Ticket for Unsafe Lane Change, VC 22350

[MichaelBail]

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

Facts - I don't care to make excuses - just need a defense.

2-lane street...Silver BMW behind me, white van to my left, a jeep to my front, and no car ahead of the white van. Did a lane change with the signal. Officer pulls me over roughly ~10 seconds after that lane change (interesting delay..surprising even).

Says he clocked me at 54 on a 40. Instant bullshit. Then he said he saw me make an "unsafe lane change" - instant bullshit as well. Cites me 2250 - endangering traffic.

I didn't endanger anyone. I have 3 NON-FAMILY witnesses in the car (who will be testifying that the officer is full of shit).

Ticket details: Traffic - medium
Condition - Clear
Says he LASERED me (whatever this means) - does not indicate his distance or where he was.

I want to prepare a trial lawyer Q & A defense.

I realize that most of it is HE SAID, SHE SAID. And in the court room SHE wins (she being the male cop).

SO....the burden of proof is left on me to prove I was not 'endangering anyone' etc by cross-examining the cop (if he shows up).

Here are the q's i thought.

Officer - how long would you say it took you to pull me over after said unsafe lane change?
Officer - truth or lies (truth being 10 seconds and more).

Officer..why did it take you so long considering I was only doing 56 as per your own testimoy?
Officer : I had to change lanes myself
Me: then officer, how far were you from the actual scene and where exactly?
Officer: most likely will lie saying he was in an appropriate zone.
Me: Officer, then it should not have taken you that long to pull me over in a 40 mph zone if I was only doing 54. That is not a distance more than 200meters...this must mean you were further than you are stating assuming you yourself drove the speed limit of 40 miles / hour to catch me ...which would mean you are lying to the court - motion to dismiss.

Me: Officer if I was making a lane change to the left, then it is quite possible at that distance you could have lasered another car. Judge ...motion to dismiss.

If he argues

Judge...officer is claiming he is beyond human error - motion to dismiss.

So officer, you are saying I was going 54

Officer you said you lasered me - where did you laser me?
Officer: Car tires, headlights, license plate etc

etc..

I did not speed, I basically changed my lane. I also video recorded everything. The guy was flat out lying. If I was guilty, I'd say guilty. But this is BS.

What are my options people?

[cdwjava]

Says he clocked me at 54 on a 40. Instant bullshit. Then he said he saw me make an "unsafe lane change" - instant bullshit as well. Cites me 2250 - endangering traffic.

How fast do you believe you were going?

The "unsafe lane change" is moot as you were cited for 22350, so forget about that part of it.

I didn't endanger anyone. I have 3 NON-FAMILY witnesses in the car (who will be testifying that the officer is full of shit).

The basic speed law applies even if no one is endangered at all.

Ticket details: Traffic - medium
Condition - Clear
Says he LASERED me (whatever this means) - does not indicate his distance or where he was.

If he hit you with lidar then his notes and his testimony should have that information. You can request any notes or reports as part of the discovery process before trial. You can also seek the road survey to see if it is valid and accurately reflects the posted speed limit. You can also try to argue that your actions were not unsafe given the conditions.

SO....the burden of proof is left on me to prove I was not 'endangering anyone' etc by cross-examining the cop (if he shows up).

Actually, SPEED is the only issue in a VC 22350 case as endangering people is not a required element. It might be an argument the officer makes to help establish what he believes to be an unsafe speed, but speed is the factor here.

Officer - how long would you say it took you to pull me over after said unsafe lane change?
Officer - truth or lies (truth being 10 seconds and more).

Irrelevant.

And depending on how far away you were when he hit you with the lidar it might be much longer from the time of the original observation and speed evaluation until the stop.

I did not speed, I basically changed my lane. I also video recorded everything. The guy was flat out lying. If I was guilty, I'd say guilty. But this is BS.

What are my options people?

