VC 22350 and Senior Center

Hi all, thanks in advance for your help.

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

I received a ticket under CV22350 speeding near a senior center. The officer's radar clocked me at 46, with an approx speed of 45 and a max speed of 25 on that strip of road. The conditions are marked on the ticket as clear and dry, with medium traffic. There are no errors or "fatal flaws" on the ticket.

The 25 zone is a stretch of road that is approximately 50 feet long on a hill, the speed on the rest of the road is 35. The motorcycle cop was parked in the driveway of a house at the foot of the hill.

I've been doing a lot of research here and on helpIgotaticket and was thinking about using the speed trap defense, but I'm not sure if that would work in light of the senior center. Does the senior center invalidate my defense? Is there another defense I should be using here? OR should I suck it up and plead guilty? I am unemployed so the $400 fine is a hefty one.

I have requested the engineering traffic survey and my arraignment is not due until the 5th of January. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Was the senior center posted as described in the following statute?

Quote:

---

Quoting California VC 22352.

---

(a) The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof:

(1) Fifteen miles per hour:

(A) When traversing a railway grade crossing, if during the last 100 feet of the approach to the crossing the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the crossing and of any traffic on the railway for a distance of 400 feet in both directions along the railway. This subdivision does not apply in the case of any railway grade crossing where a human flagman is on duty or a clearly visible electrical or mechanical railway crossing signal device is installed but does not then indicate the immediate approach of a railway train or car.

(B) When traversing any intersection of highways if during the last 100 feet of the driver's approach to the intersection the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the intersection and of any traffic upon all of the highways entering the intersection for a distance of 100 feet along all those highways, except at an intersection protected by stop signs or yield right-of-way signs or controlled by official traffic control signals.

(C) On any alley.

(2) Twenty-five miles per hour:

(A) On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or residence district unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code.

(B) When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign. For purposes of this subparagraph, standard "SCHOOL" warning signs may be placed at any distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds.

(C) When passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard "SENIOR" warning sign. A local authority is not required to erect any sign pursuant to this paragraph until donations from private sources covering those costs are received and the local agency makes a determination that the proposed signing should be implemented. A local authority may, however, utilize any other funds available to it to pay for the erection of those signs.

(b) This section shall become operative on March 1, 2001.

---

Yes, it says Senior Center above the 25mph marker.

Thanks for your reply!

Anyone happen to know the answer to this one?

Quote:

---

Quoting tehericka

---

Anyone happen to know the answer to this one?

---

Read People v. Goodrich, 33 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 except replace "school" with "SENIOR"...

Speed trap laws (in terms of what the officer is required to present into evidence (E&T Survey, his training/certification & Radar calibration as prescribed in VC 40802)) would still apply... However, and when it comes to evaluating whether the 25mph speed limit is justified or not, the presence of the senior citizen center and it being marked with a "SENIOR" sign automatically allows for setting the limit at 25mph. So regardless of what the 85th percentile speed is, the 25mph limit would be justified.

The 30 questions defense would still apply, and if the speed survey shows speeds well above 25mph without excessive accident history, that would help your case.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Read People v. Goodrich, 33 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 except replace "school" with "SENIOR"...

---

The one issue I would take with the holding of Goodrich is that vc 22352(a)(2)(B/C) establish prima facie speed limits rather than maximum speed limits, both of which have a well-defined meaning under CA law. If an area is marked merely with the sign *school* without any numerical value, the 25mph would be enforceable due to it being the default speed limit, IMO. But once a numerical sign goes up, it has to be supported by a speed survey to be enforceable. It may be the case that the court misinterpreted the meaning of VC22352, since it wasn't the legislature's apparent intent to set a maximum speed limit of 25mph for school zones similar to the way it was to set the maximum speed of 65mph for most divided freeways in CA.

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

The one issue I would take with the holding of Goodrich is that vc 22352(a)(2)(B/C) establish prima facie speed limits rather than maximum speed limits, both of which have a well-defined meaning under CA law.

