Using a 'Two Officer' Defense to a Speeding Ticket

[cruzar]

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

Hi Everyone,
I've been searching through the forum for tips on fighting my ticket and have not come across anyone with the same circumstances so I am hoping someone will be able to give me some pointers. I got my speeding ticket for 22349(A) maximum speed violation. I have already contested it via TBD and lost, so now I'm getting a Trial De Novo in a couple weeks and still plan on fighting.

My ticket was the usual speed trap, one officer using LIDAR and another perched on the on ramp waiting for intercept. My original argument was that they could have targeted the wrong car but I ultimately lost my case. For the new trial, I was able to obtain the officers' written declarations and have perused through them multiple times while preparing my defense. I noticed a few discrepencies between the two versions as well as possible points for contention:

1. The lane number of the vehicle identified differ slightly between the two officers.
2. The LIDAR reading was at 1265 ft.
3. The serial number of the LIDAR unit used is different between the two officers' statements.

I mainly have two questions, but any additional help is appreciated. The LIDAR distance from my understanding seems up for a possible argument. At that distance there could be an error in the reading- in addition I was coming downhill on a curved road which did not leave a lot of room for both visual estimation and LIDAR at that range based on the officer's location. I took pictures and will have google maps displayed with distance to try to argue this point. Does this seem like a plausible argument or do I need additional information?

Second, and more important since I haven't found the answer- is there a possible argument for dismissal based on the serial number mismatch between the two officers? I read someone else got their ticket dismissed when a single officer specified two different model numbers on the ticket. In my case two different officers, in each of their narrative responses to my TBD, wrote a different serial number of the LIDAR unit. Is this cause for dismissal?

Thanks in advance!

[That Guy]

My ticket was the usual speed trap, one officer using LIDAR and another perched on the on ramp waiting for intercept.

Just for the record, ^that^ is not a speed trap... But I'm sure you know that already!

1. The lane number of the vehicle identified differ slightly between the two officers.

So.. Officer #1 clocked you at a particular speed while you were in the # X lane, by the time officer #2 saw your vehicle and identifed it based on the description he received from officer #1 you had changed lanes to the # Y lane...

2. The LIDAR reading was at 1265 ft.

And... There is no evidence of higher margin of error at that distance.

That is, unless you have any sort of proof that a reading at that distance is questionable, that is not going to get you anywhere!

3. The serial number of the LIDAR unit used is different between the two officers' statements.

I don't see a need or a reason for officer # 2 to know or mention a serial number for the Lidar unit... He did not use it! SO I don't see that as an issue that will result in a dismissal!

I mainly have two questions, but any additional help is appreciated. The LIDAR distance from my understanding seems up for a possible argument. At that distance there could be an error in the reading- in addition I was coming downhill on a curved road which did not leave a lot of room for both visual estimation and LIDAR at that range based on the officer's location. I took pictures and will have google maps displayed with distance to try to argue this point. Does this seem like a plausible argument or do I need additional information?

So first you're asking us to answer questions about two declarations we cannot see... And then you're asking us to answer questions as to whether a curved road would prevent the officer from being able to visually estimate your speed and use Lidar to get a measurement!

Either post both declarations (and you might even get more points to argue than what you've come up with) and post a Google Maps link to the location, or really expect answers that are highly speculative!

Second, and more important since I haven't found the answer- is there a possible argument for dismissal based on the serial number mismatch between the two officers? I read someone else got their ticket dismissed when a single officer specified two different model numbers on the ticket. In my case two different officers, in each of their narrative responses to my TBD, wrote a different serial number of the LIDAR unit. Is this cause for dismissal?

Where did you hear that story about an officer specifying two different model numbers on the citation?

I would venture a guess that with as little room in the box where radar info can be written, the officer would have to be half asleep to commit such an error! Think about it...

[cruzar]

So.. Officer #1 clocked you at a particular speed while you were in the # X lane, by the time officer #2 saw your vehicle and identifed it based on the description he received from officer #1 you had changed lanes to the # Y lane...

