• 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.

The Occultist

Senior Member
The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.
Not relevant, but thought I'd throw that out there. Also, Jim, you need to stop blabbing on about innocent until proven guilty, because in traffic cases, the state meets their burden of proof when the expert witness takes the stand and testifies. That's it. It is then up to the defendant to show how or why the officer was wrong, or, another way to say this, is that the defendant must then prove their innocence. Since we all know that the expert witness is going to take the stand, it seems to me that defendant is indeed already guilty.
 


JIMinCA

Member
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.

The 25 mph speed limit would have been statutory if he cited 22352. Since he cited 22350, it is subject to justification under the speed trap laws.

Anyway, I don't really know what the hell your point is. I have offered a reasonalbe, viable defense for the OP to consider. If he does use it, he may win... or he may loose. You have only said that I am wrong and have offered nothing to the OP in the way of a possible defense. If he follows your lead, he will loose for sure. So, are you trying to provide something beneficial for the OP to use, or are you just in a "mine is bigger than yours" contest with me?
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The 25 mph speed limit would have been statutory if he cited 22352. Since he cited 22350, it is subject to justification under the speed trap laws.

Anyway, I don't really know what the hell your point is. I have offered a reasonalbe, viable defense for the OP to consider. If he does use it, he may win... or he may loose. You have only said that I am wrong and have offered nothing to the OP in the way of a possible defense. If he follows your lead, he will loose for sure. So, are you trying to provide something beneficial for the OP to use, or are you just in a "mine is bigger than yours" contest with me?
Sometimes, one cannot win...
 

JIMinCA

Member
Not relevant, but thought I'd throw that out there. Also, Jim, you need to stop blabbing on about innocent until proven guilty, because in traffic cases, the state meets their burden of proof when the expert witness takes the stand and testifies. That's it. It is then up to the defendant to show how or why the officer was wrong, or, another way to say this, is that the defendant must then prove their innocence. Since we all know that the expert witness is going to take the stand, it seems to me that defendant is indeed already guilty.
The fact that you can't see the way you contradict yourself in your own post is amazing to me. The OP is innocent until proven guilty. There absolutely is a presumption of innocence... certainly no one is going to deny that. However, when the state presents evidence, that certainly can lead to a conviction. But, it definitely doesn't mean he is guilty before he goes to trial. Also, you seem to think I am suggesting the OP contradict the cop on his testimony. I never said anything like that. I simply said that the OP may be guilty of violating a section of the vehicle code (i.e. 22352), but he may NOT be guilty of violating 22350. He can go to court and admit his speed and his location after the cop testifies and still win.

The cop may be an expert on measuring speed... but he is not an expert on the law. That is for the judge. I have done this more than once... agree with everything the cop says, but win the case anyway. And the reason is, I didn't argue the same case as the cop. This isn't that hard for most people to understand.
 

JIMinCA

Member
Sometimes, one cannot win...
I don't understand why you would be trying to "win". The purpose of this site is NOT to "win"... the purpose is to help someone who could benefit from your experience. If you are here to win, maybe you should consider a different site.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I don't understand why you would be trying to "win". The purpose of this site is NOT to "win"... the purpose is to help someone who could benefit from your experience. If you are here to win, maybe you should consider a different site.
Are you daft?
The OP is here to find a way to "WIN". Sometimes one must accept that they won't win.
 

occharge

Member
I think Jim's point here is that although he agrees that the 25mph Speed limit is statutory... the citation was issued for a violation of 22350 which is a bit more lenient as far as the set speed limit is concerned. It says that as long as you're driving at a speed that is reasonable and prudent, and that you are not endangering the life or property of anyone... then driving a bit above the "statutory limit" can still be OK... The officer allowed the OP that argument by citing him/her for 22350 instead of 22352.

And the Engineering and traffic survey that the officer will have to present so as to justify his Radar reading, supports that fact that a higher speed limit could have been set (using the 85 percentile) and that assuming the conditions are "right" one can justify driving a bit over the posted limit so long as the are being reasonable and prudent.

So the burden of proof is on the officer to prove that the when the OP made the decision to drive at the speed he was clocked at, that he was not being reasonable and prudent... when in fact he might have been considering there were no children, seniors, and depending on weather and road conditions... etc.

My only question is: What speed did the OP get cited for?
 
Last edited:

occharge

Member
..... The United Nations incorporated the principle in its Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 under article eleven, section one....
That is as much an interesting post as it is ironic... It is also pretty representative of the hypocrisy that is the "United Nations"...

Apparently, when the United Nations had decided that same year that the Palestinian people were not entitled to the protection of its Declaration of Human Rights...

Judge, any idea what month in 1948 was that Declaration adopted?
 

Meta

Junior Member
Case dismissed

The officer filed a Request for Continuance. But the case was dismissed, in the interest of justice, since the hearing would not be able to be scheduled within 45 days.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
That is as much an interesting post as it is ironic... It is also pretty representative of the hypocrisy that is the "United Nations"...

Apparently, when the United Nations had decided that same year that the Palestinian people were not entitled to the protection of its Declaration of Human Rights...

Judge, any idea what month in 1948 was that Declaration adopted?
Oh, we don't want to get into a history lesson of who attacked who ... pity the U.N. didn't act to condemn the attackers who vowed to drive them into the sea.

Personally, I say move the U.N. to some other nation and let someone else carry the burden.

But, that discussion is unrelated to the discussion at hand.

- Carl
 
Last edited:

occharge

Member
The officer filed a Request for Continuance. But the case was dismissed, in the interest of justice, since the hearing would not be able to be scheduled within 45 days.
That's awesome... Saved you quite a bit of research and wrecked nerves... Congrats...
I guess winning a Trial De Novo isn't that far fetched.

And thanks for coming back and posting the outcome; not too many people do that!
 

occharge

Member
OP didn't "win" the case ;)
The OP didnt "LOSE" either;

The OP won,
The OP prevailed,
The OP came out ahead,

The OP is defintely much closer to winning than he/she is to losing.
But you know what? let's get off the topic... Point is, the OP "WON", the people of the state of California lost!!!!
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The OP didnt "LOSE" either;

The OP won,
The OP prevailed,
The OP came out ahead,

The OP is defintely much closer to winning than he/she is to losing.
But you know what? let's get off the topic... Point is, the OP "WON", the people of the state of California lost!!!!
No - the case was dismissed. There was no "winner" or "loser"
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top