Trial De Novo for VC 22350

[SNsLaw]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: California

Hello ExpertLaw!

I've been reading these forums extensively since I received my ticket and would love some opinions if I have a case for fighting this ticket. I really appreciate the time and effort the members put in to this community. It's definitely a wealth of knowledge.

The Facts:

-Cited for 54 in a 40, VC-22350 Unsafe Speed on 11/21/2011 @ 9:08AM as I was coming down an overpass.
-Motorcycle officers were parked on the sidewalk under a tree using Lidar at point B on this map.
-Point A to point B on the map is an overpass that has entrances & exits to Highway 101 and Monterey Hwy and crests right around the point where the overpass crosses over Monterey Rd (Hwy 82 on map).
-Here is a copy of the officer's response to my TBD and the survey he attached to it

My Thoughts/Questions, which may or may not be relevant!

-The speed survey map shows the "Speed Shot Locations" marked by the circled X's. Does this mean the speed survey was taken in between these two points? The stretch of road where I was traveling is physically and geographically impossible to survey speeds from the locations marked by the X's. However, I could be completely mistaken as to how the surveys are conducted to fully know this (I'm just picturing either a machine/tool or person positioned at those locations recording the information).

-The stretch of road where it appears the majority of the data is derived for the speed survey is not the stretch of road where I was LIDAR'd. The amount of traffic and speed delta is much different as there is an increase of stop lights and traffic compared to the stretch of road I was coming from.

-The last paragraph of his statement in the TBD points out that there are "several arterial streets where vehicles enter and exit on to the roadway" which is true, but not for the stretch of road I was traveling. There are no points of entrance or exit from the top of the overpass where I was LIDAR'd up to the point where the officer was located. Also, he is incorrect in his estimated distance to the high school. Not sure if this is relevant, but the high school is a little over half a mile from his location, more than twice the distance that he states in the TBD.

In regards to the VC itself:
-The day was crystal clear
-The week was the week of Thanksgiving. Roads were empty- empty enough for the officer to physically step out in to the roadway to signal me over.
-There were no immediate person's or properties around as this was an overpass with exits/entrances to highways.

Misc Q's:
-If I am offered Traffic School at the beginning of the TDN, can I still reserve the traffic school option even if I decide to fight the ticket and am found guilty?
-If the officer doesn't appear for trial, can I simply ask to have the case dismissed or do I have to use some legal term like "objection" or "motion to dismiss"? Can the judge technically reschedule my trial date if the officer doesn't appear?
-Finally, based on what I have posted, am I, in your opinions, better off just taking traffic school if offered during the beginning of the trial?

Thanks for taking the time to read and I appreciate any help!
-Steven

[drmirage]

This is taken from http://helpigotaticket.com/speed/54-40.html

"Probably the easiest ticket in California to beat is a ticket for 54 mph on radar in a posted 40 mph zone."

54 40 or Fight

If you have read the Basic Speed Law Defense, it might not surprise you when I say that, "Probably the easiest ticket in California to beat is a ticket for 54 mph on radar in a posted 40 mph zone."

I will not cite a particlar case here. I have lost count of the number of times I have used this defense. I will just make the following observations:
•The officer only has the following conditions upon which to base his case:
◦weather - almost guaranteed to be clear and dry if the officer is using radar.
◦visibility - at least good enough for the officer to determine that your car triggered the radar, therefore probably not an unsafe condition.
◦surface and width of the road - almost certainly not a problem at 54 mph, or the speed limit would not be posted at 40.
◦traffic on the road - if there was a car between you and the radar, the officer clocked them, not you. If there wasn't, then where's the problem?
◦endangering persons or property - I have yet to hear an officer testify as to a specific person or property endangered in a Basic Speed Law case involving radar.
•If the officer cannot make his case using one of the points above, you can use his/her testimony to establish that you are not guilty as charged (see the Basic Speed Law Defense and 22351(b) below).
•IMHO, most officers using radar rely so much on the technology that they don't bother to have have a fundamentally sound case to begin with.