Your options are to plead "guilty" or "no contest" and accept the punishment and traffic school (if eligible), or plead "not guilty" and go to trial. You can seek the survey information and see if a speed trap defense will work. You can hire experts to challenge the lidar or the officer's training or use of the lidar. You can argue that your actions were not unsafe given the conditions. Ultimately, there are a number of possible avenues to pursue, but they are related to speed not an unsafe lane change. If he tries to argue an unsafe lane change and does not bring up anything remotely related to your speed, then you could move to dismiss for a lack of foundation for VC 22350 ... that'd be darn lucky for you if he made that significant an error!

You might also consider the impact a guilty verdict might have on your insurance rates. If you lose, the court does NOT have to permit you to attend traffic school. While that offer will almost certainly be available up front, it may not be later.

[That Guy]

2-lane street...Silver BMW behind me, white van to my left, a jeep to my front, and no car ahead of the white van.

OK... So they weren't moving fast enough for you, so you, stepped on it and:

Did a lane change with the signal.

... and took off. All of which, happened to be right in front of a cop that was parked on the side of the road somewhere.

How do I know he was parked? Well, he said he Lasered you, correct? Laser only works if he's parked...

Officer pulls me over roughly ~10 seconds after that lane change (interesting delay..surprising even).

Why is it surprising? ... Or even interesting, I wonder? (Nevermind, you make it clear below)...

Instant bullshit. ... instant bullshit as well.

Wait... Are you trying to influence our opinion of what you're posting? Because without the added ^commentary^, you post is full of it!

I didn't endanger anyone.

In light of a presumption that 40mph has been determined to be the "SAFE" speed, your speed, if proven to be 54mph (which will likely be a snap to do), is sufficient to convict you in violation of 22350.

I have 3 NON-FAMILY witnesses in the car (who will be testifying that the officer is full of shit).

"NON-FAMILY" is not the only criteria by which witness credibility is tested... Example: if all 3 of them say "I know he wasn't going 54mph"... (even if worded differently)... then there is a great likelihood that at minimum, 2 of them are making it up simply because passengers don't normally watch a car's speedometer... But either way, challenging an officer's speed reading will never get you anywhere close to proving his bullshit; instead, it'll only prove more of yours!

Even if they simply provide general testimony about how well you were driving and how safe they felt being in your car, it would be reasonable to assume that they were coached and their testimony is coerced... Its not worth the trouble of having to take them to court... But if that is the only way you can support your contentions, so be it!

does not indicate his distance or where he was.

(Without mentioning anyone who might be "lost" anywhere) only ignorant dumbasses believe that either is required on the citation.

Don't believe me though... Here is the law that specifies what exactly is required to be included on the citation:

CVC 40503.

Every notice to appear or notice of violation and every complaint or information charging a violation of any provision of this code regulating the speed of vehicles upon a highway shall specify the approximate speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven and exactly the prima facie or maximum speed limit applicable to the highway at the time and place of the alleged offense and shall state any other speed limit alleged to have been exceeded if applicable to the particular type of vehicle or combination of vehicles operated by the defendant.

I want to prepare a trial lawyer Q & A defense.

While it is true that there is plenty more that I can provide that might help you in someway or another, the following advice, IMO, is something that you could not go without: Lay off the nasty, dickheaded attitude... Seriously, this is neither the time nor the place for you to attempt to compensate for any of your short comings. It won't help you here and it WILL hurt you in court. Better yet, lose any idea you have of going to court to play "trial lawyer" in an attempt to embarrass the cop because (1) judges despise pretentious psudo-attorneys especially those who know very little and (2) the only thing you'll accomplish is to get slammed on your behind and end up embarrassing yourself!

Examples? You were kind enough to provided many... but here is one:

Here are the q's i thought.

Officer - how long would you say it took you to pull me over after said unsafe lane change?
Officer - truth or lies (truth being 10 seconds and more).

Officer..why did it take you so long considering I was only doing 56 as per your own testimoy?
Officer : I had to change lanes myself
Me: then officer, how far were you from the actual scene and where exactly?
Officer: most likely will lie saying he was in an appropriate zone.

