VC 22348(B) - Can you do a Trial by Written Declaration on this charge?

[Jim_bo]

Sorry if I refuse to believe that there is a massive and great evil conspiracy out there to pull one over on the poor, innocent drivers of the state. I choose to believe that the Judicial Council and the judges of this state is not made up of conspiratorial thugs and villains. You are free to be of an opposite opinion.


- Carl

No one said there was a mass conspiracy... just a tendency of ambivalence towards a defendant's rights concerning traffic infractions. If you haven't seen that in all the traffic court sessions you have sat in... then you ain't been lookin'!!

 

[CdwJava]

No one said there was a mass conspiracy... just a tendency of ambivalence towards a defendant's rights concerning traffic infractions. If you haven't seen that in all the traffic court sessions you have sat in... then you ain't been lookin'!!

Or ... maybe ... the stories we sometimes hear tell of here are the exception and not the rule.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Or ... maybe ... the stories we sometimes hear tell of here are the exception and not the rule.

- Carl

Carl, you frustrate me by the fact that you are so blind to that which you choose not to see. For just one example, we have established here that 40803 requires the prosecution to prove a speed trap did NOT exist (i.e. produce a speed survey). We have also established that there is much case law that requires the prosecution to do this whether the defense asks for it or not. Now, with that in mind, how many times have you seen a speed violation conviction where this was not done? I believe if you are being honest, you would say it is not done more often than it is. Therefore, each of those convictions is an illegal conviction. But you simply turn a blind eye to that. In this case, you admit that the law contradicts the practice of the court, but you refuse to recognize that. You pretend that "if the court does it, it must be legal". Why not give the motorist that same benefit of the doubt? Why not simply say, "if the motorist is exceeding the speed limit, it must be legal"?? My whole point is that you have consistently shown an obvious bias towards the state, but you won't admit it. I'll admit my bias freely. I am biased towards ensuring that the state not violate the law when seeking to enforce the law. I am biased towards individuals rights not being trampled because "it must be legal". I don't have a problem with you having a bias... we all do. I just wish you would be honest about yours rather than trying to purport yourself as objective and impartial.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl, you frustrate me by the fact that you are so blind to that which you choose not to see.

Sorry that I seem to be in courtrooms where this IS done.

For just one example, we have established here that 40803 requires the prosecution to prove a speed trap did NOT exist (i.e. produce a speed survey). We have also established that there is much case law that requires the prosecution to do this whether the defense asks for it or not. Now, with that in mind, how many times have you seen a speed violation conviction where this was not done?

None that come to mind, but I am sure that I have seen it occasionally, I just cannot recall the last time.

Before I knew anything about radar I used to wonder why the CHP and motor officers would take the stand and start in with their pre-arranged, memorized speech which includes all that data. My officers have a script they follow that covers all that as well. The radar officers I know of follow the standard rote they are taught, and they tend to run radar on those streets where there are surveys. However, as I am not privy to every survey in every jurisdiction in the counties where I have worked, I cannot say whether those surveys were up to date or supported the posted speed limits. I CAN say that the ones my officers use ARE so supported as I was the one who got the county roads department to produce the surveys (my city contracts to the county for that service).

I certainly do not support anyone - courts, police, civilians - circumventing the law. By the same token, drivers can avoid the whole affair by also paying attention to the speed limits posted about them. This tends to be an offense that is entirely unavoidable. And my bias is less towards the state then to safe practices. Speeding is unsafe. Even if the survey shows that the speed COULD be faster that does not mean that it is safe. While the law says we should not be citing for such violations, common sense might dictate that people should slow down. Ever see what an impact at 35 MPH can do to a child? Think egg and frying pan ... So, while in such an instance a 25 MPH might not be supported by a survey (and until some horrible tragedy like this occurs, a further reduction below the survey may not be supported) speed could very well be a factor in traffic safety even if traffic is traveling at the 85th percentile and that is 10 MPH over the posted limit.