Two recent court rulings [People v. Huffman (88 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 820) and People v. Behjat (84 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1)] have held that:

No conviction can be sustained unless the record contains substantial evidence supporting each element of the charged offense.

These cases can seriously cut down the number of convictions based on over-reliance on technology, especially if we cite them as part of our defense.

FYI:

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
22351. (a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law.
(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.

[That Guy]

This is taken from http://helpigotaticket.com/speed/54-40.html

"Probably the easiest ticket in California to beat is a ticket for 54 mph on radar in a posted 40 mph zone."

I wonder how many missed reduced fine chances and/or how many missed traffic school opportunities, and/or how many hours of research and writing and/or how many hours of court time were wasted simply because of that line above!!!

I don't really think we need to look at any of those numbers, realistic or imaginative as they may be, I wonder why is it the Geo McCalip had to take the bus long enough, and often enough that he decided to start a BLOG (or should we call that an "Everything You Wanted To Know About Public Transportation In Los Angeles Metro BUT Didn't Want To Give The Wrong Impression About It" Guide)!

SNsLaw, I'll take a look at your info later on and post my opinion, you might get a few others as well.

[SNsLaw]

I wonder how many missed reduced fine chances and/or how many missed traffic school opportunities, and/or how many hours of research and writing and/or how many hours of court time were wasted simply because of that line above!!!

I don't really think we need to look at any of those numbers, realistic or imaginative as they may be, I wonder why is it the Geo McCalip had to take the bus long enough, and often enough that he decided to start a BLOG (or should we call that an "Everything You Wanted To Know About Public Transportation In Los Angeles Metro BUT Didn't Want To Give The Wrong Impression About It" Guide)!

SNsLaw, I'll take a look at your info later on and post my opinion, you might get a few others as well.

This could be going completely over my head, but are you saying that that website Geo McCalip put up is very much inaccurate? I admit I did do a lot of reading on that and that website and references alone has made me feel like I can fight this ticket based on the example in the 2nd post.

[That Guy]

This could be going completely over my head, but are you saying that that website Geo McCalip put up is very much inaccurate? I admit I did do a lot of reading on that and that website and references alone has made me feel like I can fight this ticket based on the example in the 2nd post.

If you really were THAT convinced, would you be so doubtful simply because I asked about a blog about buses?

I think "if it sounds too good to be true.... It probably has some fudge in it"!

I'll post more n a bit!

[SNsLaw]

If you really were THAT convinced, would you be so doubtful simply because I asked about a blog about buses?

I think "if it sounds too good to be true.... It probably has some fudge in it"!

I'll post more n a bit!

Fair enough.

To give him some credit though, the parts he did reference leading UP to the TDN such as the TBD etc were helpful. I didn't even know we had this system in place for us to use. Appreciate the replies!

[That Guy]

-Here is a copy of the officer's response to my TBD and the survey he attached to it...

The officer is not "responding" to your TBD, he simply is submitting his own.

One of the better declarations I have seen and certainly one of the better surveys I have seen, although there is more on that part below!

-The speed survey map shows the "Speed Shot Locations" marked by the circled X's. Does this mean the speed survey was taken in between these two points?

Speed "spot" surveys were take AT the locations marked by the symbol.

The stretch of road where I was traveling is physically and geographically impossible to survey speeds from the locations marked by the X's. However, I could be completely mistaken as to how the surveys are conducted to fully know this (I'm just picturing either a machine/tool or person positioned at those locations recording the information).

Naturally, it would be too time consuming to even attempt to collect data from each and every point on the map, and hence the "spot surveys". You should read page 2B-8 of the 2010 California MUTCD, and you'll see requirements such as:

The surveyor and equipment should not affect the traffic speeds. For this reason, an unmarked car is recommended, and the radar speed meter located as inconspicuously as possible.