You said he cited you for 54 in 40 and yet you're questioning him based on him clocking you @ 56 mph?

What, in your description is an "appropriate zone"? And what is an "inappropriate zone"?

Re: the 10 seconds you're making an issue of: You either have no concept of time, or the cop is lying about Lasering you...
Which will the court assume?
THIS: You have no clue...

Me: Officer, then it should not have taken you that long to pull me over in a 40 mph zone if I was only doing 54. That is not a distance more than 200meters...

What you obviously are clueless about is that if the officer was using Laser, he wasn't driving/moving, he had to have been parked somewhere... So not only are you wrong about his not having the ability to stomp on you in under 10 seconds... Instead, 10 seconds would seem to indicate he was close behind you to have pulled you over that QUICKLY... In other words he was probably PARKED somewhere and had to go from zero to 54 or whatever speed you were at to catch up, then he had to squeeze in between you and the van you obviously had to cut off when you changed your lane...

But without all that, there is no requirement that the officer pull you over right away... He can choose to cruise behind you for the major portion of his shift if he wants. So the one argument you are obviously so proud of that you had to share is only based on your lack of knowledge and inability to reason.

Also, how/where did you come up with 200 meters as being of any relevance here? Especially, while demonstrating that basic math is not one of your favored skills...

Example?

this must mean you were further than you are stating assuming you yourself drove the speed limit of 40 miles / hour to catch me ...which would mean you are lying to the court - motion to dismiss.

If you were driving at 54 mph, and you're going to assume he himself drove at the speed limit of 40 miles / hour... Then clearly, he would NEVER catch you. Which would also mean that you would have not been cited, further providing that you would not have had the opportunity to make a fool of yourself.... Lastly, the worst thing you can try and do is to attempt to prove (let alone state) that the cop is lying about anything. As that can only damage your own credibility.

Me: Officer if I was making a lane change to the left, then it is quite possible at that distance you could have lasered another car. Judge ...motion to dismiss.

That won't work? Your speed of 54mph might as well be written in stone, trying to prove otherwise is the last thing you should attempt.

Judge...officer is claiming he is beyond human error - motion to dismiss.

Now you sound like you too are 'lost" somewhere...

Officer you said you lasered me - where did you laser me?
Officer: Car tires, headlights, license plate etc

And even MORE SO now... "Car tires"? Are you kidding me?

By the way, its not likely that the officer will remember where he Lasered you... But that isn't a material fact that you can rely on "exposing", simply because if the officer is trained and certified in using Laser (and it is safe to assume he is otherwise why would he be on traffic duty), then (1) it can be presumed that he did it correctly and (2) you, not knowing much of anything about Laser, aren't in a position to second guess his expertise.

I did not speed, I basically changed my lane. I also video recorded everything.

Video recorded what? The traffic stop? Or you changing lane and speeding? If its the latter, then why do you need anyone's opinion? March to court show your evidence and be done with it!

[MichaelBail]

@ That guy

Thank you for the rant. I did not "bail it" and I was definitely not going over the speed limit. My friend only saw the speedometer when I was pulled over...and I wasn't breaking or deccelerating.

Also...There was a car infront of the white van but it was a ways away. I didn't pedal the gas or anything. It was a lane change and not a very tight one. The officer just seemed ass-hurt about the type of car I was driving and seemed incredibly dickish instead. But thank you for assuming me guilty before I was proved innocent. You know your law! I'm impressed.

In any case, as much as I hate your equally DICKISH attitude, you make amazing points. I know trying to outsmart him or make him look stupid or pretending to be a radar expert won't do jack. I re-read my Q&A and that also is pretty horrible and irrelevant. So what do I do? Because all I did was change lanes and he ticketed me. Is there no due process? Is there no defense I can have? Will the courts always favor the cop because his word is "sworn testimony" but my "Sworn testimony" is less valued because I'm a citizen who is clearly lying like the rest (as you so presumed like a judge yourself).

What does one do? Just take it up the butt or pray the guy doesn't show up?