Sort of... the officer states I was in #X lane and he notified the other officer, then he says I moved to the #Y lane. The other officer states that he was notified that I was in the #Y lane.

I don't see a need or a reason for officer # 2 to know or mention a serial number for the Lidar unit... He did not use it! SO I don't see that as an issue that will result in a dismissal!

Officer #2 wrote the citation and on the citation he wrote the serial number of the unit. In his written statement, he also references that same serial of the unit. Officer #1 who used the unit, in his statement, writes the serial of the unit but the last two numbers are different than what was written on my citation.

So first you're asking us to answer questions about two declarations we cannot see... And then you're asking us to answer questions as to whether a curved road would prevent the officer from being able to visually estimate your speed and use Lidar to get a measurement!

Either post both declarations (and you might even get more points to argue than what you've come up with) and post a Google Maps link to the location, or really expect answers that are highly speculative!

I was just giving an overview of my defense without mentioning specifics. I don't mind speculative answers as long as they are relevant. There's basically about a half mile visibility in the area where I was pulled over. If you factor in 3-5 second visual estimation along with the 1265' foot LIDAR reading, as well as the acceleration of officer #2's vehicle I am trying to argue that there's the possibility of view obstruction and/or a different vehicle that was targeted since the only identifying statement regarding the vehicle was a "newer" model [make of vehicle]. When I was pulled over I was not in view of Officer #1.

[lostintime]

How heavy was traffic? Do you believe the speed reading was of another car? Or were you actually speeding?

You'll be able to ask what they were taught during training regarding LIDAR distance, and if it's under 1000ft, the judge may take that into consideration. You might want to post the TBD. From that far, you may have been in a lower speed zone and not even have known it. It's not always used in the most ethical manner. This link explains how it works better, without getting too technical and into a realm you'd need a physics to degree to understand how it works.

http://blog.motorists.org/what-every...ut-laser-guns/

They'll use LIDAR in some states at 4 or 5k ft and the courts are still oblivious to the possibility of error.

Lastly, That Guy considers officers to be deities capable of anything (could play in the NBA tomorrow if they wanted) and essentially perfect with speed readings.

[cruzar]

How heavy was traffic? Do you believe the speed reading was of another car? Or were you actually speeding?

The traffic was moderate. There are three lanes with vehicles in each lane, but there was still enough room for vehicle passing. I believe the officer identified another vehicle but pulled me over. As for speeding, we were going downhill so I may have picked up a little speed but not 16 mph over the limit like the citation stated.

[California student]

From that far, you may have been in a lower speed zone and not even have known it.

The only possible way that could occur is if he had just moved from a 70 mph zone to a 65 mph zone. The 65 mph limit (CVC22349a) is the state maximum EXCEPT where 70 mph is posted (CVC 22356). Which means that there's two major problems. 70 mph zones aren't common outside the middle of nowhere and second, you generally have to be doing something special to get a ticket within 5 mph of the speed limit anyways. Outside of that, it's only a question of degrees. Third the zone starts at the sign. Just because 1 cm in front of the sign the 65 mph speed limit sign is 70 doesn't mean that 70 is legal 1 cm beyond it. Granted, I doubt that speed enforcement is that strict (in contrast to other signs like "right lane must exit" type signs), but we're past the enforcement stage into a "did the OP break the law" stage.

[That Guy]

Sort of... the officer states I was in #X lane and he notified the other officer, then he says I moved to the #Y lane.

And if mentioned as a way to suggest that you moving to the #Y lane was communicated to the other officer, then where do you see the discrepancy in the other officer stating you were in the #Y lane? In that case, it may depend on how it is worded by the officer, not how it was reworded by you... Isn't that the basis for hearsay evidence being inadmissible?

Officer #2 wrote the citation and on the citation he wrote the serial number of the unit. In his written statement, he also references that same serial of the unit. Officer #1 who used the unit, in his statement, writes the serial of the unit but the last two numbers are different than what was written on my citation.

