Is Discovery Worth It

[mingsquared]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: California

Actually this question has two parts:

Is Discovery worth it? I realize that if I want to get evidence from the officer, then I have to submit my own evidence as well (thus giving him a glimpse of my case). Also I read somewhere that it makes the City Attorney more interested in the case.

The second part involves the evidence I have to submit. Well some of the evidence I want to collect can only be collected after I receive a copy of the officer's notes. For example, I want to take a picture of the road to match the conditions he wrote on his copy. In that case, what do I do with the evidence I've collected after I sent in my request?

Thanks!

[That Guy]

What were you cited for? And what evidence could you possibly have that would prove you did not commit the violation? Alternatively, what evidence could you possibly have that would make the officer change any part of his testimony or make the city attorney more interested in the case when in fact the usually care less about your case? Where did you read that? This brings us to the second part of your question.

You were there when you were cited, were you not? And isn't that a good way to establish what the "conditions" were at the time... If you're wondering about the officer's location, then how can you dispute what he saw (by claiming there is evidence to the contrary) without knowing where he was?

The main reason most people request discovery is because they were mislead into believing the D.A.'s failure to provide discovery gives them an edge at a possible dismissal. And that cannot be farther from the truth! Other than that, discovery in a traffic infraction case is pretty much useless! There maybe some documentary evidence that may be presented in the case, more often than not, you'd be better off getting that on your own.

[mingsquared]

What were you cited for? And what evidence could you possibly have that would prove you did not commit the violation? Alternatively, what evidence could you possibly have that would make the officer change any part of his testimony or make the city attorney more interested in the case when in fact the usually care less about your case? Where did you read that? This brings us to the second part of your question.

Thanks for your reply. I read an article online that said that. I wasn't sure, so that's why I asked.

You were there when you were cited, were you not? And isn't that a good way to establish what the "conditions" were at the time... If you're wondering about the officer's location, then how can you dispute what he saw (by claiming there is evidence to the contrary) without knowing where he was?

The main reason most people request discovery is because they were mislead into believing the D.A.'s failure to provide discovery gives them an edge at a possible dismissal. And that cannot be farther from the truth! Other than that, discovery in a traffic infraction case is pretty much useless! There maybe some documentary evidence that may be presented in the case, more often than not, you'd be better off getting that on your own.

So you think I shouldn't ask for discovery? I was just wondering if having a copy of the officer's notes would make much of a different in my case. I'm mainly planning to argue the law. The officer cited me for speeding and driving on a left turn lane when it fact the lane markings clearly does not mark the lane as a left turn lane (thus I could not have violated the VC he cited me for). As for speeding, I would need to argue that speeding was justified (I was passing another car that was going under the limit) and the conditions were safe.

[That Guy]

Thanks for your reply. I read an article online that said that. I wasn't sure, so that's why I asked.



So you think I shouldn't ask for discovery? I was just wondering if having a copy of the officer's notes would make much of a different in my case. I'm mainly planning to argue the law. The officer cited me for speeding and driving on a left turn lane when it fact the lane markings clearly does not mark the lane as a left turn lane (thus I could not have violated the VC he cited me for). As for speeding, I would need to argue that speeding was justified (I was passing another car that was going under the limit) and the conditions were safe.

I never said you should't ask for discovery. I said it depends on what you intend to do with discovery but also on the type of violation.

I'm not clear on what the lane violation might be... But from what I gathered, if you were passing then you were either in the left lane, the left portion of the roadway or left of center as would be marked by center dividers... I don't know what the violation is. Same with the speeding violation. If you were cited for exceeding the maximum speed on a highway, then passing is not an excuse to the charge. If instead, you were cited in excess of a prima facie speed limit, then understand that it was likely set by conducting a survey, the results of which declared a "safe speed" by 85% of drivers whose speeds were considered in the engineering and traffic survey. And you would then carry the burden of proving that your speed was still safe in spite of being in excess of said limit; not an easy task.

To be honest with you, I am not a big fan of threads that tend to drip information one drop at a time. It makes it difficult to explain matters or answer questions simply because I would have to explain several hypotheticals each time I attempt to answer anything. Not very time effective and certainly a drain on "effort".