As for video, a friend was recording us. He actually caught part of the lane change on video. it was literally a lane change in front of a slow moving car without there even being that many people. Speed was very reasonably safe here. I mean this isn't a "22349a" is it? But speed is a factor and the officer claimed it is "UNSAFE". Unsafe for who? What the hell is he even talking about?

[cdwjava]

Here is the section for which you were cited:

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.

It is also the section cited when you exceed the posted speed limit - the legal presumption being that the posted speed limit is the "safe" speed. So, if you were traveling at any speed greater than 40 MPH you were theoretically in violation of 22350. Hence the mention of a speed trap or justification defense. If the speed was not properly supported by an engineering survey, or, you can argue that your actions were safe given the totality of the circumstances, then you can prevail. Those are, however, big ifs.

You are focusing a great deal on the lane change when that is not really an element to this at all unless the officer for some reason argues that your lane change would have been "safe" at some other speed ... yet, there are other code sections to address an unsafe lane change that would not allow for the many defenses offered under 22350.

[MichaelBail]

I don't know what an engineering survey would exactly prove? If the posted speed is not good enough and just a bit higher, it will not be the theoretical 54 mph he lasered me at from 40mph. I've seen someone have a wrong survey from 35 mph to 43 mph...but like you said - big if's....

It seems while That Guy was dickish...traffic court 100% follows "Guilty until proven innocent"....seems like there is no hope in a defense and any lawyer claiming such is probably just loaded with connections to get you off the ticket for an enormous price (Still less than insurance premium being bumped..but it all seems like such a scam )

[supralover23]

The speed trap defense basically says that if the posted speed is not justified by an engineering or traffic survey, all electronic speed enforcement is illegal, regardless of the clocked speed. To be more exact:

No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speedtrap.

So if the road you were cited on is determined to be a speed trap, no evidence regarding your speed can be admitted, so the entire "Unsafe Speed" charge falls apart, since there's no evidence about your speed to determine whether it was safe or unsafe. That leads into the discussion of what exactly a speedtrap is. I suggest reading CVC 40802, in particular 40802(a)(2). If you have questions, let us know. It would also be helpful if you'd let us know what road this occurred on (road, nearby intersections, etc).

[That Guy]

You can call it a rant if you choose. That would only signal your ineptitude and inability to learn a good lesson when you're offered one. And no, I am not here to brag about how much law I know, more so that I know the reality that the great majority of traffic infractions end up with a guilty plea and an even greater majority of the contested ones end up with a conviction.

I did not "bail it" and I was definitely not going over the speed limit.

Not once did I say you "bailed it"! You can claim anything you want; the 54 mph speed is pretty much written in stone. Question is, can you find a reasonable and legitimate way to get out of it, I sincerely doubt it!

My friend only saw the speedometer when I was pulled over...

When you were getting pulled over, the violation had already occurred. So what good would their testimony be at that point?

The officer just seemed ass-hurt about the type of car I was driving and seemed incredibly dickish instead.

You started out with a statement about not wanting any excuses, only wanting a defense, and yet you just happened to slip in the most pathetic of excuses anyone has ever offered. Or maybe that was your defense, if so, my apologies... You can go ahead and take that with you to court. I guarantee you it will not get you much, but you're free to try. Who knows, the judge might get ass-hurt about the kind of car you were driving and end up finding you guilty in spite of your great defense strategy... (If you had one)!

But thank you for assuming me guilty before I was proved innocent. You know your law! I'm impressed.

"Me assuming you guilty before you're proved innocent"...?

I'm basing my opinion on the fact that you have no defense. And I'll elaborate more in a bit. You offered no defense in your first post, and you've offered a pathetic one in your second. And just like you don't earn people's respect by the kind of car you drive, you don't get cited for speeding and an illegal lane change for that same reason either!

And so thus far, and unless you know of some magical way to declare yourself innocent, you aren't making any sense!