---

Well, the 25 mph limit is THE MAXIMUM speed limit in a school/senior citizen zone! From Goodrich:

Also, there can be no "artificially low" posted speeds when the Legislature has fixed the maximum at 25 miles per hour.

The only reason that it is treated as a "prima facie" speed limit is that it does not conform to the "well defined" ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM 55mph (2 lane undivided), 65mph (multi lane divided highway and/or anywhere) and 70mph (rural hwy) zones that the legislature enacted.

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

If an area is marked merely with the sign *school* without any numerical value, the 25mph would be enforceable due to it being the default speed limit, IMO. But once a numerical sign goes up, it has to be supported by a speed survey to be enforceable. It may be the case that the court misinterpreted the meaning of VC22352, since it wasn't the legislature's apparent intent to set a maximum speed limit of 25mph for school zones similar to the way it was to set the maximum speed of 65mph for most divided freeways in CA.

---

The point I was making is this... When planning a defense for any citation issued in violation of VC 22350, the defendant would have to obtain a copy of the E&T Survey to ascertain what reasons were cited by the engineer for posting the 25mph limit and whether the survey does in fact justify such limit either by use of the prevailing speeds (85th percentile) or by citing which reasons were utilized to justify any further reduction from the critical speed.

In this case, the engineer need not cite VC 627 or any of the underlying conditions set therein as reason for justifying the posted 25mph limit. Instead, a citation of VC 22352(a)(2)(C) with a reference to the presence of a "SENIOR citizen center" and a recommendation that the 25mph limit be posted along with a sign stating "SENIOR" is sufficient to justify such a limit.

This is regardless of the prevailing speeds, accident records, Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver, residential density and/or pedestrian/bicyclist safety (all from VC 627)...

Here is the specific citation I was referring to from Goodrich:

The defendant contends that this inconsistent survey result means (1) the survey did not justify the posted speed limit and did not demonstrate the nonexistence of a speed trap, and (2) the officer was incompetent as a witness and cannot express his opinion because his testimony is based on or obtained from the maintenance or use of a speed trap (Veh. Code, §§ 40801, 40802, subd. (b), 40803, subd. (b) & 40804).[5]

In most cases, the defendant would be correct. He is not correct in this case.

We hold that the rules and procedures governing speed traps and the use of radar are inapplicable to those cases where the state Legislature has mandated a maximum speed of a vehicle — in this case, 25 miles per hour at a school when children are present. (Veh. Code, § 22352, subd. (b)(2).)

In that last (underlined) paragraph, and by virtue of the fact that "the state legislature [has also] mandated a maximum speed of a vehicle -- in this case, 25 miles per hour in a senior citizen zone", one can conclude that "the rules and procedures governing speed traps and the use of Radar are inapplicable"...

(Note that although I did state earlier that "speed trap laws would still apply" I did elaborate that such application is limited to the fact that the survey must be presented only to prove that this was a senior citizen zone BUT NOT to justify the posted 25mph limit!)

Furthermore, the court (in Goodrich) went on to say:

But where, as in this case the Legislature has intervened and set the 25-mile-per-hour school-zone speed limit, the local authorities are prohibited from raising the limit even if a higher speed would be equally safe and/or justified by a traffic and engineering survey. (Veh. Code, § 22347.) Also, there can be no "artificially low" posted speeds when the Legislature has fixed the maximum at 25 miles per hour.

And here is how that would apply in a senior zone (versus a school zone):

But where, as in this case the legislature has inverted and set the 25-mile-per-hour senior-zone speed limit, the local authorities are prohibited from raising the limit even if a higher speed would be equally safe and/or justified by a traffic and engineering survey.... Also, there can be no "artificially low" posted speeds when the Legislature has fixed the maximum at 25 miles per hour.

That being said, and if the analysis I provided above is accurate, then I disagree with:

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

The 30 questions defense would still apply, and if the speed survey shows speeds well above 25mph without excessive accident history, that would help your case.