Since I assume that parking would be prohibited on the overpass/bridge, it DOES make it impossible to collect data on that section. So there is very little option but to survey on each side and either average it out or base it on one side or the other (as a transition between two different limits).

-The stretch of road where it appears the majority of the data is derived for the speed survey is not the stretch of road where I was LIDAR'd.

And there obviously is no way that one survey could be conducted to cover prevailing speeds at each and every point on the stretch of roadway. You were headed towards the officer... Now, regardless of whether he was there or not, would you have slowed down once off the overpass and back on ground level? Probably not.. In fact you would more likely speed up a bit.

He states he clocked you from just east of Poughkeepsie Rd... (YOu obviously saw his exact location)... Assuming he clocked you FROM approximately point B at which time you were at A (1190 feet). At that point, you were 0.4 miles within the limits (east and west) of the survey (center point above the 101 Fwy), and quite the distance from the overpass

The overpass itself is only approximately 340 feet long and according to the MUTCD, segments that are shorter than 1/2 miles should be avoided (as in included within adjacent sections)!

The amount of traffic and speed delta is much different as there is an increase of stop lights and traffic compared to the stretch of road I was coming from.

BTW, here is the California Road System Map (mentioned in VC 40802) (bottom right corner of page) which classifies "Blossom Hill Rd" as an "Other Principle Arterial" (two steps below an Interstate and one step below "Other Fwy or Expwy") and so I don't see how much difference in traffic volume could be 1/2 a mile or so down the road when it is not like it only feeds those smaller side streets...

-The last paragraph of his statement in the TBD points out that there are "several arterial streets where vehicles enter and exit on to the roadway" which is true, but not for the stretch of road I was traveling.

Again, same question as above... Would you have slowed down once you came around that curve and onto the straightaway (closer to the streets he described)?

In fact, if he was just east of Poughkeepsie Rd, and at a distance of 1190 feet away from him, you were allegedly at 54mph or 14 over the limit. let us say he was 210 feet away from Poughkeepsie Rd (back to the classification map) that puts you at 1400 feet from the first "major collector road"... and at your speed at that moment, it would have taken you 17 seconds to pass that one and get past it and onto the other side streets... And the question then becomes, at what point in time were you planning on slowing down?

There are no points of entrance or exit from the top of the overpass where I was LIDAR'd up to the point where the officer was located.

Same point about you being off of the overpass, and same question about whether you would have slowed down or not! Keep in mind that if we are going to set the SAME speed limit in that entire zone and based on the SAME reasons even though they happen to be spread out, then justifying why in his opinion, your speed was unsafe would simply require him repeating one or a few of the reasons cited by the engineer... The entire segment length is 10800 feet = 2.045 miles and at 54 mph, it will only take you 2 minutes 16 seconds to drive that distance... Not that long, no matter how you slice it!

Also, he is incorrect in his estimated distance to the high school. Not sure if this is relevant, but the high school is a little over half a mile from his location, more than twice the distance that he states in the TBD.

Well, in all fairness... there has been discrepancies on both sides, and hey, if he mentions the same thing at trial, it is up to you to bring it up during cross. In all honesty though, do you think that a school kid who can walk 1/4 of a mile, can walk 1/2 of a mile? So yes, it is an issue to bring up... Does it score many points for you? I don't think so.

In regards to the VC itself:
-The day was crystal clear
-The week was the week of Thanksgiving. Roads were empty- empty enough for the officer to physically step out in to the roadway to signal me over.
-There were no immediate person's or properties around as this was an overpass with exits/entrances to highways.

Well, the MUTCD specifically requires surveys be conducted only when weather is clear, visibility is good, traffic is light to medium an roads are dry. Thanksgiving week As for roads being empty, the conditions which were used to reduce the speed limit by 5mph are still present; pedestrians could appear at any moment, and because the roads are empty, they might simply decide to cross the road thinking its empty, and yet there you are... And I'm not going to repeat the overpass bit again! I will however address the the people/property point... First, a hypothetical... You blow a tire, end up against the guardrail... Which is now damaged and needs replacement... It is the city/county or state's property, is it not?

