VC 22350 Speeding Ticket in California

[ticket_question]

Bump......

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like I need to contact CA DOT again and ask if there is any update to what they sent me. In my follow up request should I mention the fact that survey is outdated or just simple ask for any reviews of the survey?

If no update has been conducted does that invalidate the ticket since it would be a speed trap? Is there any limitation on how long before the 10 years are up for them to conduct the review? If CA DOT says no review has been conducted or refuse to send it to me there is nothing else I can do until the trial by way of a discovery motion (that is after I go though the TBD process)?

Assuming I can get nothing else out of CA DOT I would be able to state based on the information that I have, I the current speed limit is based on an outdated survey and as such is classified as a speed trap based on VC 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(II). Thanks again!

Besides this I do have a question about the TBD process. Once the bail notice is received is checking the box on the bottom saying my bail is included and I would like a TBD all that is required for the first stage? The bail notice seems say the next set of forms will be mailed to you.

What is the strange (unless I am miss reading something) is the information of court website seems imply that you need to send the T-205 in along with the bail and the bottom part of the bail notice. Any clarification on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

- - - Updated - - -

Just heard back from CA DOT with regards to the survey:

The E&TS that was sent is the most recent, and therefore, only record we have in our files for the roadway segment requested. Some of our survey reports are older because in general new surveys are completed when there is a major change to the roadway or if requested by the local municipality or law enforcement agency.

Assuming that she is correct:

1) It would mean the speed reduction in place on the road is invalid?
2) The speed limit on the road would revert to state default maximum of 55?
3) My ticket is not valid since the area in question is a speed trap?

[ticket_question]

Bump......

[That Guy]

Let me start by asking you this... When you requested the E&T survey, how did you make the request? Did you complete a particular form? Just sent an email? Spoke to someone on the phone?

Also, how did you word your request? And when you followed up with the question, how did you word your question?

I am curious because, having gone through several California Public Records Requests myself, some agencies like to play word games. And its a "you only get exactly what you ask for, and nothing more, nothing less"...

Assuming I can get nothing else out of CA DOT I would be able to state based on the information that I have, I the current speed limit is based on an outdated survey and as such is classified as a speed trap based on VC 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(II).

That's the idea. Exactly...

The fact that the survey is older than 10 years, it is expired and a new survey should have been conducted. Without a new one, the posted limit is unjustifed as required by VC 40802 and VC 627, the people failed to meet their burden of proving that evidence was not obtained through the maintenance of a speed trap, and then you can elaborate on that by adding a few of these case law and statutory citations.

Besides this I do have a question about the TBD process. Once the bail notice is received is checking the box on the bottom saying my bail is included and I would like a TBD all that is required for the first stage? The bail notice seems say the next set of forms will be mailed to you.

What is the strange (unless I am miss reading something) is the information of court website seems imply that you need to send the T-205 in along with the bail and the bottom part of the bail notice. Any clarification on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Not strange at all, in fact the rules of court require that you submit form TR-205 along with your bail and your written request for a trial by declaration. Moreover, form TR-205 is called "Request for A Trial By Written Declaration" although it later also becomes your "actual" written declaration. You can get the fillable TR-205 form at the California Courts website

This should explain it all:

Just heard back from CA DOT with regards to the survey:

The E&TS that was sent is the most recent, and therefore, only record we have in our files for the roadway segment requested. Some of our survey reports are older because in general new surveys are completed when there is a major change to the roadway or if requested by the local municipality or law enforcement agency.

If that is true... they ought to be ashamed of themselves. This is coming from the STATE agency responsible for not only their share of accurate and current surveys, and although the ten year criteria is a statutory matter, CADOT/Caltrans is "THE" agency in charge of establishing procedure out of the statute.

However, as far as you're concerned, you could not have asked for a better outcome. I would even save that response (in whichever format you received it in) and submit it as part of your declaration along with the email you sent them listing the specific stretch of roadway where this all occurred.

Assuming that she is correct:

Well, before I leave this point let me assert two things:

1) This may be the exception. I really highly doubt that this represents Caltrans policy. My guess is this one fell through the cracks but they know it is too late to run around and update it now, and they certainly aren't going to fake one, so... they'll just admit the above through someone who is dispensable.