---

Under the circumstances where this is a citation issued in a "senior citizen zone", a rebuttal by the defendant that his/her speed was not unsafe based upon "prevailing speeds and/or accident records... etc", is not a plausible defense nor would it be considered "competent evidence" to raise sufficient reasonable doubt as to whether his/her speed was unsafe.... Why? Neither of those conditions went into determining what the safe limit should be for such a zone! So how could they be used as a defense?

VC22351(b) specifically applies to the all prima facie limits established per VC22352, including school zone/senior center ones. Just read the subsection of the statute:

Quote:

---

The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.

---

I took a closer read of VC40802, and while it specifically excludes school zones from the speed trap definition, i don't see similar verbiage in regard to senior centers.

one more thing: Goodrich cites CVC22347, and for the love of me I can't find the text of that statute anywhere. Any idea if it was repealed or renumbered after the case was published?

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

I took a closer read of VC40802, and while it specifically excludes school zones from the speed trap definition, i don't see similar verbiage in regard to senior centers.

---

While a "senior zone" is not specifically excluded from 40802, if you look at the definition of a "speed trap" under 40802(a)(2) it states:

A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

A 25mph "senior zone" speed limit is set under 22352(a)(2)(C)... And my point is if they really wanted to have speed trap laws (particularly, the requirement to "justify the limit) apply to a "senior zone", then rather than being specific to 22352(a)(2)(A), they would have included all three paragraphs (A, B AND C) in 40802(a)(2)....

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

one more thing: Goodrich cites CVC22347, and for the love of me I can't find the text of that statute anywhere. Any idea if it was repealed or renumbered after the case was published?

---

Good question... I couldn't find it either; I even went to LexisNexis to check the case there and sure enough, it is the only VC section that is not hotlinked to the language of the code! Another search of any VC 22347 citations came up with nothing...

The underlined portion seems to merely govern any local statutes that reduce the local limits below the P/F as provided by VC 22358.4, not any other P/F limits outlined in 22352. The bottom line is, there are a couple of legal inconsistencies in the sections governing speed limits around senior centers and whether 25mph around schools is still a maximum limit or a P/F limit in light of the fact that VC22347 appears to have been repealed and VC22352(a)(2)(B) was rewritted a few years after Goodrich was published. I'd have to hit a law library and find an old copy of VC to find out for sure, though.

Since I did hijack the thread, my advice to the OP is to file the usual "i'm not guilty" trial by declaration. If the officer files one, pick up a copy of the officer's reply and post it here for us to take a look at.

Will do. I've also requested the speed survey on the off chance that it's out of date, just in case. I'll post it when I receive it. Lots of great info here, very appreciated!

Hi again,

The speed survey is not out of date, but the 85th percentile speed is 42 and there is NO MENTION of a senior center whatsoever. Is this a plausible defense?

If someone wouldn't mind taking a look it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Speed Survey

Quote:

---

Quoting tehericka

---

The speed survey is not out of date, but the 85th percentile speed is 42 and there is NO MENTION of a senior center whatsoever. Is this a plausible defense?

---

It certainly is... Unless this is NOT the most recent survey (as in: the senior center was built/added AFTER that survey was conducted, and a new survey was done), the posted limit SHOULD be 35mph -NOT 25mph-. As such, and pursuant to VC 40802(a)(2), this is a "speed trap", and as a result, the court "shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction" (See VC 40805).

Edited To Add: After checking College Ave -between EL Cajon Blvd and Lindo Paseo- on Google Maps, I can see a Senior Center at "4855 College Avenue, San Diego, CA"... So again, there may exist a more recent survey that justifies the 25pmh posted limit... You can either contact the city engineering and ask them for confirmation that what you have is indeed the most recent survey, or you can wait until your court appearance and check the survey that the officer will present... If it is in fact the same as the one you posted, then you've got an easy case to beat the citation. If he does somehow manage to come up with a new one (and one that refers to the Senior Center as justification to reduce the limit to 25mph) then then speed trap argument will not likely work.

I double checked with the engineer-- got written confirmation that this is the most recent survey done for this section of road. My arraignment is on Jan 5th so I'll plead not guilty and schedule a court date. Do I use VC40802 or VC 40805? (or both?) Many thanks for your continued help.