OK, I'll play along... So they both testify to their own version of what they wrote in their respective TBD... The citing officer was nowhere near the Lidar SMD, so his information is likely to be inaccurate, whereas the witnessing officer who used it, well, it was right there, correct serial number and all... So, in the judge's eyes, does that affect the credibility of the citing's officer's ENTIRE testimony, or only the portion that seems to be in error? Do you expect that the judge will simply exclude the citing officer's ENTIRE testimony and end up throwing the case out? Or do you think he'll simply discount the citing officer's account re the serial number as a harmless error -i.e. an error that has ZERO impact on how fast you were allegedly driving- allow the rest of his testimony and find you guilty?

Here's another scenario: what is the significance of the serial number of the SMD unit? Obviously, so that you can ascertain that the officer had tested the particular unit and that the calibration certificate presented in evidence is the correct cert for the same unit used. But where is there any requirement for testing and calibration when citing in violation of statutory maximum speed limits? I certainly cannot find it?

So, can we throw out the testimony re the serial numbers? Sure...
Throw out the calibration certificate for lack of foundation (no relevant testimony describing it)? Again, we surely can.
So what are you left with?
A citation for 16 over the maximum statutory limit. An officer can cite that based on a visual estimate only. How did any and all of that arguing benefit you in any way?

I was just giving an overview of my defense without mentioning specifics.

You mean playing hypotheticals that you can continue to change the elements....

I don't mind speculative answers as long as they are relevant.

You mean you don't mind speculative as long as it is in line with what you hope for and expect.

Sorry, and although I realize that in theory, one need only raise enough doubt that the act was committed to get exonerated, speculation alone isn't likely to save the day for you here, especially when you are speculating about semantics... You're not addressing whether you were speeding or not, you're only arguing that you were in the #Y lane all along, you were actually in the #x lane prior to that... How is that "relevant"???

There's basically about a half mile visibility in the area where I was pulled over. If you factor in 3-5 second visual estimation along with the 1265' foot LIDAR reading, as well as the acceleration of officer #2's vehicle I am trying to argue that there's the possibility of view obstruction and/or a different vehicle that was targeted since the only identifying statement regarding the vehicle was a "newer" model [make of vehicle]. When I was pulled over I was not in view of Officer #1.

I can visualize that one way one minute, and another way the next... I'm still speculating... I'll save my energy!

since the only identifying statement regarding the vehicle was a "newer" model [make of vehicle].

Possibly, taken out of context but nobody reading it ^this^ way will know. Still, and of course you remember seeing several of the same make/model at the time you were stopped whereas both officers will testify they only saw the one, YOURS!

How often do you think the "it had to have been the other car/driver but not me" defense is used in court? And how often do you think it works?

When I was pulled over I was not in view of Officer #1.

When or where did that become a requirement?

[cruzar]

OK, I'll play along... So they both testify to their own version of what they wrote in their respective TBD... The citing officer was nowhere near the Lidar SMD, so his information is likely to be inaccurate, whereas the witnessing officer who used it, well, it was right there, correct serial number and all... So, in the judge's eyes, does that affect the credibility of the citing's officer's ENTIRE testimony, or only the portion that seems to be in error? Do you expect that the judge will simply exclude the citing officer's ENTIRE testimony and end up throwing the case out? Or do you think he'll simply discount the citing officer's account re the serial number as a harmless error -i.e. an error that has ZERO impact on how fast you were allegedly driving- allow the rest of his testimony and find you guilty?

Here's another scenario: what is the significance of the serial number of the SMD unit? Obviously, so that you can ascertain that the officer had tested the particular unit and that the calibration certificate presented in evidence is the correct cert for the same unit used. But where is there any requirement for testing and calibration when citing in violation of statutory maximum speed limits? I certainly cannot find it?

So, can we throw out the testimony re the serial numbers? Sure...
Throw out the calibration certificate for lack of foundation (no relevant testimony describing it)? Again, we surely can.
So what are you left with?
A citation for 16 over the maximum statutory limit. An officer can cite that based on a visual estimate only. How did any and all of that arguing benefit you in any way?

