Speeding ticket dated back in 6/09.
Did the TBWD and was found guilty.
Went to trial recently and was found guilty. (Judge was a Pro Tem).
Original thread: http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82440
I had a conversation with EWYLTJ about appealing and I figured I post it onto a new thread in case it may help others and vice versa.
1. Did the cop submit the same surveys you had in your thread?
2. If so, did you object or state that they did not justify the speed limit of 40mph?
3. If so, what justification did the court give for saying there was NOT a speed trap?
4. Did the cop use radar?
5. was there any other documents submitted other than the survey?
6. Did you check to see if all the documents submitted were certified true copies?
Provide ALL the details you can remember of the trial. From what you showed online, that ticket should have been dismissed.
1. His survey was in a 2-3 inch thick binder. I noticed that the page he turned to was dedicated to the Harbor and Townsend section. Apparently, I was missing that page.
2. The officer even stated that the 85th% was at 43.3 mph in his testimony. When I testified, I reiterated what he said and stated that according to the "requirements for setting speed limits described in California's Manual on Traffic Control Devices, the speed limit on this segment of First Street should be set to the closest 5 mph increment rounding on surveys dated after May 20, 2004. With that in mind, the most recent survey that the city of Santa Ana has conducted was dated Sept of 2006. Furthermore, the engineer's justification (consistency) of the reduction to 40 mph did not fit with the requirement that reductions be based upon accident history or other damages that would not be apparent to a driver. Therefore, the speed limit of this segment of First Street should be set to 45 mph, and any speed limit reduction below 45 mph would not be justified."
3. The judge's final statement was "even if the speed limit was to be posted at 45 mph, you were speeding at 54 mph, so I find you guilty."
4. The officer did use radar.
5. The officer submitted his certificates to operate the radar and the radar's calibration.
6. I did not scrutinize the survey to see if it was certified. It looked quite legit since it was in a huge binder and the judge even looked at it. I had copies of the officer's TBWD and he included the certificates for the radar. However, he did not submit the survey for the TBWD... I even stated in my TBWD that if the prosecution does not submit the survey, then I request for a dismissal. I guess the judge didn't even care.
The officer testified the situation during that day -- where he parked (he took photos from google earth, but he parked in a different spot from what he stated), direction he was facing, direction I was heading toward, his use of the radar, and every other minute details.
He then showed the survey and it's 85th% speed. He also showed his certificate of the radar.
After the officer testified, I asked him that he cited me for VC 22350, he replied, "correct." Then I asked him to read the section aloud to the court. (He looked puzzled, then looked at the judge and the judge said "please go ahead if you don't mind). He read the section. I think this was what made him a bit bitter lol... Maybe I should have read it myself.
I then proceeded with questions to set my defense of the basic speed law. His replies were mostly positive to my defense, but at times would add, "you were speeding at an unsafe speed, sir."
I then asked him questions about the survey:
"Do you have a certified copy with you..." He replied "yes, as you can see."
"What was the posted speed limit?"
"What was the 85th% speed?"
His answers were all positive for my position.
I testified that per the officer's answers and the facts of the case present (weather, visibility, pedestrians, traffic, road conditions), I did not violate VC 22350. I continued with the statement with the California's Manual on Traffic Control Devices I mentioned above.
I ended my testimony.
The officer then added that within the survey, the engineer noted that the section had a high rate of accidents, hence the 40 mph.
I added that the engineer only noted "Consistency" rather than what the officer said.
Then the judge found me guilty.
The answer that you are looking for is that your Pro Tem was full of crap. Once you established that a speed trap existed (i.e. the speed limit was not justified and the cop used radar), your speed became irrelevant. You could have been driving 54 or 94mph!!! No evidence of speed should have been admitted. The cop was incompetent to serve as witness. The court was without jursidiction to render a finding of guilty. See this in VC section 40803 -40805.
This is a slam dunk appeal... especially because of the stupid statement made by the court in item 3 of your post. However, you MUST be careful that you file your appeal correctly. You have 30 days to file your intent to appeal. Go to helpigotaticket.com for a good tutorial on how to do it all. If you would like to post your proposed statement, I'm sure you can get a lot of good advice on how to improve it.
I know that I have 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal.
So, going to round up my resources in the meantime.
Has anyone appealed before and how was your experience?
Any input/advice would be greatly appreciated!