But toss that aside.... There is a more important issue that centers around you being a person who has property... Some people don't think about that but lets say that some guy crashed his own car, can he bet cited for unsafe speed as a result of the accident? You bet he can... And probably will. Will he get convicted, even with no witnesses? You bet, even with no witnesses simply because the proof is the damage to his property!

-If I am offered Traffic School at the beginning of the TDN, can I still reserve the traffic school option even if I decide to fight the ticket and am found guilty?

Uhm... No!

-If the officer doesn't appear for trial, can I simply ask to have the case dismissed or do I have to use some legal term like "objection" or "motion to dismiss"? Can the judge technically reschedule my trial date if the officer doesn't appear?

There are times when the officer may contact the court to request an extension because he has a more pressing matter in another court... In some of those cases the judge might grant the continuance!

There are times where the officer will not appear and the judge will dismiss automatically... It depends!

-Finally, based on what I have posted, am I, in your opinions, better off just taking traffic school if offered during the beginning of the trial?

Not based on anything you posted... Seriously... You should be aware that if the officer were to meet the burden required of him by presenting a valid survey which justifies the posted limit and prove that your speed was in excess of such limit, and in some limited cases provided other requirements, the burden then shifts to you, the defendant to prove, by competent evidence why your speed did not violate the basic speed law. That comes via vehicle code section 22351.

That is just an FYI, for future reference because this time, you have a valid defense... Read People v. Ellis, 33 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 25 - Cal: Court of Appeal 1995 and come back with any questions!

-Here is a copy of the officer's response to my TBD and the survey he attached to it


-The speed survey map shows the "Speed Shot Locations" marked by the circled X's. Does this mean the speed survey was taken in between these two points? The stretch of road where I was traveling is physically and geographically impossible to survey speeds from the locations marked by the X's. However, I could be completely mistaken as to how the surveys are conducted to fully know this (I'm just picturing either a machine/tool or person positioned at those locations recording the information).

-The stretch of road where it appears the majority of the data is derived for the speed survey is not the stretch of road where I was LIDAR'd. The amount of traffic and speed delta is much different as there is an increase of stop lights and traffic compared to the stretch of road I was coming from.

-The last paragraph of his statement in the TBD points out that there are "several arterial streets where vehicles enter and exit on to the roadway" which is true, but not for the stretch of road I was traveling. There are no points of entrance or exit from the top of the overpass where I was LIDAR'd up to the point where the officer was located. Also, he is incorrect in his estimated distance to the high school. Not sure if this is relevant, but the high school is a little over half a mile from his location, more than twice the distance that he states in the TBD.

In regards to the VC itself:
-The day was crystal clear
-The week was the week of Thanksgiving. Roads were empty- empty enough for the officer to physically step out in to the roadway to signal me over.
-There were no immediate person's or properties around as this was an overpass with exits/entrances to highways.

Misc Q's:
-If I am offered Traffic School at the beginning of the TDN, can I still reserve the traffic school option even if I decide to fight the ticket and am found guilty?
-If the officer doesn't appear for trial, can I simply ask to have the case dismissed or do I have to use some legal term like "objection" or "motion to dismiss"? Can the judge technically reschedule my trial date if the officer doesn't appear?
-Finally, based on what I have posted, am I, in your opinions, better off just taking traffic school if offered during the beginning of the trial?

Thanks for taking the time to read and I appreciate any help!
-Steven

-Here is a copy of the officer's response to my TBD and the survey he attached to it


-The speed survey map shows the "Speed Shot Locations" marked by the circled X's. Does this mean the speed survey was taken in between these two points? The stretch of road where I was traveling is physically and geographically impossible to survey speeds from the locations marked by the X's. However, I could be completely mistaken as to how the surveys are conducted to fully know this (I'm just picturing either a machine/tool or person positioned at those locations recording the information).

