Speeding 100+ in california bay area

[shigity]

Alright guys, I've posted this before but now im wondering some different things. So, i got caught on lidar (supposedly; nothing about that is in the lidar box on the ticket) going 101 which is CVC22348 and this happened on highway 24. Im scheduled to go to the Ygnacio Valley Superior Court in Walnut Creek CA. If I wanted to plead guilty on my trial date, would there be room for me to ask for the judge to lower it to under 100 if i say i dont think i was going over 100? Or do I need to plead not guilty, then at my next trial ask for it to be lowered? Or what should I do?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Alright guys, I've posted this before but now im wondering some different things. So, i got caught on lidar (supposedly; nothing about that is in the lidar box on the ticket) going 101 which is CVC22348 and this happened on highway 24. Im scheduled to go to the Ygnacio Valley Superior Court in Walnut Creek CA. If I wanted to plead guilty on my trial date, would there be room for me to ask for the judge to lower it to under 100 if i say i dont think i was going over 100? Or do I need to plead not guilty, then at my next trial ask for it to be lowered? Or what should I do?

The judge has no authority to reduce the charge against you or the speed were cited for. The officer, on the other hand, can amend it but it is not often that they will do that. If he had any intention of reducing it, he could have cited you for less than 101mph and let it be...

"I don't think I was going over 100" isn't going to get you a whole bunch of beans against the officer's testimony that he used Lidar to measure your speed at 101mph!

 

[InsaneJane]

I liked Sienfeilds reply: "109? You must have got me when I was slowing down for that corner."
Of course he had a 'Knock down beatifull blond' with him.

 

[JIMinCA]

Heck no you don't want to change the charge!!! If you are charged with VC22349 then you were going 35mph over. However, if you are charged with 22348, you are only going 1mph over! And, since the device likely rounds off the the decimals (i.e. rounds up at 100.5), it is feasible that you were clocked at only .5mph over. I'd love to see the calibration records that show the lidar unit has less than a .5% accuracy measured at 100mph. Also, given the fact that panning errors can produce tremendous inaccuracies, it would be difficult for the officer to convincingly testify that absolutely no panning error existed that could have produced a .5mph inaccuracy. Panning error occurs when the lidar gets a return signal from one surface of the car and then on the following pulse, gets a return signal from a different point of the car that is closer to the gun than the first point (i.e. a windshield and a hood). So, it is feasible that even the difference between the raised letter portion of your license plate or the plate bracket compared to the flat portion of your license plate could have resulted in a .5% error.

I just don't see how a cop could PROVE his case beyond a reasonable doubt unless the judge is grossly biased.