Which leads me to the question: Who is she? I'm not asking for a name, but for a title/position...

And...

2) This does not alleviate the slight possibility that she's clueless and that there is either an update or a new survey. The fact that this came through a public records request, an error (and I see no reason why it would be intentional) is not likely to have any impact on the citation or the outcome of the case. But you will find this out after the TBD and legally speaking, you still would have the opportunity for a trial de novo. Again, I am only speculating but only in an attempt to cover all bases.

Anyways. and in answer to your question, if she is correct:

Assuming that she is correct:

1) It would mean the speed reduction in place on the road is invalid?
2) The speed limit on the road would revert to state default maximum of 55?
3) My ticket is not valid since the area in question is a speed trap?

1) Not only is the speed reduction invalid, the posted speed limit is nit justified by a current engineering and traffic survey...

2) Well, this really isn't within the scope of your defense -all you need to argue is that this was a speed trap, there is no speed limit, the officer is incompetent as a witness and the court has no jurisdiction to enter a guilty verdict. Leaving a dismissal as the only option. but to answer your question and even though the speed limit would likely continue to be posted - or they can remove it (but that is likely to cause too much confusion), but law enforcement would have to refrain from conducting speed enforcement on that stretch covered by the survey until a new survey is conducted or this one as well as the area are reviewed for changes... etc, etc, etc...

---

EDITED TO ADD:

Oh, and let me still answer your question... Yes, in theory, the speed limit, if not justified by an E&T survey and unless otherwise posted would default to the 55mph statutory speed limit based on VC 22349(b). However and this happened by coincidence in that I simply randomly zoomed in and went to street level, traversed east for step or two and saw this: a SCHOOL pavement marking... While I did not look into the details of what type of school, whether it is fenced or not.,.. etc, but that alone would place a big thorn in the side of any 55mph speed limit. In fact, it would negate the 35mph speed limit and change s it to 25mph... So I went and looked through the E&T survey for that section and I don't see anything mentioning a school. So it is safe to assume that one of the changes that occurred over the past seven years would suggest the possibility of a 25mph prima facie speed limit pursuant to VC 22352(a)(2)(B).

(All of a sudden, I'm seriously feeling like I'm in the freaking Twilight Zone... Simply because, all of a sudden, that 25mph speed limit that we disputed, makes total sense).

---

3) Your ticket is still valid in that you still have to give the people the opportunity to prove their case! So... The officer has 2 choices.... (a) He can play ignorant, present the survey as valid, and continue on with his testimony, (b) simply not submit a declaration at all, or (c) submit a short note to the court stating: ":declaration explaining to the court that "it has come to our attention that the survey for the stretch of roadway where this alleged infraction occurred was not updated past its 7 year date and as such this coonstitutes a speed trap and with the court's permission, this citation should be dismissed"... or words to that effect. This would be condsitent with VC 40500(d) which states in part:

VC 40500(d) If, after an arrested person has signed and received a copy of a notice to appear, the arresting officer or other officer of the issuing agency, determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation or notice should be dismissed, the arresting agency may recommend, in writing, to the magistrate or judge that the case be dismissed. The recommendation shall cite the reasons for the recommendation and be filed with the court.
If the magistrate or judge makes a finding that there are grounds for dismissal, the finding shall be entered on the record and the infraction or misdemeanor dismissed.

[ticket_question]

Here is a copy of the original request for information

RE: CPRA XXX; E&TS for XXX 20.0/21.58 (between Kings Mountain Rd and Jct with Rte 280.)

Dear XXX,

In response to your request for records related to the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the California Department of Transportation (Department) pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA; Government Code Sections 6250-6276), has provided the following enclosed records:

· Engineering and Traffic Survey XXX 20.0/21.58 (between Kings Mountain Rd and Jct with Rte 280.)


The records you have requested from the HSIP are privileged in accordance with Title 23 of United States Code, Section 409 (23 USC 409) and cannot be disclosed for purposes related to claims or litigation against or involving the Department. It is our understanding that your request is not related to a claim or litigation against or involving the Department and is intended solely for the purposes of conducting research on collisions. The disclosure of these records does not constitute a waiver of the privilege granted under 23 USC 409 should these records be offered into evidence in future litigation against the Department.

