• 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.

School Zone Speed Trap?

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

JIMinCA

Member
Don't count on it being a winner.

By the way, Jim, "innocent until proven guilty" is found nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

Do your research.
Neither is "seperation of church and state", but it is a tennant that is practiced routinely in our system of government.

Research done.



BTW... I find your signature line to be ironic considering the "you're guilty" attitude without even attempting to provide counsel, courtesy or countenance.
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
Neither is "seperation of church and state", but it is a tennant that is practiced routinely in our system of government.

Research done.



BTW... I find your signature line to be ironic considering the "you're guilty" attitude without even attempting to provide counsel, courtesy or countenance.
What is a "tennant"?
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm


Innocent Until Proven Guilty:

The Origins of a Legal Maxim



Kenneth Pennington





Papal Justice and Due Process

The maxim, Innocent until proven guilty, has had a good run in the twentieth century. The United Nations incorporated the principle in its Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 under article eleven, section one. The maxim also found a place in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in 1953 [as article 6, section 2] and was incorporated into the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [as article 14, section 2]. This was a satisfying development for Americans because there are few maxims that have a greater resonance in Anglo-American, common law jurisprudence. The Anglo-American reverence for the maxim does pose an interesting conundrum: it cannot be found in Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Declaration of Independence, or in the Constitution of the United States; and not, I might add, in the works of the great English jurists, Bracton, Coke, and Blackstone. Nevertheless, some scholars have claimed that the maxim has been firmly embedded in English jurisprudence since earliest times.

etc.

Interesting article.
 

JIMinCA

Member
http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm


Innocent Until Proven Guilty:

The Origins of a Legal Maxim



Kenneth Pennington





Papal Justice and Due Process

The maxim, Innocent until proven guilty, has had a good run in the twentieth century. The United Nations incorporated the principle in its Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 under article eleven, section one. The maxim also found a place in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in 1953 [as article 6, section 2] and was incorporated into the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [as article 14, section 2]. This was a satisfying development for Americans because there are few maxims that have a greater resonance in Anglo-American, common law jurisprudence. The Anglo-American reverence for the maxim does pose an interesting conundrum: it cannot be found in Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the Declaration of Independence, or in the Constitution of the United States; and not, I might add, in the works of the great English jurists, Bracton, Coke, and Blackstone. Nevertheless, some scholars have claimed that the maxim has been firmly embedded in English jurisprudence since earliest times.

etc.

Interesting article.

Again... what is your point?
 

Meta

Junior Member
Thanks, Jim. I actually have filed a Trial De Novo so am trying to prepare and figure out my best strategy.

I went down to the traffic court and asked for a copy of the officer's declaration so I would know what his argument is. It seems pretty standard as if almost a form that they fill out with the appropriate info. He covered all the basis even going into detail on his radar training, calibration of the unit, visual estimate of my speed prior to using the radar (which of course confirmed my speed).
 

JIMinCA

Member
Gosh darn it, your intellectual capacity is really sharp!:rolleyes:
When you have a lucid, intellegent point to make concerning the OP's case and a possible defense that he could use, you should post it here. The rest of the crap that you are spewing is merely the ramblings of a troll.
 

JIMinCA

Member
Thanks, Jim. I actually have filed a Trial De Novo so am trying to prepare and figure out my best strategy.

I went down to the traffic court and asked for a copy of the officer's declaration so I would know what his argument is. It seems pretty standard as if almost a form that they fill out with the appropriate info. He covered all the basis even going into detail on his radar training, calibration of the unit, visual estimate of my speed prior to using the radar (which of course confirmed my speed).
Very interesting. However, you understand you cannot use that document in your trial de novo. But, it will give you an idea of what his approach will be. I'd make the argument that 22350 meant that he was not relying on the school zone and that he is subject to the speed trap laws. Therefore, he will need to bring to court a copy of the speed survey that justifies the prima facie limit (which he probably won't have). Good luck.

Sorry about your thread being hijacked by trolls.
 

seniorjudge

Senior Member
22350 doesn't mention ANY speed limit ;)
Basic Speed Law

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.

Amended Ch. 252, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22350.htm


Meta, Jim clearly has no idea what he is talking about...except that part about doing a trial de novo.

Let us know how it turns out.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Again - the "prima facie" speed limit is statutory -

OP will lose this one - even with all your expert guidance, Jim. ;):rolleyes:

EDIT: I'll restate - the "prima facie" speed limit is not the argument. The 25 mph speed limit is statutory.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top