Park Ranger Speeding Ticket California Sacramento

[gregski]

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

Today I sat in on a Traffic court session to get an idea what I was in for when I go in to fight my speeding ticket, what I saw leaves me hopeless.

A gentlemen presented a clear concise case against a park ranger who drove in front of him on a street then followed him on a freeway then street again to give him a speeding ticket for going too fast on that final street. The civilian asked the officer if giving out speeding tickets is part of his job description, the ranger answered it can be. The ranger stated he determined the man's speed by looking at his speedometer and following him for about a quarter mile. He was asked when was the last time his speedo was calibrated, he said they are never calibrated, not required to be calibrated. The judge later asked the same question of the ranger and got the same answer. The judge rulled by saying "I have enough evidence to convict for speeding..."

The courtroom was speechless how in the hell did he have enough evidence, the judge had absolutely nothing. No vehicle maintenance records, no speedometer calibration documentation, nothing.

The man said he was going to appeal.

[That Guy]

Not sure whether you're questioning the park ranger's authority to issue a speeding citation or whether you're questioning the fact that the court found the defendant guilty despite the lack of presentation of calibration records by the ranger.... Either way, and although a defendant does in fact have the right to appeal a judgment that he deems as unfair or unjust, whether his appeal turns out to be successful or not depends upon whether he presented the trial court any evidence that can somehow prove that the officer's speedometer was innaccurate (not just asking if it has been calibrated or not), OR to present related case law that supports his contention that an uncalibrated speedometer, is not sufficiently accurate to support a conviction.

Based on the limited facts that you posted here, my guess is that his appeal will not get him any reprieve for the court's ruling of "guilty".

Here are excerpts from an appeals case that presents similar circumstances:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES LOWE, Defendant and Appellant.

No. CR.A.3838

APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN BERNARDINO

105 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1; 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 249; 2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 5315; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1086

...

.... , to prove its case against appellant, the prosecution was required to present substantial evidence showing he exceeded 70 mph in a 70 mph zone. Appellant contends it failed to do so. In evaluating this challenge to the conviction, we are required to consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment and presume the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence to support the judgment. We evaluate not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but, rather, whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the trier of fact. ( People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 139 {36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 474, 885 P.2d 887]; People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 575-577 [162 Cal. Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738}.) To be "substantial," evidence must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value. ( People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 767 [60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1, 928 P.2d 485].)

In reviewing the record, we may neither reweigh evidence nor evaluate witness credibility. ( People v. Ochoa, (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206 {26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 23, 864 P.2d 103}; People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284, 303-304 {228 Cal. Rptr. 228, 721 P.2d 110}.) "It is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends." ( People v. Barnes, supra, at p. 303 , quoting People v. Thornton (1974) 11 Cal.3d 738, 754 {114 Cal. Rptr. 467, 523 P.2d 267}.))

Here, Officer Lopez testified he used his speedometer to pace appellant traveling at 85 mph. Appellant testified his maximum speed was 70 mph. The court believed the officer, which it was entitled to do, because the testimony of one witness is sufficient for proof of a fact. (Evid. Code, § 411.)

....

Appellant contends the officer's testimony cannot be considered reliable evidence of speed because it is uncorroborated by speedometer calibration test results. However, appellant offers no authority supporting this assertion. While we are aware of no California case directly on point, courts in other jurisdictions have permitted the fact finder to consider testimony of speedometer readings even absent calibration results. The courts reason that the general accuracy of speedometers is a matter of general knowledge and although speedometers "like other machines, may get out of order . . . they may be relied upon with reasonable certainty to determine accurately the speed at which a vehicle is driven." ( State v. Tarquinio (1966) 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 566 {221 A.2d 595, 596-597}; see also People v. Tyler (Ct. Spec. Sess. 1952) 109 N.Y.S.2d 756, 757.) In Tarquinio, the court held an officer's testimony concerning a speedometer reading was admissible prima facie evidence of speed. The officer's failure to present evidence of calibration would go to the weight of that evidence. Similarly, in Schaumburg v. Pedersen (1976) 60 Ill. App. 3d 630 {377 N.E.2d 252, 254, 18 Ill. Dec. 99}), the court held that even absent proof of calibration, the accuracy of a speedometer was a question of fact. As one court observed, "our courts receive evidence daily of readings on watches, scales and other measures without affirmative proof of their testing; the defendant is, of course, at liberty to attack the readings through cross-examination and otherwise and the ultimate determination is fairly left to the trier of facts. " ( State v. Dantonio (1955) 18 N.J. 570 {115 A.2d 35, 41}.)

....

Lacking California case authority on point, we are persuaded by the view of our sister states that speedometer readings may be introduced into evidence even without proof of the instrument's accuracy. The fact finder is then free to consider the lack of such proof in determining how much weight to afford the reading.

In light of the foregoing, we proceed to search the record for evidence supporting the conviction. Officer Lopez testified without objection that his speedometer showed appellant was traveling at 85 mph. He also testified the CHP periodically calibrates speedometers. Appellant offered no evidence showing, or even suggesting, that officer's speedometer was inaccurate. That instrument showed appellant moving at 15 mph over the maximum speed limit of 70. The court, as fact finder, was entitled to evaluate the likelihood that a speedometer in an official CHP vehicle would be inaccurate by such a large amount; evaluate the weight of the officer's testimony as to the speedometer reading in light of the lack of calibration results; and decide whether appellant was speeding. It did so and was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt appellant was guilty. We are bound by its factual determination.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~