My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CA
Got a ticket in CA, on the ticket, code and section, the officer wrote : 22349a cvc exceed 65mph E/Z Ln POV #1 LN. EST 75/45 LIDAR # PL 25383 IND 76mph @ 1140.5Ft. Speed approx.: 76, P.F Max Speed: 65. Location E1B 47 Frwy @ Ferry St. San Pedro, CA. This location is already known for speed trap location based on the research I have done in the internet. when the officer gave me a ticket he said, he gave me a break to write 76 in 65mph because that section of the HWY is turning to two way street and the posted speed limit is 45mph. So instead of giving me a ticket 76mph in 45mph, he wrote me a ticket 76mph in 65mph. He wrote EST 75/45, don't know what does that mean/ estimated speed?
My TBDW is due by 3 days. I gathered some TBDW samples from internet and created new one. Based this ticket info, do I have a chance to win this case?
Thank you for your prompt answer.
To Whom It May Concern:
Statement of the Facts:
I am writing in regards to my trial by declaration. The bail amount of $234.00 has already been received by San Pedro Court, receipt # on 5/29/12.
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22349 (a)
On April14th I was ticketed for allegedly traveling at 76mph in a 65mph zone. I believe that I was not driving over than the posted speed limit at the time of my stop and that my speed was quite safe for the prevailing conditions.
The Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350 states: "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."
On my citation, the officer fails to note any of these relevant conditions including traffic. I can attest that the road was dry with clear visibility at the time of my stop. Officer Glimpse also fails to note the Safe Speed for State Highway 47 passing the Exit 1B Ferry St. on my Notice to Appear. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions when I was stopped. No persons or property were put at risk by my driving. As such, the Officer does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law.
Further, I believe that the posted speed of 45mph on State Highway 47 passing the Exit 1B Ferry St. is artificially low, reflecting an out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, may constitute an illegal Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(2) which defines an illegal radar speed trap as: "A particular section of a highway with a...speed limit that is provided by this code...[which] 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." If the traffic survey on State Highway 47 passing the Exit 1B Ferry St. is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal.
When using radar evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar is not an illegal speed trap. CVC 40803(b) states: "In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802."
The prosecution must include a certified copy of the speed survey, to establish that State Highway 47 passing the Exit 1B Ferry St. is not an illegal Speed Trap. This is required pursuant to CVC 40803(b). I trust the court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805 if the prosecution does not provide a certified speed survey for State Highway 47 passing the Exit 1B Ferry St.
CVC 40805, Admission of Speed Trap Evidence, states: "Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction against any person for violation of this code involving the speed of a vehicle if the court admits any evidence or testimony secured in violation of, or which is inadmissible under this article." This code confirms that the officer's radar evidence should be inadmissible without verification of the speed survey.
CVC40802(c)(1)(A) states: When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).
Further, I believe that the officer's radar may have targeted one of several cars other than mine. There was a vehicle passing me as I drove down State Highway 47 passing the Exit 1B Ferry St. , however he suddenly applied his brakes, just before we passed officer Glimpse in the parked radar unit. As a result of the other cars rapid braking I was going faster when passing the parked patrol motorcycle. When I noticed the other car braking hard and saw the parked patrol motorcycle ahead of me, I looked at my speedometer and it was reading under posted speed limit, I believe that the other car gave triggered the radar reading of 76mph.
The typical beam angle (spread) of police radar is 12-16 degrees, resulting in a beam width of 1 foot for every 4 feet of travel of the beam from the antennae. Therefore at 80 feet from its source, a police radar beam is typically 20 feet (two lanes) wide. Either of the cars then traveling through the officer's multi-lane wide radar beam might have caused the speed indicated on the officer's unit. I believe that this provides reasonable doubt as to which vehicle was actually targeted going 76mph.
The officer should provide documentary proof to the court that he successfully completed this radar operator course certified and approved by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. If the officer does not submit proof with his declaration that he successfully completed this minimum 24-hour course in accordance with CVC40802(c)(1)(A), my case should be dismissed. His use of RADAR is not legal without this course, and his RADAR evidence is inadmissible. I urge the court to not accept hearsay testimony in lieu of documentary evidence to verify course completion. If the course was completed, documentary proof should be provided.
CVC40802(c)(1)(D) requires that: The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility.
The Officer should provide documentary proof that his RADAR meets or exceeds National Highway Traffic Administration Standards in accordance with CVC40802(c)(1)(D). At minimum, the officer should provide documents to the court proving that his RADAR has been calibrated within 3 years by an independent certified testing or calibration facility pursuant to CVC40802(c)(1)(D). If the officer cannot provide this evidence to the court, his RADAR evidence is inadmissible and my case should be dismissed.
I urge the court to not accept hearsay testimony in lieu of documentary evidence to verify required radar calibration. If the calibration was completed, documentary proof should be provided. Further, the officer should prove that the testing facility was certified and independent from the police department.
Finally, the officer must prove, pursuant to 40802 (c)(1)(C)(i) that he established prior to issuing my citation that his RADAR was properly calibrated within three years to NTHSA standards.
This standard is stated clearly in the code, which establishes that a conviction is not warranted unless the prosecution proved that, prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of subparagraph (D). If the officer does not prove this standard, my case should be dismissed.
The purpose of the strict legal standards in police use of radar is to prevent abuse of this technology through poorly trained operators or defective uncalibrated equipment. These should be considered minimum standards by the court in protecting defendants against the power of the state. I respectfully ask the court to uphold these minimum standards of protection.
The officer must provide documentary proof to verify the required standards of his radar equipment and operator training. If these legal standards are not each properly and fully documented, I urge the court to dismiss my citation in the interest of justice. Please do not accept hearsay statements in lieu of documentary evidence.
If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a court assignment to attend traffic school.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.