First ticket! Confused...

[kurobaxkaito]

What is the name of your state? California

Well I am 17 years old and got a ticket today from a CHP Officer. I am turning 18 in June. The CHP officer stopped me for doing 66 at a 50mph zone and according to the nice CHP officer, he said he did not write me down as "speeding" but something else (forgot but had to do with a posted speed limit). He circled P.F. instead of Speed next to "speed approx" and he told me ways about what I can do about the ticket. He told me to delay the court date and ask for a extension. He also told me to take a aunt or uncle if I do not want my father to find out. He also suggested to ask for a extension until I'm 18 years old (1 month extension) so I can go to court alone with my father finding out. He also suggested I take a online traffic school so there will be no points against my license and such. Overall, I felt that he was a very honest and nice CHP. As I return home, I check on the Pomona Court website to see what I am supposed to do and found out that the information given by the officer did not match up. According to the Pomona court, it cannot be a aunt or uncle but has to be a parent. Also, on the back of the ticket, it states that if I recieved a ticket before 18, I must show up to court with a parent even if I do turn 18. I did not know what P.F. is and I was hoping for the best but since I am underage, I did not know what to do. If any of you have an idea why the officer may have lied to me or gave me false information, that would be great. I will post a picture of the ticket below.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/733/ticketnc2.jpg

I do not want to fight this ticket because I know I am the one at fault here but I would like to keep it away from my parent as much as possible. Thank you for your time.

 

[CdwJava]

he said he did not write me down as "speeding" but something else (forgot but had to do with a posted speed limit). He circled P.F. instead of Speed next to "speed approx" and he told me ways about what I can do about the ticket.

"PF" is 'Prima Facie' speed ... in other words, you exceeded the maximum safe speed. CVC 22350 is our "unsafe speed" violation, and is also used for violations of the prima facie (on the face) speed laws.

He told me to delay the court date and ask for a extension. He also told me to take a aunt or uncle if I do not want my father to find out. He also suggested to ask for a extension until I'm 18 years old (1 month extension) so I can go to court alone with my father finding out.

He was mighty helpful. In my county you would get a notice requiring you to bring your parent(s) or guardian(s) with you. L.A. County must be more lax in this regard.

However, it also not a good idea to give that level of instruction as it can come back to bite the officer. "But the officer told me that ..." ... this can have a bad ending for the officer.

He also suggested I take a online traffic school so there will be no points against my license and such. Overall, I felt that he was a very honest and nice CHP.

Most of them are.

According to the Pomona court, it cannot be a aunt or uncle but has to be a parent.

That might be the policy, but, perhaps, it is not the practice. Also, the officer may be used to another jurisdiction where that IS the practice.

Also, on the back of the ticket, it states that if I recieved a ticket before 18, I must show up to court with a parent even if I do turn 18.

Yep.

I did not know what P.F. is and I was hoping for the best but since I am underage, I did not know what to do.

P.F. explained above.

If any of you have an idea why the officer may have lied to me or gave me false information, that would be great. I will post a picture of the ticket below.

I don't think he "lied", I think he was mistaken. It sounds lik he was truly TRYING to give you sound advice. However, as happens, it was not the correct advice. Heck, I wouldn't even give that level of advice for my county court where I have some intimate knowledge of the goings on. It is NEVER a good idea to give that level of advice.

I do not want to fight this ticket because I know I am the one at fault here but I would like to keep it away from my parent as much as possible.

This is not likely to happen. However, you MIGHT be permitted to plead guilty by mail (when/if you get a courtesy notice), or you might be permitted to show at arraignment without a parent and plead guilty there. However, know that your parents WILL find out when their insurance rates get jacked up for your ticket.

- Carl

 

[The Occultist]

Haha yes, as Carl has pointed out, your ticket will affect your parents' insurance, and when they call their agent to ask why their premium has increased, they will be informed of your ticket. Now, do you think they'll be angrier if you go to them now? or if you put it off until the next time their policy is renewed (within the next 6 months) and have them find out from the agent?

 

[Jim_bo]

Telling your parents shouldn't be such a big deal. You are almost an adult. You should accept some responsibilty as an adult.

So, why do you not want to fight the ticket? You were almost certainly cited for VC22350. This has got to be one of the easiest tickets to beat. 22350 states:

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed
greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather,
visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the
highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of
persons or property.

Notice there is nothing there that says exceeding a posted speed limit. You were charged with driving at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. This is nearly impossible to enforce (unless the driver just doesn't want to challenge it) because if you truly were endangering persons or property, you likely would have been charged with something else.

Furthermore, you are protected by California's speed trap laws. This is where I would start. You simply need to call Caltrans and find the person who does the traffic and engineernig surveys for that particular section of highway. The survey must justify the 50mph speed limit. If it doesn't, enforcement of the limit constitutes a speed trap (assuming he used radar or other electronic means to determine your speed). Personally, every person that I have seen who was charged with 22350 and researched the traffic/engineering survey found that the posted limit was unjustified. This is not to suggest that all posted limits are unjustified... but a lot of them are.

