Speeding, VC 22350 Violation

[factdouble]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

I received a traffic citation for violation of 22350 allegedly going 44 in a 30 mph zone. Here is the run down: Got pulled over in a 40 mph zone headed onto a freeway. Motorcycle officer approaches the car and asks if I know why he stopped me. I honestly didn't know. The only thing I could think of was as I was in the intersection headed onto the freeway ramp the light turned yellow. He said, "No, that was legal." He asked me if I knew how fast I was going and I replied that I travel with the flow of traffic. He said that was my problem -- that there was no other traffic. Then he showed me his (radar?) gun which read "44" and said I was in a 30 mph zone. He went on to say that they (SDPD I assume) are getting complaints from residents "by the hill"(insinuating he was referring to gaining speed going down the hill) in that area that the traffic moves too fast. I said "okay," and gave him my lisence; he went back to his bike and brought me a ticket. He said I could go to online traffic school if desired, that a courtesy ticket "might" come in the mail before the date to appear (1/24/11 -- why so long from date of ticket?), but I should call the court in a few weeks just to make sure I got the information, then had me sign and he sent me on my way. Everything was cordial and respectful.

Here's the run down: I don't think the exact address he listed on the ticket as the location of violation exists, but from Google Maps I can locate the general area. From that location to the location I was pulled over I traveled through three (green) traffic lights -- one of which, unless you don't care about the undercarriage of your vehicle, you must slow significantly -- straight onto the freeway on-ramp, where the speed limit changed to 40 mph. Another car or two had made a right turn onto the ramp behind me. The officer came around them and pulled me over. The weather conditions were dry and clear (he noted "CLR" on the ticket), road conditions were also dry and clear with good road condition and visibility and there was no other moving traffic (he did not indicate anything as far as heavy/light traffic on the ticket). He was correct in that there was no other moving traffic on the roadway, additionally there were no pedestrians on or in the roadway. There were, however, parked cars on the side of the road, but I was not in danger of hitting a parked car. Additionally, he did not indicate the device (radar, I think?), nor the unit number on the ticket. Would I only need this information if I were to request discovery on the device used to determine speed? In my opinion, I was driving safely for the conditions and at no point posed a danger to person or property.

From here and other sites (helpigotaticket, ticket assassin, etc.) it appears the first step is to obtain the Engineering & Traffic Survey for that portion of the road. I checked the CalTrans website and the road is listed as "Minor Arterial" and the characteristics are two lanes in each direction with room for parked cars on both sides of the road. Additionally, I called the Traffic Engineering Department for the City of San Diego. I was told they have 30 days after the request, but usually they do it "right away" and was emailed a request form to fax back. On the form there is a check box asking if the documents are for litigation purposes against the City of San Diego. Do I have to disclose the reason I'm seeking the information? Also, it appears they might be conducting a survey currently. I remember seeing them out there with survey tripods in the recent past (within the last 6-7 months) and there is currently one of those light up signs posted above a speed limit sign that flashes your speed as you approach -- it flashes most of the time I see it. I make a turn at the street immediately beyond it, so I'm going slow to round the corner. That was not a shamless plug to show I'm a careful driver -- okay, maybe a little. In my travel on this road, the times I drive it, which is most weekday mornings and afternoons, traffic generally moves around 45 mph, though some drivers zoom past faster. And lastly, is it advisable to request the survey via a discovery request or directly using the form emailed to me?

I've tried to be succinct, yet provide a detailed account in hopes of receiving some input/advice from the knowledgeable posters here. Thank you in advance.

[HonkingAntelope]

I'd get the traffic survey using the form you got and post it here, because you still need to make the decision whether to leave your option to attend traffic school solely up to the judge's mood by contesting, or to pay the fine and attend traffic school in exchange for the guarantee that your insurance won't be affected. If the survey obviously doesn't support the posted limit, contesting the ticket is a no-brainer. If there aren't any obvious issues with the survey, then it's a tougher decisions with upsides and downsides to each choice.

Also, am I the only one who thinks that the Ticket Assassin site seriously needs to be put out of its misery? It hasn't been updated in at least five years, and the amount of flat-out wrong information there is ridiculous.[/RANT]

[quirkyquark]

Additionally, he did not indicate the device (radar, I think?), nor the unit number on the ticket. Would I only need this information if I were to request discovery on the device used to determine speed?

