Speed trap defense for exceeding max speed

[JIMinCA]

I was cited for speeding a few months ago under CVC22349(a) (exceeding max speed – 4 lane highway). The posted speed limit was 60 mph (prima facie speed limit). I obtained a copy of the speed survey which clearly showed the 60 mph speed limit was unjustified. I filed a trial by written declaration, submitted the speed survey (even though it is the obligation of the prosecution), and submitted a couple of appellate court cases that support my position that a speed trap existed which excluded all evidence of speed.

I was found guilty.

I requested a Trial De Novo (new trial) and was granted one for today.

I went to court today prepared to argue my speed trap defense. The officer went through his typical speech about the ticket. He submitted a copy of the radar calibration, his certificate of radar training and the speed survey. Of the three, only the speed survey was a certified true copy. Being opportunistic, once the officer was done with his testimony, I objected to the calibration document and the certificate of training because they were not certified true copies and therefore hearsay and inadmissible. The judge agreed. So, I made a motion for dismissal based on lack of evidence since the documents were thrown out. The judge denied my motion since the officer testified to the calibration and training and I did not object to his testimony!! Well, I didn’t have too much problem with that. The judge countered my “technicality” with a “technicality”. Touché.

I then made a motion to dismiss based on the fact that the prosecution failed to prove that use of radar did not constitute a speed trap (as per VC 40803(b)). I had already seen the survey and I knew it wasn’t justified… I’m not sure why the cop even brought it to court.

The judge denied my motion stating that I was charge with VC22349 (exceeding max speed) and therefore speed trap laws don’t apply. I argued with the judge who denied my motion again and said she could provide court cases that support her ruling and this is a typical ruling of this court. I told her that several cases say that speed trap laws DO still apply and I had a copy of People v. Studley with me that proved such. The judge took my copy of Studley, quickly reviewed it, and once again denied my motion stating speed trap laws did not apply for exceeding max speed!! I read to the Court the following excerpt from Studley:

“This case presents the following question: where a motorist is cited, by the use of radar, for speed in excess of the state maximum speed limit on a nonlocal road with a prima facie speed limit of 50 miles per hour, and where a traffic and engineering survey is not proved at trial, do California's speed trap laws apply to compel exclusion of all evidence of speed? We hold the answer is "yes."”

At that time, the judge decided to take a recess and review applicable case law. About 15 minutes later, the judge returned and reversed her previous motion for dismissal and dismissed the case based on lack of calibration evidence!

So, instead of admitting that a speed trap DID exist, my case was brushed under the rug and the CHP is free to continue writing illegal speeding tickets to unsuspecting motorists. To me, there is a failure in the system..

 

[CdwJava]

It would be so much easier and less time consuming to just adhere to the posted limit ...

Oh well.

- Carl

 

[JIMinCA]

so much for that 100% success rate eh JIMBO???

this is the first one you actually had to argue isn't it???

Guess when they put up those speed limit signs, they weren't kidding.

What are you talking about? I got a dismissal. I'm still at 100%.


Bizarre....

 

[JIMinCA]

It would be so much easier and less time consuming to just adhere to the posted limit ...

Oh well.

- Carl

And miss all that fun in traffic court??

I'm just curious as to why you and others aren't offended that cops are writting illegal tickets and the courts are helping them do it. After all, it would be so much easier just to post a legal speed limit.... or for the State to just accept when it has done something wrong. Isn't that what you guys give me grief about???

 

[Hey There]

1-8-08

JIMinCA.

I consider how you presented your case in the Trial by Declaration and later in court as a blueprint on how a case should be handled.
Had you not stated that the calibration document was not a true certified copy the judge wouldn't have later felt compelled to dismiss your case due to lack of calibration evidence (your initial request in court to dismiss your case.)
The judge, by her decision, buttresses the argument that if a document supporting the officer's testimony is invalid as pointed out by the defendant, the case can be dismissed even when an objection isn't made during the officer's testimony.
I agree with your argument that a speed trap was A most valid reason for dismissal. Indeed according to your post this was THE ARGUMENT you first presented as the reason for dismissal in your Trial by Declaration.
Yet your post gives us all a heads up to object during the officer's testimony although I fail to understand how testimony can be considered valid if the document supporting it isn't valid evidence.

*****************************************************
Have you considered writing a letter to the editor of your local paper that a speed trap exists?

Best Regards,
Hey There

 

[loulblades]

Way to go. Excellent job.

 

[JIMinCA]

The truth of the matter is much worse. Of all the speeding tickets I have helped people with, each time there is a prima facie speed limit, I get a copy of the speed survey. I have not seen ONE incident where the speed limit was justified. Further, the cops and the courts really do not understand (or care) about the speed trap laws. Of all the cases I have been involved that involved a speed trap, all the dismissals were for reasons OTHER than speed traps. I really believe the State chooses to turn a blind eye to the speed trap issues so they can "unknowingly" continue to write illegal tickets an effect illegal prosecutions.

