have a 30mph speed limit. I'm sure cyclists would approach that speed on the same road

 

[FlyingRon]

That's not quite what it means. The law means that it's illegal to drive over 65 anywhere, except for a 2 lane undivided highway (as per (b)), in which case the max speed is 55.

We were talking about (b). It is EXACTLY what I said. Other than as specified in (a), it's illegal to drive more than 55.

 

[FlyingRon]

Still have some some confusion between 22349(b) and 22350 and which one is correct in my case.

22350 is the basic speed law: too fast for conditions in brief.
22349 is the maximum speed law: you can't driver faster than this period.

You could also have been charged with 22348: violation of posted speed.

 

[Zigner]

We were talking about (b). It is EXACTLY what I said. Other than as specified in (a), it's illegal to drive more than 55.

Fair enough - I misinterpreted your post.

 

[nstymatt]

They can BOTH be correct.

From the officer's perspective, the advantage of NOT using VC 22350 is that it cuts out a couple of defenses you might have otherwise been able to use. The downside is that if the road is not as described in the section, the driver will prevail easily.

One of two things may have been going on here. Either the officer had a brain fade or or had a lapse in training and cited 22349(b) because he did not know any different, or, he cited 22349(b) because in his jurisdiction it's been a winner. Frankly, I wouldn't have thought to use VC 22349(b) for 55+, so I'm going for the latter.

"They can BOTH be correct". Yes this is understood now. I guess my point is that either 22349(b) or 22350 can be be correct, but not both. So the officer should have put 55mph as "P.F max speed" on the ticket if he wants to use 22349(b), if he believes that 22349(b) is a sure fire win

 

[CdwJava]

Java, not sure if you've been on hwy 9. It is a curvy road with some straight sections. Guess where I was pulled over? The officer was sitting at the end of a straight, and the road was downhill and empty. Not saying that this excuses me from breaking the law. But just a bit frustrating that any straight road on a downhill would have a 30mph speed limit. I'm sure cyclists would approach that speed on the same road

I'm very familiar with Hwy 9. Spent most of my life up there. Speed limits are set based upon engineering and safety needs. I can only assume that the stretch of road where you were required a 30 MPH speed to avoid problems.

 

[CdwJava]

"They can BOTH be correct". Yes this is understood now. I guess my point is that either 22349(b) or 22350 can be be correct, but not both. So the officer should have put 55mph as "P.F max speed" on the ticket if he wants to use 22349(b), if he believes that 22349(b) is a sure fire win

If you look inside the Vehicle Code, and then add in local municipal codes and even regulations in the CCR or one of the other multiple codes in CA, you can likely find multiple statutes that apply for a number of offenses. All because multiple offenses might be possible doesn't mean that one must be preferred over the other unless the law requires it.