Speed Trap, No Speed Survey on File

[cctp]

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

I will keep this short. I had a ticket for speeding on the I-710, vc22350, officer was using LIDAR. I requested a speed survey from CalTrans and they sent me a letter saying "we researched what you requested and this was the result." The speed survey they sent me is for a completely different section of the 710, the area where I was ticketed is not included at all.

Does this mean I win because there is no speed survey for that portion of the freeway? If so, do I just do a pretrial motion to dismiss?

[themadnorwegian]

Does this mean I win because there is no speed survey for that portion of the freeway? If so, do I just do a pretrial motion to dismiss?

It's hard to know for sure. If it were me, I would also send an informal discovery request to the police department that issued you the citation. You may not hear back, but if neither agency has a copy of the survey then it's more likey that it doesn't exist. Of course, it's also possible that both agencies made a mistake. I think we had a recent case on the forum where a member requested a survey, but the one she received wasn't the same one that the officer used at trial.

[That Guy]

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

I will keep this short. I had a ticket for speeding on the I-710, vc22350, officer was using LIDAR. I requested a speed survey from CalTrans and they sent me a letter saying "we researched what you requested and this was the result." The speed survey they sent me is for a completely different section of the 710, the area where I was ticketed is not included at all.

Does this mean I win because there is no speed survey for that portion of the freeway? If so, do I just do a pretrial motion to dismiss?

Just because you were cited for 22350 and the officer used Lidar (or Radar) does not automatically invoke the speed trap rules (40800 - 40808) and the survey requirement.

Here is VC 40802(a)(2) [I underlined the "qualifier"]

A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

It depends on what speed you were cited for...

I don't know which section of the 710 freeway you were cited in but I imagine the limit is 65mph, which means it is the state's maximum limit which means a speed survey is not needed to justify it, it is set by statute! But in simple terms, it means the speed limit was established per VC 22349 which is not listed as one of the code sections requirng an E&T survey to justify the limit!

So why did the officer cite you for 22350 instead of 22349?

Several scenarios, and here are a few...

1) He cited you for a speed that is lower than 65mph, but due to conditions existing at the time, even a speed that is lower than 65mph may be unsafe (i.e. it violated the "Basic Speed Law").

2) He cited you for a speed that is pretty close to the 65mph limit, but safety I(I should say "lack thereof") was a contributing factor why he cited you.

3) He cited you for driving too fast in a construction zone.

So for an accurate answer, you need to either (scan and upload an image of your citation to(for example) photobucket.com, the post the link here) or provide us with the following details from the citation:

We know the code section is 22350... What did he write in the following boxes/sections:
"Description" line?
Speed Approx.?
P.F/Max Speed?
Safe speed?
Location of Violation(s)?
Comments: (Weather, Road, traffic conditions)?

[cctp]

It was a construction zone but no workers present.

Description: 22350 speeding #1. Then a few lines down: construction zone, 829 ft
Speed approx: 72
PF: 45
Location: sb 710 s of firestone
no other comments

[cctp]

I've been looking at old threads in this forum re: vc22350 and speed traps in construction zones, it seems like it probably will not work to argue that it was a speed trap but it might be worth it to see if the judge gets confused and dismisses anyway right?

[That Guy]

I've been looking at old threads in this forum re: vc22350 and speed traps in construction zones, it seems like it probably will not work to argue that it was a speed trap but it might be worth it to see if the judge gets confused and dismisses anyway right?

You can also read this recent thread, and you'll see that it is not likely to be able to confuse a judge as you might hope.

Instead, you might get caught trying to pull wool over his/her eyes and you can be sure that judges don't enjoy that one bit...

They can make your life difficult if you challenge them or give them reason to...

[cctp]

Do people ever report back on whether an argument worked/didn't work? Seems like these threads just die after a few posters get into some huge argument.

[themadnorwegian]

It's encouraged, but not everybody does. I posted a postmortem for my trial.