If it was handheld, most probably LIDAR (laser), not radar. You don't need that for discovery, just the citation number and officer name/ID is enough. Although he SHOULD be noting it down on his copy -- for those that don't, I think it would be a valid trial question to ask "and how do you know it was THIS unit you were using on THAT occasion?"

I checked the CalTrans website and the road is listed as "Minor Arterial"

Great first step! Now you can show the judge that the speed trap law applies on the road.

Additionally, I called the Traffic Engineering Department for the City of San Diego. I was told they have 30 days after the request, but usually they do it "right away"

Technically they have TEN days to decide if the information you want is disclosable (usually only goes for police, etc.), and if it is, make it promptly available. I doubt they'll give you any bother though.

On the form there is a check box asking if the documents are for litigation purposes against the City of San Diego.

No, that is if you are suing the City (or vice versa). In that case they have to have their attorneys review the request, etc. Don't check it. This is a criminal case.

Also, it appears they might be conducting a survey currently. I remember seeing them out there with survey tripods in the recent past (within the last 6-7 months) and there is currently one of those light up signs posted above a speed limit sign that flashes your speed as you approach -- it flashes most of the time I see it.

They are required (by strong recommendation and ethically) to do speed surveys in as inconspicuous a manner as possible. The sign is usually placed as a voluntary check on speed to placate complaining residents. What you saw was probably for some other public works project.

And lastly, is it advisable to request the survey via a discovery request or directly using the form emailed to me?

BOTH. You will get it much faster via the Traffic Engg. Dept. But throw it in the discovery request (goes to the San Diego City Attorney, cc to the SDPD) anyway, there is a tiny chance it may come in handy later.

[factdouble]

Thanks for the reply, Honking. Advice noted; and just for the record, I did think it odd the site had not been updated. I found some information there helpful/hopeful, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate.

Quirky, thanks for your thorough reply to my questions. I will request and post the survey when I get it. If it shows the speed is not 'justified' I will be armed with some great evidence to argue. In such an event, I am entertaining a TBD. I've read contradicting things on including a defense on the TBD or just stating "I stand by my plea of not guilty." And, then on the TR205 include the defense I plan to argue. What would the advice of the wise posters here be -- file "I'm not guilty" TBD and hope officer doesn't respond or disclose the defense I plan to use?

And, thanks for the explanation of the flashing speed sign. That makes sense. I just have to hope the survey works in my favor. Thanks for the info and I'll post as soon as I receive the survey.

[HonkingAntelope]

I've read contradicting things on including a defense on the TBD or just stating "I stand by my plea of not guilty." And, then on the TR205 include the defense I plan to argue. What would the advice of the wise posters here be -- file "I'm not guilty" TBD and hope officer doesn't respond or disclose the defense I plan to use?

Not to sound condescending, but if you even gotta ask, then "I am not guilty" is the way to go.

Most importantly, it takes only a few minutes to do and still leaves trial de novo as an option if you lose. You have nothing to lose by saving your ammo, and if you lose the TBD, you will have the officer's declaration. Those are critical in planning a defense for VC22350 citations that can't be easily torpedoed on speed survey issues.

[factdouble]

Not to sound condescending, but if you even gotta ask, then "I am not guilty" is the way to go.

Most importantly, it takes only a few minutes to do and still leaves trial de novo as an option if you lose. You have nothing to lose by saving your ammo, and if you lose the TBD, you will have the officer's declaration. Those are critical in planning a defense for VC22350 citations that can't be easily torpedoed on speed survey issues.

Ha! That was exactly my point. I am hoping the survey works in my favor, but I don't want to show my hand unnecessiarily. However, I have read several posts where the advice is given to include the defense in the TBD. I don't understand why people would do that -- but I'm not the expert. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up! I really do appreciate your advice.

[quirkyquark]

What would the advice of the wise posters here be -- file "I'm not guilty" TBD and hope officer doesn't respond or disclose the defense I plan to use?

