California Vehicle Code, Sec. 22349(A)

[curious1234]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: California

cited for VC 22349(a)
speed approx: 70
pf/max spd: 40
veh lmt: 40

radar: laser
location: w/b [road redacted] @ 593' e/o res

county sheriff, not CHP

I have prior traffic violation 10 months ago that I took traffic school for.

What can I expect in terms of fines? will my license get suspended? should I look into getting a lawyer? will I be able to take traffic school again? how many points will I get? 22349(a) says 1 point, but does it take into account 70 in 40 zone?

I've looked at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/referenc...s/05JCBail.pdf to see that at 30 mph over it is a $350 fine.

what does "e/o" mean?

and yes I will definitely slow down.

[cdwjava]

Per the 2008 Bail and Fee schedule, CVC 22349(a) should have a fine and fee penalty assessment of about $380 for 30 MPH over the limit and one point assessed to your license if convicted.

You will not be eligible for traffic school without going before a judge should you opt for traffic school.

Note that it is very odd to charge 22349(a) off the freeway ... citing it for doing 70 in a 40 is very unusual.

In fact, the bail and fee schedule would seem to indicate that it is not to be used for this speed limit at all, though the text fails to restrict the violation to maximum speed limits.

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.

- Carl

[curious1234]

Note that it is very odd to charge 22349(a) off the freeway ... citing it for doing 70 in a 40 is very unusual.

cdwjava: for it to be unusual, is that in my favor or in the favor of the citing officer?

[cdwjava]

cdwjava: for it to be unusual, is that in my favor or in the favor of the citing officer?

I don't know that it benefits you at all. Unless the judge for some reason feels that it is ONLY for exceeding the POSTED maximum speed limit of 55 or 65, then it doesn't benefit you at all.

- Carl

[EWYLTJ]

Carl,

I think you are missing the obvious when looking at the bail and fee schedule. He wasn't charged with 30 mph over the posted limit. He was charge with 5mph the max. limit. 22349(a) has absolutely NOTHING to do with the posted speed limit.


Curious,

If you choose to defend yourself against this ridiculous charge (70 in a 65), then you have to be diligent not to allow it to be discussed, construed or considered as a 30mph over citation. If it were, then you would have been charged with 22350. If you were charged with 22350, then you would be protected by a whole host of speed trap laws.

[curious1234]

Interesting. Thanks for your guys input.

[cdwjava]

Carl,

I think you are missing the obvious when looking at the bail and fee schedule. He wasn't charged with 30 mph over the posted limit. He was charge with 5mph the max. limit. 22349(a) has absolutely NOTHING to do with the posted speed limit.

You might be right. I don't have the 2008 bail and fee schedule out here on the road, and the bandwidth at my hotel sucks, so I can't research it again. I'm still curious why he cited 22349 as opposed to 22350, but I suppose it was to get around the flaws inherent in 22350.

- Carl

[curious1234]

It is now nov 19, 2008, almost 4 months since the original ticket issuance of june 22, 2008. yesterday I went to court and the officer did not show. So my ticket was dismissed.

1. applied for a 45 day extension on my arraignment
2. at arraignment pleaded not guilty and set the trial date to be as close to the 45 day max as possible - in my case it was about 2 days
3. goto trial

things i could have done better:
1. made a request for informal discovery BEFORE arraignment

while at court i did notice a few things. of the 20-25 people there, there were only 5-7 officers. the chances of the officer not showing could actually be pretty good, but then again thats just one sampling.

Thanks for the help guys.

[sniper]

yesterday I went to court and the officer did not show. So my ticket was dismissed.

I didn't go to court yesterday....hummm...