-The stretch of road where it appears the majority of the data is derived for the speed survey is not the stretch of road where I was LIDAR'd. The amount of traffic and speed delta is much different as there is an increase of stop lights and traffic compared to the stretch of road I was coming from.

-The last paragraph of his statement in the TBD points out that there are "several arterial streets where vehicles enter and exit on to the roadway" which is true, but not for the stretch of road I was traveling. There are no points of entrance or exit from the top of the overpass where I was LIDAR'd up to the point where the officer was located. Also, he is incorrect in his estimated distance to the high school. Not sure if this is relevant, but the high school is a little over half a mile from his location, more than twice the distance that he states in the TBD.

In regards to the VC itself:
-The day was crystal clear
-The week was the week of Thanksgiving. Roads were empty- empty enough for the officer to physically step out in to the roadway to signal me over.
-There were no immediate person's or properties around as this was an overpass with exits/entrances to highways.

Misc Q's:
-If I am offered Traffic School at the beginning of the TDN, can I still reserve the traffic school option even if I decide to fight the ticket and am found guilty?
-If the officer doesn't appear for trial, can I simply ask to have the case dismissed or do I have to use some legal term like "objection" or "motion to dismiss"? Can the judge technically reschedule my trial date if the officer doesn't appear?
-Finally, based on what I have posted, am I, in your opinions, better off just taking traffic school if offered during the beginning of the trial?

Thanks for taking the time to read and I appreciate any help!
-Steven

[SNsLaw]

Since I assume that parking would be prohibited on the overpass/bridge, it DOES make it impossible to collect data on that section. So there is very little option but to survey on each side and either average it out or base it on one side or the other (as a transition between two different limits).

Would this be something worth introducing in to my defense?

And there obviously is no way that one survey could be conducted to cover prevailing speeds at each and every point on the stretch of roadway. You were headed towards the officer... Now, regardless of whether he was there or not, would you have slowed down once off the overpass and back on ground level? Probably not.. In fact you would more likely speed up a bit.

I am unsure if you asked because it can be relevant to my case, but to answer directly, yes, I would have slowed down. I was in the far left lane and was going to make a left turn on Poughkeepsie, the street the officers were positioned. There is a traffic light at this street and past that the residential area begins with many more traffic lights; my speed is reduced when I travel down that area.

He states he clocked you from just east of Poughkeepsie Rd... (YOu obviously saw his exact location)... Assuming he clocked you FROM approximately point B at which time you were at A (1190 feet). At that point, you were 0.4 miles within the limits (east and west) of the survey (center point above the 101 Fwy), and quite the distance from the overpass

To clarify, I was just cresting the overpass that you linked here. That is where the officer LIDAR'd me, NOT at point A in the map of my original post. Sorry for the confusion. I prematurely made the map reference in my original post to mimick the survey map without indicating my actual location where I was LIDAR'd.

The overpass itself is only approximately 340 feet long and according to the MUTCD, segments that are shorter than 1/2 miles should be avoided (as in included within adjacent sections)!

I'm not sure if this clarifies or helps any, but this entire segment is elevated starting from point A and finally flattens out at around point B. Also, your latter part stating that segments that are shorter than 1/2 miles should be avoided-- avoided by whom?

BTW, here is the California Road System Map (mentioned in VC 40802) (bottom right corner of page) which classifies "Blossom Hill Rd" as an "Other Principle Arterial" (two steps below an Interstate and one step below "Other Fwy or Expwy") and so I don't see how much difference in traffic volume could be 1/2 a mile or so down the road when it is not like it only feeds those smaller side streets...

Traffic volume is greater 1/2 mile down because there is an increase in traffic signals, residential houses/townhomes with cars parked along both sides of the roads, and shopping centers. The stretch of road where I was LIDAR'd has free flowing traffic and if a survey were to be conducted at the overpass area, it would show the speeds to be greater. I know this is "speculation", but I've lived here my whole life and I assure you the traffic flow on that part of the road is much more rapid-- which is why the cops are ALWAYS at the location they were (they are always there and I know they do speed traps there once and a while, which makes me stupid, but at the speed I was charged, that is the normal flow of traffic, which is why they pull over so many people at that spot!)