In any case, as much as I hate your equally DICKISH attitude

OK, so you're hateful; I didn't ask you to like me! And you're more judgmental than I can ever be; But maybe its OK for you to be, again, because of the kind of car you drive! And the glaring quality that you demonstrated is that you have a foul mouth and a nasty attitude... Not only towards me, but towards the cop who cited you, probably towards the driver who you thought was driving too slow... And predictably, towards the judge who will likely convict you... Pretty much towards anyone who disagrees with you. Not much I can personally do about that. That is your issue to deal with on your own. As for the rest of your post, your speed having been measured at 54 mph is not a matter of contention. You can cry foul, make excuses, deny, claim he lied and swear all the way until you're blue in the face. The speed on the citation will be the speed you will get judged at. If that, to you, means you're taking it in the butt, then that sort of flows with the main theme you've tried to present here.

The issue that you can argue -though it will most likely end up being a moot argument- is that your speed was safe for conditions. Simply because the E&T survey that cdwjava mentioned to you was a way to determine that the majority of driver's, approximately 85% of them, had unknowingly decided that 40 mph or there abouts, is the safe speed for that roadway. You obviously disagree but that isn't likely to convince the court that you weren't speeding or that your speed which was 14 mph higher, was safe.

But even if you take on the only defense that would be available to you, you are in turn admitting to driving at 54 mph, which to me, not only means that you will not win your case by making such an outrageous claim (that your 54 mph was safe in a 40 mph zone), but it also means that you lied when you said: “I was definitely not going over the speed limit”... So you're either “guilty of driving at an unsafe speed”, or you're “guilty of lying”, or both, and in anyone's eyes, you are not “innocent” by any means or description!

If that makes me “dickish” then please carry on calling me whatever name you wish. Although rest assured I am not concerned as to how you feel about me!

I don't know what an engineering survey would exactly prove? If the posted speed is not good enough and just a bit higher, it will not be the theoretical 54 mph he lasered me at from 40mph. I've seen someone have a wrong survey from 35 mph to 43 mph...but like you said - big if's....

It seems while That Guy was dickish...traffic court 100% follows "Guilty until proven innocent"....seems like there is no hope in a defense and any lawyer claiming such is probably just loaded with connections to get you off the ticket for an enormous price (Still less than insurance premium being bumped..but it all seems like such a scam )

This is precisely why I think you don't deserve anyone's help. You pretend you know a lot, only to go way out of your way to prove that you don't know shit. In fact, you flat out admitted it.

Explain to me, if you will, how is it that you believe in “innocent until proven guilty” and yet a valid defense to you, is an attorney who's loaded with connections to get you off the ticket for an enormous price!

Oh, and as far as the video, I don't need to see it, but if you want my opinion, I suggest you keep it to yourself, as it will not help you one slight bit in court!

[MichaelBail]

It is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN innocent. It seems whatever the cop writes is a DECREE. And it rests on me to PROVE HIM WRONG (which I can't do either way). I mean by this example, if a cop says "yup he was going 80" and a driver really wasn't he's ****ED! Where's the god damn checks and ****ing balances?!

[cdwjava]

It is GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN innocent. It seems whatever the cop writes is a DECREE. And it rests on me to PROVE HIM WRONG (which I can't do either way). I mean by this example, if a cop says "yup he was going 80" and a driver really wasn't he's ****ED! Where's the god damn checks and ****ing balances?!

And you want ... what? Would you be happy with 24/7 camera coverage of all open spaces? That might prove more traffic cases one way or the other, but then people will scream about their civil liberties.

So, what might you wish to do, and how much might you be willing to pay in order to try and keep our roadways safe?

The system as it stands now tends to presume that the officer has no motivation to lie. You are certainly free to argue that the officer's perceptions are not as good as yours even though it is his job to make such observations and most drivers are not quite as aware. And, if as you say the officer argues an unsafe lane change rather than speed, you'll be golden anyway. Or, you can also look into the speed trap defense. But, if you are just going to rant and pay the fine (and maybe take traffic school) go ahead. You have options available even if they aren't easy wins for the defense.