I think you're missing the argument... maybe it needs some clarification. First of all the Officer #2 gave the citation while Officer #1 spotted. On the actual ticket citation there is a serial number of the unit - this was written on the same day at the same time of the infraction by Officer #2. My assumption is Officer #1 told him the serial number- how else would he get it? He could have seen the unit prior to the detail and wrote the unit they should be using. Now, a few months after the fact Officer #1 writes a different serial number in his sworn statement. It wasn't just a number transposed but two entirely different numbers for the unit he states he was using.

Yes the judge can say it was a careless mistake, but it is a mistake nonetheless. Now the two officers have different equipment which they say was used. Which one to believe? Did they use the correct one? Was it calibrated? Either way it raises reasonable doubt to validity of at least one of the officers. In addition, if an error like that can occur on a legal document what is to say that another "minor" mistake was identifying the wrong vehicle. I am *hoping* that after visual estimation, chance of sweep error using LIDAR, and a discontinuality of visual confirmation by Officer #1 will cast enough reasonable doubt for the judge.

When or where did that become a requirement?

This would need to be a requirement since the only identifying feature communicated between Officer #1 and Officer #2 was the vehicle description. Otherwise how would Officer #2 know it was the correct vehicle? Let's say Officer #1 states a Ford Escape is speeding. If there's 2+ vehicles on the road and at least two of them are Ford Escapes, Officer #2 pulls over one and issues a ticket. Was it the correct vehicle? How would Officer #2 know with Officer #1 visually confirming that it was the correct vehicle?

[lostintime]

From that distance, they don't know which is the correct vehicle. Sweep error will be a difficult argument to make, it's not addressed in the manuals anymore, and it's a very sensitive subject with law enforcement. They never use it on a tripod, although they know this helps prevent sweep error. They'll tell you the "error trapping software" prevents this, although it's been well-documented that stationary walls have been clocked going 80mph because of sweep error.

If That Guy had his way, they'd have LIDAR guns instead of telescopes on Griffith observatory pulling over cars miles away from the valley to the basin.

[That Guy]

I think you're missing the argument...

I think you're missing the point, that there is no argument!

maybe it needs some clarification.

Its plenty clear... Watch:

First of all the Officer #2 gave the citation while Officer #1 spotted. On the actual ticket citation there is a serial number of the unit - this was written on the same day at the same time of the infraction by Officer #2. My assumption is Officer #1 told him the serial number- how else would he get it?

That makes it hearsay, he can testify that he wrote a number as was told to him by officer #1, but whether he can or cannot repeat it as being the serial number of the unit used, that becomes questionable as to whether it is "Hearsay" or not, and hearsay evidence gets excluded.
The serial number written on the citation becomes irrelevant!
It is not even required by law so even if it is incorrect or illlegible, it isn't an issue!
For all we care, you can motion to exclude the serial number of officer # 1's statement, so what, the primary reason for serial numbers is to end up with the correct calibration certificate but a calibration certificate is not required to sustain a conviction of 23349(a).

This would need to be a requirement since the only identifying feature communicated between Officer #1 and Officer #2 was the vehicle description. Otherwise how would Officer #2 know it was the correct vehicle? Let's say Officer #1 states a Ford Escape is speeding. If there's 2+ vehicles on the road and at least two of them are Ford Escapes, Officer #2 pulls over one and issues a ticket. Was it the correct vehicle? How would Officer #2 know with Officer #1 visually confirming that it was the correct vehicle?

Ok, so when it becomes a requirement, you can come back and make your point. Until then, the extent of what you can do is either speculate by suggesting there might have been another vehicle that is identical to the description given in addition to yours... or you can cross examine one or both officers if the remember seeing another vehicle that is identical to the description given in addition to yours. I predict the latter will get you a "No" answer from both, and the former, well, it won't be too entertaining nor unique to the judge, he's heard it more times that you can repeat it!

This thread has gone in excess of what a 22349(a) case should go... Typically, 2, 3 posts, maximum is all that is needed to get the point that there isn't much that can be argued or fought with this type citation. Even with the twist of two officer cites...