This is not a poorly worded section of the vehicle code that sneaky people use to slip through the cracks. The legislature has gone through much trouble and has even written a half dozen specific section of the vehicle code specifically dealing with speed traps. The legislature's (and the people's) disdain is apparrent. Yet, the courts and the cops don't seem to care.

 

[JIMinCA]

1-8-08

*****************************************************
Have you considered writing a letter to the editor of your local paper that a speed trap exists?

Best Regards,
Hey There

I had not considered a letter to the editor... but the more I think about it, the more I think it may be a good idea. People really should know about this type of abuse. For example, there is a small town just a few miles from me that a main highway goes through. The speed limit drops from 65 down to 25 in the town. I have been in traffic court and watched at least a dozen people being arraigned for speeding in that town. Each person would plead guilty and ask for traffic school. Countless more likely take care of their tickets without going to court. The only problem with this scenario is that I got a copy of the speed survey and there is not one spot in the town on that main highway where the speed limit is justified. All of those tickets are illegally written and all of that revenue for the State (and local municipalities) is illegally gained. I even saw a judge pro tem make the statement that there are practically no unjustified speed limits in California. He said he heard of one in Barstow, but that is rare. (I also have the transcript of this trial.)

The funny thing is, when I talk to people about defending traffic tickets, I frequently get the same redneck response that I get from many people here: "you're guilty, so just pay your ticket and shut up". However, when confronted with the fact that literally hundreds of people are being issued illegal tickets and the State is taking in tens of thousands of dollars illegally (just in this small area), I don't hear that same outrage towards the State. I wonder why that is?

 

[yousogetit]

I had not considered a letter to the editor... but the more I think about it, the more I think it may be a good idea. People really should know about this type of abuse. For example, there is a small town just a few miles from me that a main highway goes through. The speed limit drops from 65 down to 25 in the town. I have been in traffic court and watched at least a dozen people being arraigned for speeding in that town. Each person would plead guilty and ask for traffic school. Countless more likely take care of their tickets without going to court. The only problem with this scenario is that I got a copy of the speed survey and there is not one spot in the town on that main highway where the speed limit is justified. All of those tickets are illegally written and all of that revenue for the State (and local municipalities) is illegally gained. I even saw a judge pro tem make the statement that there are practically no unjustified speed limits in California. He said he heard of one in Barstow, but that is rare. (I also have the transcript of this trial.)

The funny thing is, when I talk to people about defending traffic tickets, I frequently get the same redneck response that I get from many people here: "you're guilty, so just pay your ticket and shut up". However, when confronted with the fact that literally hundreds of people are being issued illegal tickets and the State is taking in tens of thousands of dollars illegally (just in this small area), I don't hear that same outrage towards the State. I wonder why that is?

It is so nice to see that someone else feels the same way. What are all these people talking about anyway?? I like to drive fast. and I know how to do it. The ones that should get the tickets are the ones that go too slow, or that get in my way, they are the ones that are really a road hazard. I know how to handle my car, and most of the roads have speed limits that are too low for people like me and Jim. Who cares if he was speeding, if he can get out of the ticket and didn't cause an accident then that is great. Traffic laws are for people who don't know how to drive that good. Or who don't know how to beat the ticket.

You should write that letter and let them know that people like us just aren't going to stand for being told how fast we can drive. Why should some little podunk town get to tell us to slow down just because we HAVE to drive through it?

 

[Zigner]

It is so nice to see that someone else feels the same way. What are all these people talking about anyway?? I like to drive fast. and I know how to do it. The ones that should get the tickets are the ones that go too slow, or that get in my way, they are the ones that are really a road hazard. I know how to handle my car, and most of the roads have speed limits that are too low for people like me and Jim. Who cares if he was speeding, if he can get out of the ticket and didn't cause an accident then that is great. Traffic laws are for people who don't know how to drive that good. Or who don't know how to beat the ticket.

You should write that letter and let them know that people like us just aren't going to stand for being told how fast we can drive. Why should some little podunk town get to tell us to slow down just because we HAVE to drive through it?

yousogetit -

Jim's whole point is that he WASN'T speeding if the section of road hasn't been properly surveyed etc. The only "problem" I have with Jim is that (in my opinion), he breaks the law and relies on "technicalities" to avoid responsibility. In this last case, he was granted a dismissal because the officer didn't bring a CERTIFIED TRUE copy. That doesn't mean that there was anything wrong with the actual process of calibration...and that is the TEXTBOOK definition of a "technicality".


Jim -
Even though you and I seem to be on opposite sides of the fence...I think it's safe to say that THIS guy is way out there