So feel free to provide all of the related info, location, code sections cited, speed, speed limit, detailed explanation of your attempt to pass, any words that were exchanged between you and the officer, how your speed was measured (if you know), what location was the officer in (if you know)... etc, anything that you think is related and then some!

[mingsquared]

Okay so here is the basic info:

Date: 5/2/2012
Agency: Santa Clara County Sheriff Office
Sections: (1.) VC 22350 Unsafe Speed
(2.) VC 21460.5c Drive In Turn Lane
Location: McClellan Road at Orange Ave.
City: Cupertino , Santa Clara County

Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH
P.F./Max: 25 MPH
Speed Approx: 45 MPH (He said he estimated I was going 45 MPH).
Radar: I assumed it wasn’t radar, since the Radar No. field was left blank.
Officer Comments: C, D, W

If you look at the lane on Google Maps, McClellan Road has two lanes going opposite directions, with a third lane in the middle marked by those yellow circles. It is used for turning into school parking lots when there is such entrances, but the lane itself never said turn only. As the officer wrote on the ticket, it was clear and dry on that day. There were no pedestrians on either side of the road. There was a car in front of me going around 15 MPH, and I was in a hurry to get home so I went into the middle lane and passed him. The officer then came out of Orange Ave and cited me for the VC violations above. He said he estimated I was going at least 45 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone, but I disagree with that estimation. I was going 30-35 MP for only a short stretch of road before he stopped me. Since VC 21460.5 clearly states how left turn lanes should be marked, and the lanes at McClellan isn't marked like that, I'm planning to use that as an argument that I could not have violated 21460.5c.

The exchange I think I messed up, since I it was my first time and I really didn't know what to do and I was really nervous. I don't know if the officer can still remember every single detail about that, which is why I want to get his copy of the notes to see what he wrote so I can prepare my defense.

For the school zone, if it is brought up, I'm planning to use this:
http://www.helpigotaticket.com/speed/schoolzone.html

The school was in session, the area where it took place was fenced off with lots of trees in front, which I think satisfies the VC for a school zone.

I think the fine is outrageous, and I don't want to pay it unless I absolutely have to (if I lose). I really want to beat this ticket. If you need anything else, let me know.

[That Guy]

Okay so here is the basic info:

Date: 5/2/2012
Agency: Santa Clara County Sheriff Office
Sections: (1.) VC 22350 Unsafe Speed
(2.) VC 21460.5c Drive In Turn Lane
Location: McClellan Road at Orange Ave.
City: Cupertino , Santa Clara County

Posted Speed Limit: 25 MPH
P.F./Max: 25 MPH
Speed Approx: 45 MPH (He said he estimated I was going 45 MPH).
Radar: I assumed it wasn’t radar, since the Radar No. field was left blank.

OK... Much better!

Officer Comments: C, D, W

C for "Weather" means Clear
D for "Roadway" means Dry
W this spot/entry is typically used to describe "Traffic" as in light, medium or heavy... I am not sure how a "W" would fit in!

If you look at the lane on Google Maps, McClellan Road has two lanes going opposite directions, with a third lane in the middle marked by those yellow circles.

Otherwise known as a "center lane" or a "turning lane"!

It is used for turning into school parking lots when there is such entrances, but the lane itself never said turn only.

It never says "this is a turning lane"!

As the officer wrote on the ticket, it was clear and dry on that day. There were no pedestrians on either side of the road. There was a car in front of me....

Well, there you go...

Basic Speed Law 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.

That other driver is the person you endangered, and his vehicle (and presumably any of those homes there) are the property you endangered!

He said he estimated I was going at least 45 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone, but I disagree with that estimation. I was going 30-35 MP for only a short stretch of road before he stopped me.

Of course that will get you nowhere! Your estimate of the other driver's speed is probably a bit conservative.. Even if it is close, you are not allowed a pass there and certainly, not at a high rate of speed. These violations aren't necessarily related by any means, but the do have one thing in common (which I will briefly address below*). With that said, nobody passes at 30-35... Seriously, I realize you're trying a conservative approach but your testimony will mean very little. In fact, more often than not, you'd be well advised NOT to testify!

