CVC 22350 Trial - Where's the Survey

[stinut]

California

During my trial for an alleged 22350vc violation the officer introduced radar evidence. I attempted to question him regarding the speed survey. The city had lowered the speed limit an additional 5mph below the 85th percentile for which I understand they need to show justification within the survey. I asked basic questions such as accident rates(lower actual than estimated) hazards not readily visible etc. Items such as "missing piece of sidewalk" or "bicycles" did not appear to me to be a hazard not readily visible. So I challenged it. The officer stated he had no copy of the survey in hand and further, he was only required to know "the law not the survey." Every question regarding the traffic and speed survey went unanswered. There was no direction from the judge at all even though I believe he had a copy of the survey at his bench. When I complained to the judge he just smiled and said "any further questions?"
I basically had to use my copy of the survey to answer my own questions.


Is the prosecution when using radar as evidence required to be able to answer questions regarding data on the survey or at least have it at trial?
It might have been in the room but that didnt help me any.

My other question is this: As it was a violation of 22350 I questioned the officer about the weather (clear) traffic (light) and if I endangered any property or individuals by my driving (no) any pedestrians present at the time of incident (no) I exclaimed to the judge that the prosecution has no case for a 22350 violation. Again he just smiled and seemed to be enjoying the grilling I was giving the officer.

The judge complimented me on my preparedness but then found me quilty saying "it appears you did exceed the speed limit"
I was shocked to say the least.

[EWYLTJ]

Yes, you got screwed. No, you shouldn't be surprised. This happens all the time in traffic court in a state rapidly approaching bankruptcy.

First of all, the prosecution had the burden to prove that a speed trap did not exist as per:

40803(b) In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the
speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or
other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects,
the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case,
that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a
speedtrap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section
40802.

Then, case law is clear that the officer cannot simply testify that a survey existed, the survey must be presented in court by the prosecution. In People v. Earnest, the court stated:

We hold that the People, whenever radar is involved in the enforcement of a posted speed limit, must produce, in the courtroom, either the original traffic and engineering survey for the location of the citation or a certified copy of that survey which (1) was conducted within the five years preceding the alleged violation and (2) justifies the posted speed limit.

So, you have experienced CA traffic court the way so many of us do. Don't worry about the law... just bend over and take it!! BS!!

I hope you are going to appeal this issue. This judge should not only be overturned, but he should be censured as well.

[stinut]

I most definitely will appeal. I needed to be clear about the survey and the prosecutions responsibility to present it in court. Ive been a defendant in traffic court before but I have never seen such blatant disregard for justice.
These guys just go through the motions like they do with 99% of the defendants and most of the time they get away with it.

Im going to have to do a proposed statement as there was no recording.
It will be interesting to see how the judge reconciles his notes with my recollection which I wrote out immediately after the trial.

[EWYLTJ]

I am amazed at so many people who post on these forums that seem to enjoy telling you that you are guilty because of a hyper-technicality. Yet, when it becomes apparent that the state is blatantly in violation of the law... these same people are conspicuously silent.

I have seen an absolute disregard for the law in traffic court more often than I have seen anything that even smells like justice.