]In fact, if he was just east of Poughkeepsie Rd, and at a distance of 1190 feet away from him, you were allegedly at 54mph or 14 over the limit. let us say he was 210 feet away from Poughkeepsie Rd (back to the classification map) that puts you at 1400 feet from the first "major collector road"... and at your speed at that moment, it would have taken you 17 seconds to pass that one and get past it and onto the other side streets... And the question then becomes, at what point in time were you planning on slowing down?

I was in the far left lane and was going to make a left turn at the traffic light on Poughkeepsie Rd. Majority of the traffic begins to slow as they approach the traffic signal at Poughkeepsie. Past Poughkeepsie, maybe just 400 feet down, is another traffic signal with a sweeping turn.

Same point about you being off of the overpass, and same question about whether you would have slowed down or not! Keep in mind that if we are going to set the SAME speed limit in that entire zone and based on the SAME reasons even though they happen to be spread out, then justifying why in his opinion, your speed was unsafe would simply require him repeating one or a few of the reasons cited by the engineer... The entire segment length is 10800 feet = 2.045 miles and at 54 mph, it will only take you 2 minutes 16 seconds to drive that distance... Not that long, no matter how you slice it!

If the officer were to cite those reasons, would mentioning the plethora of traffic signals that are in place through this entire zone make any difference? Realistically, it probably takes 5-7 minutes to cover that entire stretch.

Not based on anything you posted... Seriously... You should be aware that if the officer were to meet the burden required of him by presenting a valid survey which justifies the posted limit and prove that your speed was in excess of such limit, and in some limited cases provided other requirements, the burden then shifts to you, the defendant to prove, by competent evidence why your speed did not violate the basic speed law. That comes via vehicle code section 22351.

That is just an FYI, for future reference because this time, you have a valid defense... Read People v. Ellis, 33 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 25 - Cal: Court of Appeal 1995 and come back with any questions!

I read that case. What I collected out of it is the officer only produced a summary of the speed survey which sounds to be inadmissible. Is that what the officer submitted with his TBD? I know you're bringing the horse to the water, and I read it a few times, but I'm not seeing the valid defense you say I have.

[SNsLaw]

Hello all,

Just updating my thread.

I just came back from my Trial De Novo. The citing officer was not present. I requested the court to dismiss the case since the citing officer was not available for questioning. This judge grants one continuance to both parties so I had the option to come back for another stab or take traffic school. It is hard for me to take time off work repeatedly and I was already 50/50 on how solid my case was. I opted for traffic school and the judge did not add on any additional fees.

Thanks for the help,
-Steven

[That Guy]

Hello all,

Just updating my thread.

I just came back from my Trial De Novo. The citing officer was not present. I requested the court to dismiss the case since the citing officer was not available for questioning. This judge grants one continuance to both parties so I had the option to come back for another stab or take traffic school. It is hard for me to take time off work repeatedly and I was already 50/50 on how solid my case was. I opted for traffic school and the judge did not add on any additional fees.

Thanks for the help,
-Steven

Thank you for the update. I do think you made the right choice... Sorry I did not get to respond to your comments in time, but just to address -at least- the important points, I will add a few comments of my own.

* Your stating you know where you were LIDARed, and unless you had seen where the officer was located, and used his 1190 feet to measure back, which placed you on the over crossing, then it boils down to "You Did Not Know Where he was or where you were when your speed was measured". No mention was made of you knowing his approximate location was made so I assumed it was unknown! So to make an argument that you were measured in a location that was not surveyed is not likely to get you much!

** Furthermore, and as far as the elevated structure, the speed limit, the limits (start point and end point) of the survey... And my asking you several times whether you would have slowed down or not, it sounds to me like you're answer would have been "yes, I would have slowed down" but not because the conditions were different, not because of traffic signals and not because of heavier traffic... You would have slowed down simply because you were making a turn! So that would have been a moot point...