The Department believes this to be the full and complete response to your request and it comprises all documentation that can be produced at this time. Please contact me if you need any further assistance or have questions regarding your request.

Sincerely,

XXX
Public Information Officer and CPRA Coordinator
Division of Public Affairs, Caltrans District 4
XXX Desk
XXX Public Affairs Office



<XXX>
06/18/2012 02:10 PM
Please respond to
<XXX>

To
<XXX@dot.ca.gov>, <XXX@dot.ca.gov>, <XXX@dot.ca.gov>, <XXX@dot.ca.gov>
cc
Subject
Public Records Request CPRA






Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
XXX on June 18th, 2012 at 02:10PM (PDT).

name: XXX
business: N/A
address: XXX
city: XXX
state: XXX
zip: XXX
email: XXX
telephone: XXX
comments01: Engineering & Traffic Survey (Speed Zone Survey) for highway 84.

Section of interest Kings Mountain Road to Interstate 280.


litigation: No
affiliation: No
otherrequests: No

Here is the full follow up email I sent:

Hello XXX,

The E&TS that was sent is the most recent, and therefore, only record we have in our files for the roadway segment requested. Some of our survey reports are older because in general new surveys are completed when there is a major change to the roadway or if requested by the local municipality or law enforcement agency.

Regards,

XXX

To
XXX
cc
Subject
Re: CPRA XXX Records Request

Hi XXX,

I was looking over the document that you sent me and noticed it is fairly old. I would like to know if any follow up survey been done for this section of CA 84. If so can I please request those associated documents. Thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

I want to start off by saying thank you for the excellent write up.

I have posted the full email correspondence between me and DOT (identifying information redacted).

Nice catch on the school. I don't remember seeing a school and based on the area that I was stopped at I would think I was after the school. That said, does the school zone apply around midnight on the weekend?

To condense the rest of what you posted this would be my rough course of action for my first step, the TBD:

1) Fight the ticket based on the grounds that it is a speed trap as defined by: VC 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) Since no new survey has been conducted the posted limit is unjustifed as required by VC 40802 and VC 627, the people failed to meet their burden of proving that evidence was not obtained through the maintenance of a speed trap, and then you can elaborate on that by adding a few of these case law and statutory citations.
2) Include the traffic survey I got from DOT along with my follow up request to see if a new survey has been conducted.

Thanks again for all the help.

[TrafficTicketSolution]

Hello:

If the officer does not have the survey with him at trial, then he lacks foundation to prosecute this ticket. The survey must be a CERTIFIED copy made within the last 10 years. It does not have to be a certified copy if the officer personally participated in the study.

[LawResearcherMissy]

Bump......

Stop that. We explicitly tell you when you register not to do this. The people here are volunteers, you either wait for them to get back to you, or go somewhere else.

[ticket_question]

Stop that. We explicitly tell you when you register not to do this. The people here are volunteers, you either wait for them to get back to you, or go somewhere else.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I was not bumping trying to get a faster response, I was just trying to show I was still actively seeking any information anyone is willing to provide. I full understand that people here are donating their time and am very grateful that they do.

[ticket_question]

I am starting to get my TDB in order and found a few templates online. Am curious if using one them is safe (of course changing the relevant information). Base on all the input that I have received these seemed to be a good one.

---START TBD---

The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on XXX on XXX, I was stopped by a XXX and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 50mph in a 35mph zone based on Radar evidence. I believe that I was driving approximately 50-55mph 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."

At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with very light light traffic. On my citation, the officer only noted the posted speed limit. No persons or property were put at risk. 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 35mph on CA 84 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 CA 84 is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal. As per VC 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) which states "If an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, 10 years." unless the traffic and engineering survey is reviewed it is only valid for the original five year period. (I added this part to the template I found as it seemed that it would required given I fall into the greater than seven year range. Not sure if this correct or needed)

When using radar evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar is not an illegal speed trap. Speed Trap Evidence 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."

If the prosecution does not attach proof with its written declaration (a certified copy of the speed survey) to establish as part of its prima facie case, that CA 84 is not an illegal Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), I trust the Court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.