Each of the options seems to present its own worries:

• If you just say "I'm not guilty" -- in the trial de novo (TDN), if the judge sees this "empty" TBD in his file, will it make him think you were wasting the court's time and are a low-life who deserves to be convicted?
• If you lay out a proper defense -- will the officer use it to beat you at your own game in a trial de novo?

Now, as for the former, the TBD is supposed to be irrelevant in a TDN, but judges may still see it in your "file" on their bench. Remember, this is technically a criminal case, and the state has the burden of proving its case against you. You have the right to simply stand there, mute, and let the state do its job. If the judge is really so thin-skinned as to be offended by such a TBD, did you really have a chance in the first place?

The second fear -- that the officer will get wind of your defense and use it against you -- also seems to be overblown. The odd officer may be obsessed enough to go this far, but I doubt most will go to the trouble of getting a copy of your TBD from the clerk beforehand.

Still, the best option to allay both of these worries is what we've discussed in the past: something more than "not guilty", but NOTHING incriminating. Of course, writing such a statement requires being a little artful, and it's not something that should be expected of the first-timer.

Basically, for your case, I agree with HA. However, my perspective is changing these days for 22350 TBDs. Assuming the judge is not a complete rubber-stamp, this is your only chance to put some written material in front of his eyes for his (hopefully) undivided attention. The TBD should include the speed-trap definition/requirements, some case law citations, and a brief "reminder" at the beginning or end telling the judge the things he must double-check before finding it wasn't a speed trap. If the survey is defective and supports you, all the better, and this becomes a no-brainer.

[factdouble]

Thanks, quirky.

The second fear -- that the officer will get wind of your defense and use it against you -- also seems to be overblown. The odd officer may be obsessed enough to go this far, but I doubt most will go to the trouble of getting a copy of your TBD from the clerk beforehand.

I'm not worried about that at all.

Still, the best option to allay both of these worries is what we've discussed in the past: something more than "not guilty", but NOTHING incriminating.

Just so I'm clear, this is when I actually fill out the TBD TR205? I was planning on submitting a written request for trial by declaration prior to the appearance date on the ticket, then when the clerk sends the TR-205 is when you suggest I include the defense?

Basically, for your case, I agree with HA. However, my perspective is changing these days for 22350 TBDs. Assuming the judge is not a complete rubber-stamp, this is your only chance to put some written material in front of his eyes for his (hopefully) undivided attention. The TBD should include the speed-trap definition/requirements, some case law citations, and a brief "reminder" at the beginning or end telling the judge the things he must double-check before finding it wasn't a speed trap. If the survey is defective and supports you, all the better, and this becomes a no-brainer

Great insights! Request for E&TS was faxed today and they said they would email it. Thanks again!

[quirkyquark]

Just so I'm clear, this is when I actually fill out the TBD TR205? I was planning on submitting a written request for trial by declaration prior to the appearance date on the ticket, then when the clerk sends the TR-205 is when you suggest I include the defense?

Yes. If you wish to use it, I've prepared a fillable "TBD Request" form that should catch the clerk's eye better than a plain letter. We've had a few cases on this forum where the letter was misread or ignored and lead to complications later. Don't forget the bail check!

Link to fillable form.

This is a screenshot of what it looks like, purple fields are fillable:

[factdouble]

Thanks for the form, quirky.

I got the survey in email today. I'm not sure if it's complete, as it's only 2 pages. From what I can tell, it doesn't look like what I was hoping for. The survey was completed in 2003, but has a stamp on it that says it's good for 10 years. Accident rate is listed as 3.4 MVM. It also lists no sidewalks (pedestrian safety) as one of the "conditions" but, where I was pulled over there are sidewalks on both sides of the street. 85th percentile says 37. The survey states that it's a "major road" and is "radar enforceable." It's apparent people are not driving close to the 30 now, but the data on the graph from 2003 also notes the 33 mph as the 53.7% In a text box on the bottom reads: 85% 36.7, 50% 31.5, 15% 26.6 I read somewhere about case law (Goulet?) will not allow a posted limit to make the majority of drivers into violators. Also, it has "FormRev 9/26/06" on the bottom of the first page. Does this make a difference? I will try to get this up for feedback. However, I think my best chance is to submit the TBD and hope the officer does not respond.