Speeding, VC 22350

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

I received a 22350 VC violation for 39 in a 25. It sounded reasonable, i thought i was doing 35, but i really was not paying attention. If you were to see the street you wouldn't think it was a residential street either, it is set up like a 35.

Anyways, after the officer gave me the ticket I read it over later that night and found something interesting-he left out the speed I was traveling as well as the speed limit of the street and he also left out wether he used radar or laser.

So, my question is, is this normal? I was always under the belief that if you receive a speeding ticket it is supposed to display the speed. Also, is it worth fighting?

Thanks for any help,
Nakmuay.

Well, unless the ticket is amended, you have a very good case:

Quote:

---

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.

---

So, the best advice for you is to call the court and ask them how soon you can be arraigned. Once arraigned, the ticket cannot be changed.

The failure of the officer to provide the required information on the citation is not grounds for dismissal of the complaint. Assuming that the arresting officer was wrong in not providing the information, it does not follow that the complaint will be dismissed.

Vehicle Code, section 40503 is not a constitutional requirement nor is it substantive, but only statutory and procedural. The same legislative body that created the requirement may, and has, stated the consequences of failing to follow it. Penal Code, section 960, provides that "[no] accusatory pleading is insufficient" because of a defect in form absent "prejudice." The legislature has also told appellate courts in Penal Code, section 1258, that they must disregard "technical errors or defects." The omission is clearly an error of procedure and under California Constitution article VI, section 13, a potential judgment may not be reversed unless the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

And yes, it is worth fighting. But only on the proper grounds.

I'd fight it by declaration first- without making any statements. Sort of the "I was driving and was pulled over and cited, I am not guilty" variety.

If the officer forgot to fill out the citation, he may not have everything he needs to respond to a TBD request- he may simply not respond.

Then again, you may be in a court where every TBD that an officer submits is upheld and they are rubber stamped...But even then you can ask for the TBD the officer submitted and see what it says before you decide to go further.



A

Vigilance,

That's very interesting. Are you citing a court case? If so, what is the reference?

I agree that the ticket, if as you said it was, can be disposed of.

But I think that a TBD is not the venue to go with - go with a trial & have a pretrial motion to dismiss. You will never win a TBD.

The officer cannot testify in the pre-trial motion. CA is a fact pleading state & missing facts that support your guilt (and they are totally missing) makes the dismiss motion a good one.

But you cannot have this motion or have it be a winning one if, by a TBD, the cop is allowed to answer this argument.

The officer will simply lie on his TBD response .... and your recourse? - nothing! A motion to dismiss is based solely on the pleadings you have received - the ticket information; if the judge says "you'll find out at trial" respond "your honor you have a pre-trial motion to dismiss & both parties deserve a ruling on the motion prior to the trial commencing". If he still refuses simply state that you are requesting a change in venue due to your inability to comply with the practice rules; so either grant this motion for a change in venue or rule on the motion to dismiss.

The failure to state basic facts (ie there are no facts noted) is not a "technical defect" (like writing your name wrong or writing the wrong code violation down); it is a fatal one in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Vigilance,

That's very interesting. Are you citing a court case? If so, what is the reference?

---

I adapted the language of People v. Maggiora (1962) 207 Cal.App.2d Supp. 908, 24 Cal. Rptr. 630.

*******************************************
THE COURT. This is an appeal by the People. There is no dispute regarding the facts. The trial court dismissed the complaint for the sole reason that the complaint was not signed and filed by the arresting officer but by the Assistant Chief of Police of South Gate.
*******************************************
from lexis ....

Your case is different because he also did not state any FACTS supporting the cause of action ...... the complaint cannot survive a motion for dismissal which attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint.

Thats my view ...

Also, courts have always been given great latitude when it comes to the need to sign something..

Others likely will comment further :)