Since VC 21460.5 clearly states how left turn lanes should be marked, and the lanes at McClellan isn't marked like that, I'm planning to use that as an argument that I could not have violated 21460.5c.

Just a guess but, you'll lose that one... With, or without the markings, that center lane could not under any circumstances be mistaken for a passing lane!

But really, if you look at the markings, you'll see that the outside line has a continuous set of dots for the entire length (to simulate the solid yellow). Whereas the inside lines have 3 or 4 dots on, 3 or 4 off (to simulate the dashed yellow)...

Add to it the fact that you stated you were on your way home, how likely is it that you take this route fairly frequently? It doesn't mean much but it does mean you're familiar with the road. And mistakes like that... well, shouldn't happen!

The exchange I think I messed up, since I it was my first time and I really didn't know what to do and I was really nervous. I don't know if the officer can still remember every single detail about that, which is why I want to get his copy of the notes to see what he wrote so I can prepare my defense.

If by the exchange you mean your conversation with the officer, then yes, depending on what was said, he is likely to repeat it verbatim, and it will likely hurt you. And yes, for this, I can see a need to request discovery. Of course there is no guarantee you'll get much but you can try.

For the school zone, if it is brought up, I'm planning to use this:
http://www.helpigotaticket.com/speed/schoolzone.html

Aaah, yes... You can assume that story is even remotely true, you can build your hopes around it, and walk into court confident the judge will bend and gush when he hears it. I'm not buying it will work! (I mean, HELL, he could have said "A couple of days later"... Instead, "The following day, in my mail, I received a written, 'Not Guilty.'".

I really wish Geo would have toned down on the level of optimism. Simply because it does no one no good! (Well, except for him, in that it drives traffic to his website, and he can sit there counting pennies/click).

The school was in session, the area where it took place was fenced off with lots of trees in front, which I think satisfies the VC for a school zone.

Well, even if this was not a school zone the first question would still remain: "what would be the posted limit?"

A WILD guess.... Not much higher than 25mph (it appears to be residential with bike lanes)...

And by the way, you have more than just one school, you have Monte Vista High School, you have Lincoln Elementary and you have a YMCA daycare center!

In fact, let me go back to the residential issue, a residence district is defined under VC 515

515. A "residence district" is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A residence district may be longer than one-quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists.

I measure a 1/4 mile from "A" to "B" happenes to be approximately 1320 feet, and you can skip the school on the south side... Counting residences: And we are at EXACTLY 13. Excluding the one on the corner of McClellan Rd. And Byrne Ave. because it fronts on Byrne Ave.

And the second question then is:

"Is it safe to drive at approximately 20mph above the limit"?

The answer is "unequivocally NO"!

I think the fine is outrageous.

None of which is justification of a hope for acquittal! The mere fact that you committed the crime(s) is indicative of your willingness to pay the fine! And you would be geting off scott free in comparison to an accident with/without injury!

and I don't want to pay it unless I absolutely have to (if I lose).

You will likely have to post bail whether you want to or not.

I really want to beat this ticket. If you need anything else, let me know.

I think you should be a little more conservative with what you're hoping for. This is my own personal opinion but * (and here is how they are related) I see this one as you being one minor glitch from a reckless driving charge. Not likely to happen at this point in time but you can bet that an articulate officer could have been creative enough to make one happen. Each of these violations, and by its description here is independently egregious enough -under the circumstances- to drive the judge mad, combine them together, and you've got one pissed off judge. Now, I'm not saying you should count on losing, but for you to go in sounding so adamant about being "not guilty", you sound way too confident for your own good.

You'll get other opinions but in the meantime, contact public works in that city and request a copy of the most recent copy of the Engineering and Traffic survey for that stretch of roadway. It still remains a question as to whether the officer;'s estimate would negate the presumption of a speed trap and the requirement to prove one was not maintained, or if it is not required under those circumstances. When you get the survey, upload it to an image hosting site, and post links for us to see it! Until then, there is very little that can be said.