CVC 40805, Admission of Speed Trap Evidence, states:"Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgement 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."

I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.

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. (Is this the correct time to ask for this or would it be better to do so in person during the trial de novo?)

---END TBD--

In addition to this I am planning on including the traffic and engineering survey I received from CA DOT and my email correspondence from them saying that no update to the survey has been conducted.

I have a few questions about correctly filling out the TR-205:
1) For part five would I just check other, then list traffic and engineering survey and email correspondence?
2) For part six I would just paste what I have above?
3) For actually including the engineering survey and email correspondence do I need to use a special form? Can I just print them out and attach them to the TR-205?

As always thanks again for all the help and sorry about the "bump" thing.

[That Guy]

Nice catch on the school. I don't remember seeing a school and based on the area that I was stopped at I would think I was after the school. That said, does the school zone apply around midnight on the weekend?

Well, there is a difference between a school zone speed limit of 25mph that is set around a "When Children Are Present" qualifier... and a 25mph speed limit zone set because there is a school along with other factors that may dictate a 25mph limit. And while the former would obviously not apply to a weekend, the latter would be a 24/7/365.

Fact is, we do not know what factors have changed and we cannot by any reasonable standard determine what the speed limit should be. Nor would we want to simply because it is not likely to be 55mph (not on that roadway at least) and so it could never justify our case!

To condense the rest of what you posted this would be my rough course of action for my first step, the TBD:

1) Fight the ticket based on the grounds that it is a speed trap as defined by: VC 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) Since no new survey has been conducted the posted limit is unjustifed as required by VC 40802 and VC 627, the people failed to meet their burden of proving that evidence was not obtained through the maintenance of a speed trap, and then you can elaborate on that by adding a few of these case law and statutory citations.
2) Include the traffic survey I got from DOT along with my follow up request to see if a new survey has been conducted.

Correct. And stick to those facts. In your case, there is no need to establish what conditions existed at the time, or whether you think the speed limit is "artificially low", a term that sounds quite clever the first few times, although when it gets to a point where you're reading it in every TBD and hearing it at every trial, it starts to get quite irritating!

Let me start this part of my reply by saying I don't particularly like reviewing people's declarations simply because it gets to a point where I feel I'm writing it for them. I'm not going to write your defense simply because I don't want the blame if you lose and I certainly can let you have all the glory if you win. So while I will tell you what not to include, I may not be so willing to offer you substitute paragraphs for the ones I suggested you remove.

Additionally, and while keeping in mind that no two cases are alike, and there should not be anything that is described as a “template” in presenting ANY defense, I understand that one might need some guidance every once in a while. With that said, and though I am not suggesting that your declaration should be as long as mine, my last declaration consisted of 34 pages, 14 of which was the survey and related speed count sheets and back up data, 12 pages of case law citations and relevant documentary evidence, and an 8 page declaration. Although my case was much more complicated than “the survey expired, speed limit is invalid, case dismissed”... Point is, don't hesitate if your written declaration doesn't fit in the box provided on form TR-205; you can use attachments!

By “stick to your facts”, I mean the following; (note I have numbered your paragraphs in the order you posted them):

PS: I don't know what the difference is between trhe text you opted to bold and that which you didn't...

I am starting to get my TDB in order and found a few templates online. Am curious if using one them is safe (of course changing the relevant information). Base on all the input that I have received these seemed to be a good one.

---START TBD---

1) The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on XXX on XXX, I was stopped by a XXX and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 50mph in a 35mph zone based on Radar evidence. I believe that I was driving approximately 50-55mph at the time of my stop and that my speed was quite safe for the prevailing conditions.

2) 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."

3) At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with very light light traffic. On my citation, the officer only noted the posted speed limit. No persons or property were put at risk. As such, the Officer does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law.

4) Further, I believe that the posted speed of 35mph on CA 84 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 CA 84 is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal. As per VC 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) which states "If an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, 10 years." unless the traffic and engineering survey is reviewed it is only valid for the original five year period. (I added this part to the template I found as it seemed that it would required given I fall into the greater than seven year range. Not sure if this correct or needed)

5) When using radar evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar is not an illegal speed trap. Speed Trap Evidence 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."

6) If the prosecution does not attach proof with its written declaration (a certified copy of the speed survey) to establish as part of its prima facie case, that CA 84 is not an illegal Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), I trust the Court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.

7) CVC 40805, Admission of Speed Trap Evidence, states:"Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgement 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."

8) I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.

9) 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. (Is this the correct time to ask for this or would it be better to do so in person during the trial de novo?)

---END TBD--

Paragraph (1) should be obliterated simply because anyone arguing speed trap, is simply starting with the premise that the speed limit was not validated, therefore there is no speed limit therefore speed is not even a remote contention and as such should never be mentioned or admitted into evidence. So while we are attempting to remind the court that it should not accept any evidence relevant to any speed reading from the prosecution and yet we submit a sworn statement admitting to a higher speed than what we were cited for? I'm not getting it!

Paragraph (3) should not be excluded, again no justified speed limit = no case”; pretty simple!

Paragraph (4) should be edited. Since we don't know if any changes have occurred to the roadway or adjacent property, we don't know what the speed limit should be or whether it is artificially low or naturally high. And we need not speculate when we have an open and shut case. Discuss the law, approach a legal conclusion, supplement that with case law citations and present a closing statement.

Paragraph (6) should be worded to indicate that according to Caltrans, there is no valid survey and so the prosecution does not have the ability to overcome the presumption of a speed trap.

In addition, and also in paragraph (6), and although you make up for this slight error in Paragraph(7), you should replace “I trust the Court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible” with “ I trust the Court will rule all speed related evidence as inadmissible...”. (or you can opt for “any evidence” as stated in 40805) Remember, the officer will testify to both, a visual estimate and a Radar reading. And I have seen/heard of cases where a visual estimate was sufficient for a conviction.

Paragraph (9) should just go. In my view, you're offering the court a compromise when in fact, the laws you just got done citing do not! By you pleading “not guilty” and posting bail equal to the FULL fine amount, you've implicitly agreed to/acknowledged two possibilities: (1) the entire bail amount could be converted to the fine amount, and (2) traffic school becomes a discretionary matter rather than an option that you can accept automatically.

In addition to this I am planning on including the traffic and engineering survey I received from CA DOT and my email correspondence from them saying that no update to the survey has been conducted.

I have a few questions about correctly filling out the TR-205:
1) For part five would I just check other, then list traffic and engineering survey and email correspondence
2) For part six I would just paste what I have above?
3) For actually including the engineering survey and email correspondence do I need to use a special form? Can I just print them out and attach them to the TR-205?

1) Yes. You should also include and attach a few case law citations... You can go to Google Scholar, enter “22350 AND [whatever code section # you're making a point with -for example 40805-]”, read whatever cases come up and cite paragraphs that reaffirm the point you're trying to make. (Or, once you click on a particular case, click on the “How Cited” button (top left corner of page) and you'll see how/where that case was cited). If you follow the above described procedure, you might note that “People v. Goulet”, “People v. Sterritt”, or “People v. Earnest”.... etc, might come up on each and every search that you make. Make sure to include a few citations from Goulet -as it may be the case which offers the most comprehensive interpretation of speed trap laws- but supplement each and every one by citation(s) from other cases.

2) Well, after editing what you have above, hopefully!

3) I would suggest that you contact Caltrans and request that they mail you a hard copy that is stamped and certified to being a true copy but only because often enough, the officer does not present a full copy of the survey, and the only way a court can compare and rule out if the defendant presents a full and complete copy that is certified as such. And they may require you to pay for copying/certifying/mailing fees of a few bucks, but it may make the difference between a speculative evidence and admissible evidence. Their certified stamp would also have a date the document was certified thereby adding a contemporaneous quality to your evidence. As for the emails, and although those can be difficult to authenticate at times, they should be acceptable in their actual format if printed from the server upon which they are stored (meaning if you're using “hotmail” you simply print them out by using the “hotmail print” function).

- - - Updated - - -

Hello:

If the officer does not have the survey with him at trial, then he lacks foundation to prosecute this ticket. The survey must be a CERTIFIED copy made within the last 10 years.

Not necessarily true and certainly not all the time. The survey can be an original issued and provided to the court by whichever (hint) governmental (or official) agency conducted it. Under those circumstances the officer's testimony will state that the survey is "on file with the court", and yes, consensus is that the prosecution is obligated to physically present it in court, but that would not affect its authenticity especially if provided to the court by 9let us assume, Caltrans).

Generally, an E&T survey is considered a "writing" made by a public employee and as such is admissible in court without the need or a requirement to have it certified or authenticated.

Evidence Code section 1280

Evidence of a writing made as a record of an act, condition, or event is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered in any civil or criminal proceeding to prove the act, condition, or event if all of the following applies:

(a) The writing was made by and within the scope of duty of a public employee.
(b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event.
(c) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworthiness.

In fact, let me comment further/edit the following response to the OP:

3) I would suggest that you contact Caltrans and request that they mail you a hard copy that is stamped and certified to being a true copy but only because often enough, the officer does not present a full copy of the survey, and the only way a court can compare and rule out if the defendant presents a full and complete copy that is certified as such. And they may require you to pay for copying/certifying/mailing fees of a few bucks, but it may make the difference between a speculative evidence and admissible evidence. Their certified stamp would also have a date the document was certified thereby adding a contemporaneous quality to your evidence.

Personally, I would go through the extra step of requesting a hard copy. However, you can actually print the E&T survey and provide the actual email message which it was attached to as evidence of its authenticity. And to further support this methodology, you would cite Evidence Code 1420

Evidence Code section 1420

A writing may be authenticated by evidence that the writing was received in response to a communication sent to the person who is claimed by the proponent of the evidence to be the author of the writing.

It does not have to be a certified copy if the officer personally participated in the study.

I'm sure we'll agree that it is not only rare, it is also unusual and would (or should) be subject to quite a bit of scrutiny if an officer were to participate in conducting a survey. It seems as if it would be like putting the fox in charge of watching the hen house. Of course this is not to suggest that an officer benefits in any way from any citations he might write, but I could see a certain bit of conflict there. So while it has actually been mentioned that an officer in some police department suggested that officers who are on desk duty /modified duty in his department should be allowed to contribute their time to conducting speed surveys, the rules that a survey must be conducted under specifically dictate two conditions that should be followed:

• The intent of the speed measurements is to determine the actual speed of unimpeded traffic. The speed of traffic should not be altered by concentrated law enforcement, or other means, just prior to, or while taking the speed measurements.
• 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.

While those two conditions do not necessarily preclude law enforcement officers, it does in fact explicitly recommend an unmarked car, and similarly, a uniformed officer is not the preference.

[ticket_question]

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I want to start off by saying I cannot believe that people would fault you for helping with their TDB if they don't win. As with most things there is only person at fault when things go wrong and one does not normally need to look much further then a mirror :-)

Your suggestion of getting the printed and certified copy of the survey would be for the in person court appearance and not the TDB, correct? You suggested referring back to the my email from CA DOT about the lack of a follow up survey. Is that safe to do? What if CA DOT tells the prosecution something different and say what they send me was actually incorrect?

Based on your input I am thinking of the following course of action for my rewrite:

1) Remove the fluff (paragraphs 1, 2, 3)
2) Start off by citing the CVC relevant to my case: 40802(a)(2), 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(II), 40803(b), and 40805
2.1) When citing the CVC can one just do list or should it be worked into more of a prose form?
3) Explain how the first three (40802(a)(2), 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(II), 40803(b)) show the area I was ticked it in is a speed trap and the case should be dismissed based on (40805)
3.1) I am thinking something simple like based on A, B, C the area in question meets the requires of a speed trap. As per D the case should be dismissed.
4) Find case law to support my claim.
4.1) I would tie this part into what I do for step 3? One part I am unclear on is what the best way to cite the case law is. Am I looking for an example of A, B, and C reaching the same conclusion of D or am I am just looking for case law that backs up my how I am using / interpreting A, B, C, and D, or both?

Any comments / suggestions / pointer you have on the structure would be greatly appreciated. Is making it almost a bullet point type thing okay? Does it need to be more of an essay format? Is it something that varies?