I say, do your homework. Tell your parents you got a ticket and then demonstrate to them how you intend to avail yourself of the rights afforded by our govenrment by defending yourself in court. Hopefully, they will be supportive.

Jimbo

 

[CdwJava]

Notice there is nothing there that says exceeding a posted speed limit.

CVC 22350 is the section cited for exceeding the prima facie or posted speed limit. The driving does not have to be otherwise unsafe. However, if the section was cited pursuant to exceeding the posted speed limit (the prima facie safe speed), then the state would have to introduce the relevant traffic and engineering survey current within 5 years.

I say, do your homework. Tell your parents you got a ticket and then demonstrate to them how you intend to avail yourself of the rights afforded by our govenrment by defending yourself in court. Hopefully, they will be supportive.

Hmm ... if it were my kid I'd be supportive all right - I'd take away the car keys. That would help by supporting his survival. Keep in mind that 16-19 is the most dangerous driving group at least in CA. This group is almost 5 times more likely to be involved in a serious injury collision than most ANY other age group.

Hopefully he slows down.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

CVC 22350 is the section cited for exceeding the prima facie or posted speed limit. The driving does not have to be otherwise unsafe. However, if the section was cited pursuant to exceeding the posted speed limit (the prima facie safe speed), then the state would have to introduce the relevant traffic and engineering survey current within 5 years.


Hmm ... if it were my kid I'd be supportive all right - I'd take away the car keys. That would help by supporting his survival. Keep in mind that 16-19 is the most dangerous driving group at least in CA. This group is almost 5 times more likely to be involved in a serious injury collision than most ANY other age group.

Hopefully he slows down.

- Carl

I'm not sure what your point is.... are you suggesting he should not defend himself?

 

[CdwJava]

I'm not sure what your point is.... are you suggesting he should not defend himself?

If he wants to he can go right ahead. However, if it were MY kid I'd prefer he dig his heels into his studies (not in how to beat a ticket books and websites), stop driving fast, and follow the rules. He'd be a pedestrian so I know that the driving part would be resolved. I'd also have him take traffic school so that my insurance wouldn't take a hit. If he wanted to pay his own insurance, buy his own car, and live on his own after his 18th birthday, he could go right ahead and play Clarence Darrow.

I would recommend at least showing up for court and seeing if the officer shows. if he shows, plead guilty, pay the fine and ask for traffic school. If he doesn't show, case dismissed (usually).

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

CVC 22350 is the section cited for exceeding the prima facie or posted speed limit. The driving does not have to be otherwise unsafe.

22351(b) states:

The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima
facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in
this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by
competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not
constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and
under the conditions then existing.

So, I disagree with your statement, "The driving does not have to be otherwise unsafe". However, I concede that the burden to show that the speed in excess of the PF speed limit was not unsafe belongs to the motorist. This is typically not very difficult to do.

 

[Jim_bo]

If he wants to he can go right ahead. However, if it were MY kid I'd prefer he dig his heels into his studies (not in how to beat a ticket books and websites), stop driving fast, and follow the rules. He'd be a pedestrian so I know that the driving part would be resolved. I'd also have him take traffic school so that my insurance wouldn't take a hit. If he wanted to pay his own insurance, buy his own car, and live on his own after his 18th birthday, he could go right ahead and play Clarence Darrow.

I think defending himself in court IS playing by the rules. I also think defending himself would provide a tremendous civics/government lesson... one he likely would not be able to get in school. I think you and I have a very fundamental disagreement on our perspectives of the law. You see defending yourself in court as "playing Clarence Darrow". I see it as excercising your rights as a citizen of the United States. Rights that, by the way, are given to each citizen through the blood of many brave men and women who have fought and still fight to preserve. I don't take those rights lightly.

Jimbo

 

[CdwJava]

So, I disagree with your statement, "The driving does not have to be otherwise unsafe". However, I concede that the burden to show that the speed in excess of the PF speed limit was not unsafe belongs to the motorist. This is typically not very difficult to do.

Disagree if you want, but that's not what the courts say.

If the charge rests upon an allegation that the defendant exceeded a posted or prima facie speed limit, the people must introduce evidence of a traffic and engineering survey, made within the past five years, which justifies that speed limit; without such proof, the officer who cited the driver will be considered "incompetent" to testify at trial concerning the defendant’s speed. (Huffman (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 3-4.)

And, from the CA Attorney General:

The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in section 22352 (prima facie speed limits) or established as authorized in the Vehicle Code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law (reasonable or prudent).

The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in section 22352 or established in the Vehicle Code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law (Veh. Code, § 22350) at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.