*** Another reason why I asked you if you would have slowed down is simply because the "advisory speed" and hence the "safe speed" on an elevated structure is usually lower than the segments of the roadway on either end of it. So your claim of "yes, I was at a higher speed on the elevated structure but I would have otherwise slowed down on a normal street" is sort of backwards to the way things typically are. Meaning you should have been driving slower on the elevated structure and may have been able to justify a higher speed on a normal roadway!

**** Last -long- point re the elevated structure is that the rules which apply to setting speed limits on a normal roadway do not apply to elevated structures. So there is no requirement to measure prevailing speeds (no speed survey and no spot speed checks needed).

How do I know that?

California vehicle Code Section 22404. The Department of Transportation or local authority making a determination of the maximum safe speed upon a bridge, elevated structure, tube, or tunnel shall first make an engineering investigation and shall hold a public hearing. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be posted upon the bridge, elevated structure, tube, or tunnel at least five days before the date fixed for the hearing. Upon the basis of the investigation and all evidence presented at the hearing, the department or local authority shall determine by order in writing the maximum speed which can be maintained with safety to the bridge, elevated structure, tube or tunnel. Thereupon, the authority having jurisdiction over the bridge, elevated structure, tube, or tunnel shall erect and maintain suitable signs specifying the maximum speed so determined at a distance of not more than 500 feet from each end of the bridge, elevated structure, tube, tunnel, or any approach thereto.

Let me define an "engineering investigation" (also referred to as "engineering study") is basically an evaluation of the conditions on that segment of the roadway, including particular horizontal and vertical alignment, the number of lanes in each direction, the grade, type of dividing section, sidewalks, pedestrian/bicyclist traffic, roadway design speed... etc. All the factors that make the roadway (in this case a bridge) what it is. [Lets call that Section (1)]

*If* and *WHEN* that is combined with one or more spot speed measurements where prevailing speed of traffic is collected (which usually makes up what is referred to as the "traffic Survey"), then this will make up what we will call Section (2).

Combine section (1) with Section (2) along with a paragraph or two under a “Discussion” header along with a “Conclusion section” and now we have an "Engineering and Traffic Survey"...

If you're only using Section (1) - the "Engineering Study" part - and when combined with a public meeting where the community is informed of the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and/or local authority is deciding a speed limit for a particular elevated structure, then that speed limit is validated accordingly and is legally justified! So my guess as to the reason why that overpass was included in the survey you had was simply to provide for a way for the local authority to avoid having that segment appear as a “gap with no set speed” on an engineering map of the city!

In other words, your contention that the E &T survey did not measure speeds at or near the elevated structure and as such, the speed limit on that segment is not validated, therefore the prosecution did not rebut the speed trap presumption and that would be your way out of the citation would not have worked in your favor.

***** Last but not least, stating "I have lived here all my life, I know traffic is heavier down there that it is up here" will not work in court. The way to dispute an actual number/count/figure would be to produce evidence to the contrary... Meaning you would have had to contact the D.O.T. or the local Public Works department to see if they had, traffic counts for both, the bridge and the two locations where the spot speed measurements took place, for the period when the survey was conducted. But wait... Even if you were able to obtain those figures, while traffic counts -and as part of the calculations performed during the process of making an E & T survey- may have affected the accident rate which in turn may have impacted speed limit on the roadway segment, it had little or no effect the the speed limit on the bridge... So your claim that traffic volume is different and therefore the speed limit is not set correctly is not a valid assumption!

Don't get me wrong, your case had potential... Although a dismissal will not likely come easy and certainly not at the trial court level. You would have to make certain points during your trial in an effort to preserve some (or at least one) potential issue(s) that will be your grounds for appeal. And yeah, appeals are time consuming, cumbersome and usually require quite a bit on knowledge!