We have a frustrating locale in our town that is just like that. While a residential neighborhood, it is too wide to be a "local street" and is thus subject to 40803. It comes off a county road with a posted limit of 35 MPH but it is unsurveyed, so the CHP does not run radar on it. My officers ALSO cannot run radar on it for the same reason. Unfortunately, it also renders impossible our enforcement of the posted 25 MPH limit for two blocks until the lane reaches a stop sign. (Our speed survey of the area found that traffic hits the first block at about 45 MPH before slowing.) We have had a number of collisions in the neighborhood (no fatals, yet), and the neighbors are pissing and moaning to us weekly asking for enforcement. Sadly, we have to tell them we can NOT enforce the speed on their street, so they are constantly in fear for their safety. Unfortunately, the neighbors have no say in the matter and as long as the speeders keep speeding, the survey will not support the lower speed limit the locals want and which safety - or at least peace of mind - would seem to support.

So, I support safety over all the rest of it. Sadly, it is the law that prevents us from acting to ensure that safety. That's the say it is.

- Carl

 

[Jim_bo]

Well... once again, you are way off on a tangent in an attempt to avoid the issue. Bringing a valid survey to court does NOT circumvent safety. Neither does adhering to the law concerning appearances. However, you still stand by the "if the court does it, it must be legal" position.

I CAN say that the ones my officers use ARE so supported as I was the one who got the county roads department to produce the surveys (my city contracts to the county for that service).

Well... I am glad you are conscientious about following the law. However, I have been to court MANY times where CHP officers not only didn't bring surveys... they didn't know one was required. In the travesty thread on the other site, the police Captain didn't even understand that there were speed trap laws!! So... if you are diligent about the appropriate enforcement of traffic laws, I would say you are in the minority within this state.

I certainly do not support anyone - courts, police, civilians - circumventing the law. By the same token, drivers can avoid the whole affair by also paying attention to the speed limits posted about them.

I have often made the comment that the State should be held to a higher standard than its citizens... and it should be held to that standard FIRST before it holds its citizens accountable. However, I don't recall you ever commenting on that statement. Do you disagree?

And my bias is less towards the state then to safe practices. Speeding is unsafe.

Well... if this was a site based on safe practices, you could have a point. However, this is a site based on law.

Even if the survey shows that the speed COULD be faster that does not mean that it is safe. While the law says we should not be citing for such violations, common sense might dictate that people should slow down. Ever see what an impact at 35 MPH can do to a child? Think egg and frying pan ... So, while in such an instance a 25 MPH might not be supported by a survey (and until some horrible tragedy like this occurs, a further reduction below the survey may not be supported) speed could very well be a factor in traffic safety even if traffic is traveling at the 85th percentile and that is 10 MPH over the posted limit.

I bet I can't count on both hands the number of times you said, "if you don't like the law... then lobby your legislatures to change it". While that is a bit on the arrogant side, it is valid. But it works both ways. And, as an LEO, you (and all other LEOs) are charged with enforcing the law as it IS rather than as you would like for it to be.

We have a frustrating locale in our town that is just like that. While a residential neighborhood, it is too wide to be a "local street" and is thus subject to 40803. It comes off a county road with a posted limit of 35 MPH but it is unsurveyed, so the CHP does not run radar on it. My officers ALSO cannot run radar on it for the same reason. Unfortunately, it also renders impossible our enforcement of the posted 25 MPH limit for two blocks until the lane reaches a stop sign. (Our speed survey of the area found that traffic hits the first block at about 45 MPH before slowing.) We have had a number of collisions in the neighborhood (no fatals, yet), and the neighbors are pissing and moaning to us weekly asking for enforcement. Sadly, we have to tell them we can NOT enforce the speed on their street, so they are constantly in fear for their safety. Unfortunately, the neighbors have no say in the matter and as long as the speeders keep speeding, the survey will not support the lower speed limit the locals want and which safety - or at least peace of mind - would seem to support.

I don't understand. Didn't you just say that you are the guy who orders the surveys??? Why don't you just get the road surveyed? Also, as you know, there is provision for lowering the limit based on things such as high accident rate.

So, I support safety over all the rest of it. Sadly, it is the law that prevents us from acting to ensure that safety. That's the say it is.

- Carl

Sorry Carl, but that sounds like a big cop-out to me.