In cases where the driver was not exceeding a posted speed limit, the arresting officer must prove both the speed and that it was a speed greater than was reasonable or prudent under the conditions.

In cases where the driver was exceeding the posted speed limit, the arresting officer must only prove the speed. The burden of proof then shifts to the defendant who must prove that the speed was safe at the time, place, and under the conditions existing. You should be prepared to overcome this defense by your notes containing the number of cars passed, intersections traversed, lane changes, pedestrians, other hazards and conditions.

The defendant has no such defense in cases involving maximum (absolute) speed limits.

Certainly there are arguments to be made, but CVC 22350 IS the section to be cited for exceeding the posted (prima facie safe speed) limit in most instances.



- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

I see it as excercising your rights as a citizen of the United States. Rights that, by the way, are given to each citizen through the blood of many brave men and women who have fought and still fight to preserve. I don't take those rights lightly.

Neither do I. However, I have better things to do with my time and money than to fight a violation in court that I KNOW I am guilty of. And so would my son. Since traffic school would miinimize the impact, that is the route I would follow. I did it when I was young (once), my wife will be doing it soon enough (just got a ticket), and my sons are still too young to drive (thank God).

All because you CAN do something does not mean you HAVE to do it.


- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Disagree if you want, but that's not what the courts say.

If the charge rests upon an allegation that the defendant exceeded a posted or prima facie speed limit, the people must introduce evidence of a traffic and engineering survey, made within the past five years, which justifies that speed limit; without such proof, the officer who cited the driver will be considered "incompetent" to testify at trial concerning the defendant’s speed. (Huffman (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 3-4.)

And, from the CA Attorney General:

The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in section 22352 (prima facie speed limits) or established as authorized in the Vehicle Code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law (reasonable or prudent).

The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in section 22352 or established in the Vehicle Code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law (Veh. Code, § 22350) at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.

In cases where the driver was not exceeding a posted speed limit, the arresting officer must prove both the speed and that it was a speed greater than was reasonable or prudent under the conditions.

In cases where the driver was exceeding the posted speed limit, the arresting officer must only prove the speed. The burden of proof then shifts to the defendant who must prove that the speed was safe at the time, place, and under the conditions existing. You should be prepared to overcome this defense by your notes containing the number of cars passed, intersections traversed, lane changes, pedestrians, other hazards and conditions.

The defendant has no such defense in cases involving maximum (absolute) speed limits.

Certainly there are arguments to be made, but CVC 22350 IS the section to be cited for exceeding the posted (prima facie safe speed) limit in most instances.



- Carl

Maybe I am confused. But, I think we are saying the same thing. I agree that if a person was charged with 22350 and was driving above the pf limit, that the state only needs to show evidence of speed. The defendant would have to show by competent evidence that his speed did not endanger the safety of people or property (i.e. the basic speed law). However, I am saying that just because the state shows evidence of speed above the posted pf limit, that does NOT automatically secure a conviction. It usually is not that hard to show that the speed alleged at the time did not endanger persons or property and therefore is NOT a violation of the basic speed law.

Jimbo

 

[Jim_bo]

Neither do I. However, I have better things to do with my time and money than to fight a violation in court that I KNOW I am guilty of. And so would my son. Since traffic school would miinimize the impact, that is the route I would follow. I did it when I was young (once), my wife will be doing it soon enough (just got a ticket), and my sons are still too young to drive (thank God).

All because you CAN do something does not mean you HAVE to do it.


- Carl

Well.... that's why I advocated that he look into the traffic/engineering survey. If it does not justify the PF speed limit, then I KNOW that he is NOT guilty. It's been my experience that most PF speed limits are not justified, so here's what I'll do:

If the OP will tell me what the location of the violation was (as stated on the ticket), I'll take the time to call CALTRANS for him. Carl, I'll bet you a donut that it is not a justified PF speed limit. Whether I win or loose, I would enjoy the opportunity to sit down and share a donut with you as we settle our bet.

Jimbo

 

[Jim_bo]

If you like, we could change that bet to a double mocha and a croissant.

Jimbo

 

[seniorjudge]

Maybe I am confused. But, I think we are saying the same thing. I agree that if a person was charged with 22350 and was driving above the pf limit, that the state only needs to show evidence of speed. The defendant would have to show by competent evidence that his speed did not endanger the safety of people or property (i.e. the basic speed law). However, I am saying that just because the state shows evidence of speed above the posted pf limit, that does NOT automatically secure a conviction. It usually is not that hard to show that the speed alleged at the time did not endanger persons or property and therefore is NOT a violation of the basic speed law.

Jimbo

Wrong.

All the government has to do is show that the person was speeding.


22351(b) states:

The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not
constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditionshen existing.

This says that the defendant will win if he wasn't speeding: "...establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time...." etc.