• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Defence Plan for Traffic Violation Question

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.


Bounty Hunter

West Hollywood, California

Issued the first moving violation in twenty years recently, I have come to the conclusion that it is worthwhile to represent myself as "not guilty" to the preciding court.

Based on a radar reading, the citation is for CVC 22350 (Basic Speed Law), going 54 in a 35 mph zone. Researhing the CVC lead me to find that this is a double fine offense, one that may well be expensive in the fine itself and escalating insurance premiums.

My question is this: Does the citation itself represent the formal complaint to the court to the point where errors in both the CVC Section quoted and the vehicle description present "resonable doubt" as to the ability of the rookie Deputy's expertise with the Radar equipment? Done with a training officer in the patrol vehicle, not only was there other traffic present at the time of reading, my wife and I were in my classic 1955 Chevy. I understand there is validity to the size and shape of vehicles insofar as one like mine will likely be picked up by radar and locked onto more than that of the later, smaller streamlined shapes of vehicles.

I do understand (and intend to employ) the myriad of defences available when questioning radar violations, but really question the facts: That the current CVC has NO 22350.(a) as my citation clearly states I am guilty of, and that the carefully prepared citation (15 minutes of having the brightest lights shine through the big rear window into the mirrors, and all around us) described my car as "white" in color. In fact, the car is more than one-half blue.

Would not these glaring mistakes give credence to a "reasonable doubt" theroy as mentioned?

I would say this as well: The Deputy told me he was a rookie, wrote the ticket for the exact reading he saw, was polite, but seemed nervous. We never saw or met the other Deputy present. The car is NOT a race car, it is a very stock looking 2-door coupe with factory two-tone paint, a mild, late 350 motor, automatic transmission, and the traditional bench front seat we all loved as kids. The licence plate however may have different overtones to some who know not the history of the '55 chevies. It is "'55 NASCR", meaning 1955 NASCAR. Historically, the '55 2-door coupe was used in the early years of NASCAR racing with body's and frames factory fresh. The '55 took on the nickname "nascar frame" because of the one piece frame and less flex under strain it offered. Of course we did not speak of this.........

Sorry to ramble, hoping to provide clear picture for whomever may offer insight.



Senior Member
Having the incorrect law you violated on the citation is cause for dismissal. That is the only defense you need.

Bounty Hunter

Validate Defence for Invalid Citation

72 Racer...
Thank you for that quick reply. I do appreciate it!

I do want however, to validate your response insofar as in that the seemingly minor mistake is truly grounds for a easy dismissal of this case. It is correct sir...that the CVC does NOT contain 22350.(a) as written. It does contain 22350. It was a definite oversight (or undersight, depending on how one see's it) on the issuing Deputy's part. Let alone the training officer with him.

I guess all I'm saying is: Are you sure this alone is grounds for a motion to dismiss?

Very cool if so........


Senior Member
Having read the law, it appears the citation is correct. The "a" after the CVC code is a revision letter that is not shown on any online copies of the California Vehicle Code. Other than that, it would be hard to find a valid defense in your post as stated. I attend traffic court on a regular basis and a common defense is that "I was just one of many speeding" or "I was going with the flow of traffic". I have not found any traffic court judges that have accepted those as valid pleas. I would go with the claim that you were singled out based on the size and appearance of your vehicle. Wish you luck. I have a '66 GTO and I keep it at or below the speed limit just to avoid any possible problems. It is a pain when all the little Japanese cars go racing by but I feel it is worth it.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential