Speeding Ticket for 3 MPH Over Limit, 68 on 65

[stellar2]

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

I was speeding in a 50 or 55 mph zone, however the officer gave me 68 in 65 ticket - VC 22349(a). I don't think I was going that fast and actually slowed down, because I knew about this speed trap location, where they constantly park a cruiser and ticket everyone on HWY 17 & Sugarloaf near Santa Cruz. The cruiser was parked facing in the same direction as my car was facing, in a pocket by the road.

I have a trial date very soon, so here are my thoughts about potential defense:
1) Margin of error on a radar unit? If 3mph or above, then I can argue reasonable doubt. Different websites state the radar margin of error being 2-4mph, but haven't seen a definitive guide on this.
2) Margin of error of my speedometer. Isn't it 5mph? I'm not sure how would I argue this. Probably, another reasonable doubt.
3) Cosine effect. There are bith a curve and a grade there, thus creating this effect. I'm still thinking about how to argue this.
4) Due to the curve, the visibility is about 300-400 ft. I'm thinking about arguing that it is a requirement to get a radar reading for 3-5 seconds, which renders the required radar reading procedure impossible. Besides a straight line visibility, the cruiser's line of sight was shorter, because he was parked deep in the pocket, to avoid being clipped by traffic.
5) Because, the car is located with its back to oncoming traffic, the officer couldn't get a visual first and then confirm that on his radar. I think this violates the procedure.
6) Radar interference from another cruiser? (sound weak, though). That day they had 2 cruisers parked on both sides of the highway, ticketing a lot of cars.

I have to fight this one, as I'm not eligible for traffic school. I would really appreciate to hear what the forum experts would recommend.

THANK YOU!!

[That Guy]

I have to fight this one, as I'm not eligible for traffic school. I would really appreciate to hear what the forum experts would recommend.

If you do not have the option of traffic school then you've got nothing to lose by fighting it.. However, you've got nothing that will even get you close to a win.

1) Margin of error on a radar unit? If 3mph or above, then I can argue reasonable doubt. Different websites state the radar margin of error being 2-4mph, but haven't seen a definitive guide on this.

Regardless of what the actual number is, it is a +/- margin of error, so from aa statistical standpoint, the potential that your actual speed was on the minus is EQUAL to the potential that your speed was on the plus side. Brings you back to the actual reading as an average.

2) Margin of error of my speedometer. Isn't it 5mph? I'm not sure how would I argue this. Probably, another reasonable doubt.

I'll preface this by saying that a citation for 3mph is pretty petty, but then again, it is in effect a 13mph in excess of the actual limit... As for your speedometer, you are expected to have a reasonable estimate on the accuracy or lack thereof your speedometer and so , that 5mph that you're claiming should be part of what you're monitoring.

3) Cosine effect. There are bith a curve and a grade there, thus creating this effect. I'm still thinking about how to argue this.

Cosine effect ALWAYS works to your advantage in that the speed that is displays as a result of the variance of that angle ALWAYS results in a lower reading than your actual speed. Additionally, for an angle differential of anythign below 15 to 20 degrees, the difference on the speed reading is minimal.

4) Due to the curve, the visibility is about 300-400 ft. I'm thinking about arguing that it is a requirement to get a radar reading for 3-5 seconds, which renders the required radar reading procedure impossible. Besides a straight line visibility, the cruiser's line of sight was shorter, because he was parked deep in the pocket, to avoid being clipped by traffic.

Isn't this the same as cosine effect?

5) Because, the car is located with its back to oncoming traffic, the officer couldn't get a visual first and then confirm that on his radar. I think this violates the procedure.

What procedure?

6) Radar interference from another cruiser? (sound weak, though). That day they had 2 cruisers parked on both sides of the highway, ticketing a lot of cars.

Minimal.... if ANY!

[stellar2]

THANKS, That Guy! You've pretty much destroyed my defense - which is great! However, from the constructive side, what would you recommend then?

For #1, yes, I understand about the "potential". However, the court has to acquit if there is enough reasonable doubt.

For #2, the ticket is for 68 on 65. It mentions nothing about the actual speed limit. I mentioned it for extra detail here, but do you think it will have any effect in court?

For #3, yes, but my argument would be that it could have been a car outside of the cosine effect range that the radar was picking. The officer didn't write anything about pacing me, thus my speed WAS lower than 68. THUS = more reasonable doubt.

For #4, not, it's not the same. I believe, it is required to do a reading for 3-5 seconds on a radar (minimum track time required by policy agency). The described road configuration does not give the officer enough time to fulfill that requirement.

For #5, the procedure is to get a visual estimate and then get a radar reading. I forget - it's either from a radar manual or a procedure on how to use radar.

For #6, minimal, yes. Feeding more into a reasonable doubt - yes. :-)

[PTPD22]

I'll only comment on a couple of things here.

For #3, yes, but my argument would be that it could have been a car outside of the cosine effect range that the radar was picking. The officer didn't write anything about pacing me, thus my speed WAS lower than 68. THUS = more reasonable doubt.

You are still misunderstanding the effect of cosine. Any cosine effect will ALWAYS show a radar reading that is slower than the tracked vehicle's actual speed. So, any cosine effect means that you were traveling FASTER than 68, not slower.

For #4, not, it's not the same. I believe, it is required to do a reading for 3-5 seconds on a radar (minimum track time required by policy agency). The described road configuration does not give the officer enough time to fulfill that requirement.

I understand what you are saying and, no, it is not the same as cosine. Radar waves travel (for all intents and purposes) at the speed of light. The radar device only needs to measure the difference in reflection time between two beams - which are pulsing at in the GHz (billion per second) range - to determine a target's speed (although they are programmed to use much more than two pulses). So, it only takes a split second to acquire an accurate reading. To put that in perspective, police radar manufacturers also make (cheaper and less sophisticated) "sport" models of their radar units. Their most well known use is to measure the speed of a baseball pitch. Think about how long it takes a baseball to travel between a MLB pitcher's hand and the catcher's mitt! Yet, a hand-held radar unit (again, cheaper and less sophisticated than those marketed to police) can accurately measure the speed of the pitch.

Now, it is true that police are trained to acquire a "clear and steady" reading of the target's speed...meaning that the displayed speed cannot be changing more dramatically than could be reasonably accounted for by a vehicle's acceleration or deceleration (which can happen if the radar unit is displaying readings from two or more targets in quick succession rather than locking on to just one target). I know of no requirement for any specific time for that "clear and steady" reading to be observed - certainly not 3-5 seconds. However, if you have the policy and procedure manual for the agency that issued your citation - and they were dumb enough to actually make that 3-5 seconds a policy requirement - then you can certainly argue that the officer was not operating the radar in accordance with his/her department policy...and that might well be enough to get the radar evidence excluded!

For #5, the procedure is to get a visual estimate and then get a radar reading. I forget - it's either from a radar manual or a procedure on how to use radar.

You are correct and I believe that this is your best argument (although certainly not a slam-dunk dismissal). Police are not allowed to let the radar unit conduct their initial observation. A cop has to first observe a vehicle that he/she suspects is traveling faster than the allowed speed limit. THEN they can use the radar to verify that their initial suspicion is correct. However, it doesn't take long for a good, old fashioned, Mark I eyeball to acquire a target and estimate velocity. By your own estimate of the distance the officer could have observed your vehicle (traveling at the speed you were cited for), the officer had between 3-4 seconds to acquire your vehicle with his/her eyes, think "that one looks a bit fast," pull the trigger on his/her radar unit, and look down at the displayed speed. That's quick, but doable. It's all going to depend on your ability to convince the judge that it was too quick.

[That Guy]

THANKS, That Guy! You've pretty much destroyed my defense - which is great! However, from the constructive side, what would you recommend then?

You had no defense to begin with... You were cited for driving in excess of the state's maximum limit. Only by 3 mph but a true 1mph in excess would imply guilt.

Nothing that I posted here is of my own invention (yeah, I might analyze an answer a bit more than someone else) but all this is basic info that goes to the establishment of the consensus opinion that 22349 citations are impossible to beat.

For #1, yes, I understand about the "potential". However, the court has to acquit if there is enough reasonable doubt.

Well, then I'm sorry to be the first to break this to you:

To the court, anything and everything you say has a bit of reasonable doubt attached to it. If you believe otherwise, or if you're under the impression that you and the officer are on an even level, then I give up, there isn't much I can do to change your mind!

For #2, the ticket is for 68 on 65. It mentions nothing about the actual speed limit. I mentioned it for extra detail here, but do you think it will have any effect in court?

What are you talking about? Are you reading the same code section I am reading?

You were cited for 22349(a):

22349. (a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.

And I paid zero attention to the info you posted re the speed limit. Simply because your post implied 3 speed limits:

I was speeding in a 50 or 55 mph zone, however the officer gave me 68 in 65 ticket - VC 22349(a).

^There are 3 potential speed limits in that 1 sentence alone!

So if the speed limit is 55, the officer could have cited you for 68 in 55 thereby making it an 18mph over citation and by definition it would be a $360 fine;
Or if the speed limit is 50, the officer could have cited you for 68 in 50 thereby making it a 23mph over citation and by the same definition it would be a $360 fine.

But, he chose to cite you in violation of the state's maximum speed law with an attached fine of $234 or so...

He can do that in a 25mph zone if he wants to!

So what did he write in the "speed limit" box on the citation?

Regardless, the simple fact that you are trying to work out a defense out of the 3mph difference, implies that you have a full understanding that you were cited in excess of the 65mph limit, regardless of whether he wrote anything in the speed limit box or not. So who are we trying to fool here? The court? or ourselves?

For #3, yes, but my argument would be that it could have been a car outside of the cosine effect range that the radar was picking. The officer didn't write anything about pacing me, thus my speed WAS lower than 68. THUS = more reasonable doubt.

A. Reasonable doubt is for a reasonable person to deduce. You cannot simply say "reasonable doubt" and have it affect that person's thought process;
B. I never said anything about pacing, nor is pacing EVER required for a Radar reading to be sufficient.

Now, if you and a car that was next to you were within the officer's view -and you can BET that his field of vision covered the ENTIRE width of the freeway-, then his visual estimate established that you were the fastest vehicle at the moment, he subsequently or previously obtained a speed reading of 68 all at a time when he had his device set to read the fastest object (who cares about the largest setting), would imply that he did get the right vehicle!

Even if you were BOTH traveling at the same speed, there is nothing wrong or illegal about him pulling you over but not the other car. Even if the other driver was driving slightly faster than you are, as long as the officer can establish you were in excess of the maximum limit, there is nothing wrong or illegal about him pulling you over but not the other car.

In fact, even if the other car was travelling slightly faster than you, how much is the angle difference between your path of travel -with respect to the Radar beam- versus that of the other vehicle? Negligible.

Forget all that... You mentioned "policy and procedure" a couple of times, and if you knew any policies or procedures you would know this: Did you know that the Cosine affect at angles below 20 degrees or so, is so negligible, the antennae that are permanently installed in law enforcement vehicles are installed at an angle of (approximately)15 degrees off centerline?

So, Radar is already set up in a way to favor the driver and give him a lower speed than his actual. with that to remember and while keeping in mind that Radar beam gets wider the farthest you get away from its source, your attempt to account for 3mph of an error due to the cosine effect, would imply that the officer measured your speed at a 60 degree angle but that is too cumbersome an equation to try and articulate in court.

For #4, not, it's not the same. I believe, it is required to do a reading for 3-5 seconds on a radar (minimum track time required by policy agency).

Where is that policy agency... Or agency policy, regardless of how you say it?
Where do you get the idea that policy dictates 3-5 seconds on radar?
Or that he has to meet a minimum track time?
Or that he has to get a visual first and follow with Radar?
Or if any of the above is questioned by the defense, that will result in ANY reasonable doubt?

The described road configuration does not give the officer enough time to fulfill that requirement.

And if that were such a huge issue do you think he could have picked that spot instead of the 100s others that were just as viable? And do you think he would have cited you for 3mph margin if it were that big of an issue, or would he have opted for the 18 mph over?

For #5, the procedure is to get a visual estimate and then get a radar reading. I forget - it's either from a radar manual or a procedure on how to use radar.

You forget? So how can you establish that as factual information that the trier of fact can deduce ANY doubt from?

For #6, minimal, yes. Feeding more into a reasonable doubt - yes. :-)

"Minimal" meaning none to speak of. And similar to what I said above, you stating it that way does not establish it as a considerable amount. You would have better luck arguing any of the electro-mechanical devices on the vehicle itself causing interference but you can bet that interference from those was tested and deemed minimal upon installation of the SMD. Now of course if your claim was remotely true, none of the testing that officers do at the beginning or end of their shift are reliable enough simply because there are likely other officers running their Radar as part of their daily test.

Let me close with this, your speed was NOT the only issue that attracted the officer's attention. Whether he mentioned it to you or not, whether he discussed it with you or not and whether you mentioned it here or not, there was something else that he saw as a red flag flying over your head (figuratively)! While this does not add or negate any reasonable doubt to any one side, and though its not my place to brag, it should add value to what I've been posting.