Good luck!

[STATcom]

That Guy is right. Judges are surprisingly short-tempered and most aren't too far off from Judge Judy in terms of patience. In your case, school being in session at the time of your ticket definitely doesn't help much. A judge might just read that and go mental on you.

[mingsquared]

Thank you for the reply! I will contact Cupertino city officials first thing on Monday and ask for a survey.

What do you mean by a little conservative to what I'm hoping for? The courtesy notice gave me three violations (1 for basic speed law and 2 for turn lane), even though the officer told me it would only be 2. That's $600 with 3 points (unless I'm mistaken about the points?) and traffic school only knocks down 1. Or have I misread the Courtesy Notice?

It says "Violation Code 1 VC-22350-I, 2 VC-21460.5c- I". Does that mean 1 for the first violation and 2 for the second violation? Or is it just numbering like 1,2?

The reason why I even want to go to trial is because I absolutely cannot afford that much, I'm thinking of asking for community service instead. Even then the insurance is going to kill. Should I go to arraignment and ask the judge for an indicated sentence before I plead?

The reason I thought that the VC 21460.5c was incorrect was because it said this:

"(b) Two-way left-turn lanes shall be designated by distinctive roadway markings consisting of parallel double yellow lines, interior line dashed and exterior line solid, on each side of the lane. The Department of Transportation may determine and prescribe standards and specifications governing length, width, and positioning of the distinctive pavement markings. All pavement markings designating a two-way left-turn lane shall conform to the Department of Transportation's standards and specifications."

Which I took as this type of marking:

[That Guy]

What do you mean by a little conservative to what I'm hoping for? The courtesy notice gave me three violations (1 for basic speed law and 2 for turn lane), even though the officer told me it would only be 2. That's $600 with 3 points (unless I'm mistaken about the points?) and traffic school only knocks down 1. Or have I misread the Courtesy Notice?

It says "Violation Code 1 VC-22350-I, 2 VC-21460.5c- I". Does that mean 1 for the first violation and 2 for the second violation? Or is it just numbering like 1,2?

That's count 1 & count 2. Each is a 1 point violation.

The reason why I even want to go to trial is because I absolutely cannot afford that much

"Can't afford it" is not a defense. Plus, you'll likely get a break at the arraignment, you'll get traffic school at the arraignment whereas you'll likely lose out on both of those opportunities after a trial!

And again, if your bail is $570 or $600 or whatever, you will likely have to post that (as in give it to the court to hold) until after your trial. If you lose, they keep it if you win,
they'll refund it. So if you cannot afford to post the full amount, you are not going to trial!

Should I go to arraignment and ask the judge for an indicated sentence before I plead?

I don't know what an "indicated sentence" is!

The reason I thought that the VC 21460.5c was incorrect was because it said this:

"(b) Two-way left-turn lanes shall be designated by distinctive roadway markings consisting of parallel double yellow lines, interior line dashed and exterior line solid, on each side of the lane. The Department of Transportation may determine and prescribe standards and specifications governing length, width, and positioning of the distinctive pavement markings. All pavement markings designating a two-way left-turn lane shall conform to the Department of Transportation's standards and specifications."

Which I took as this type of marking:

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/traff.../fig-3b-07.gif

I'm not disputing what the code says... My point is passing on that roadway, and whether that middle lane is marked properly or not, is not the wisest nor safest thing to do! One car backing out of a driveway expecting everyone to be cruising at 20 or 25 and its "goodnight sweetheart"! Somebody is getting torn up!!!

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/traffic/mutcd2003/htmVersion/images/fig-3b-07.gif

You'll have to Google and find the California MUTCD. Oklahoma's won't do you any good!

[mingsquared]

Thanks again for the help. If I do go to trial, I was thinking of asking the judge for O.R. I wasn't planning to use it as a defense. They've already offered traffic school on the Courtesy Notice. The amount due is $491, which is still a lot. Like I said, I was planning to ask the judge for community service if they allow it. Even with traffic school, there's still two points left that I'll have to pay with the insurance.

I read online that an indicated sentence is what the judge is planning to give as a punishment.