Side note- I was told by a legal-minded friend that if I win my case I should raise a class-action lawsuit for those who paid these tickets (the cop was on this corner for at least 2 weeks pulling people over) Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Quoting tehericka

---

I double checked with the engineer-- got written confirmation that this is the most recent survey done for this section of road.

---

Good... Sort of leaves me wondering as to who installed that 25mph speed limit sign :confused:

Quote:

---

Quoting tehericka

---

Do I use VC40802 or VC 40805? (or both?) Many thanks for your continued help.

---

There are a number of ways you can approach it.... Here's how I would do it... You can wait until the officer finishes testifying (after he introduces the survey into evidence), then you would make a motion for a dismissal by citing and and all of the pertinent code sections: 40801, 40803(a) & (b), 40804(a) AND 40805...
Cite them all for good measure...

Quote:

---

Quoting tehericka

---

Side note- I was told by a legal-minded friend that if I win my case I should raise a class-action lawsuit for those who paid these tickets (the cop was on this corner for at least 2 weeks pulling people over) Thoughts?

---

Who are you going to sue? The city for posting the wrong speed limit, the police department for maintaining a speed trap, the District attorney's office for prosecuting cases (even though they don't really prosecute), or the court for judicial misconduct?

Most of those entities enjoy what is called "qualified immunity"... But even if they didn't, the legislature limited the penalty for maintaining speed traps to "exclusion of the evidence" and a subsequent dismissal... From People V. Sullivan:

While section 40801, setting forth the general prohibition against speed traps, may be viewed as a substantive rule of law, section 40803, subdivision (a), can only be characterized as a rule of evidence. The Legislature could have selected other remedies or penalties for violation of section 40801, but it clearly opted for the exclusion of evidence.

As far as you personally, and assuming you are successful in getting your citation dismissed, you would have very little basis to sue anyone in that you have no actual damages to sue for! As for the people who may have either been convicted and or simply plead guilty and paid a fine as a result of this particular speed trap, it is on them to seek proper remedy from the court.

If for some reason the court does not dismiss your case based on the arguments we discussed here, your recourse at that point would be to file an appeal. You can raise your hope that you are due some sort of compensation for the hassle, but at the end of the day, a dismissal is about as much as you'll get.

If you plan on doing this as part of your "civic duty", then you'd be better off contacting the citing agency and letting them know that the speed limit on that portion of that roadway is not justified and they should cease speed enforcement until they can either get the 25mph limit changes to 35 (to conform to the most recent survey) or until they can have the city issue an E&T survey that justifies the 25mph limit. Or you can contact city engineering and have them look into why their survey states the limit should be at 35 when in fact they posted it at 25...

Excellent information, thank you! The class-action thing is definitely not something I'm interested in pursuing-- merely a curiosity after it was brought up-- I hadn't even thought about that. Anything beyond my specific case would be purely for interest's sake.

As for the case at hand, I'm hoping for a speedy dismissal. Thanks again!

Quote:

---

Quoting tehericka

---

Excellent information, thank you!

---

You're welcome! Let us know how things turn out.

This thread was exactly what I was looking for. I just received a citation in the exact same spot. I got clocked at 45 in the same 25 zone. I was driving in the blind spot of a bus and sped up to pass it so the bus would see me. When I emerged from the sight of the bus, I got pulled over. Anyway, in addition to the great information here (thanks very much for posting the survey) I also found People v. Goulet, 13 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 which I believe sets precedent for cases such as this. I have yet to receive the courtesy notice and have no idea how much the fine will be. I will be very interested to hear how Tehericka's case turns out. As I will probably get the same result since our defense is the same.

Quote:

---

Quoting Guvnor007

---

This thread was exactly what I was looking for. I just received a citation in the exact same spot. I got clocked at 45 in the same 25 zone. I was driving in the blind spot of a bus and sped up to pass it so the bus would see me. When I emerged from the sight of the bus, I got pulled over. Anyway, in addition to the great information here (thanks very much for posting the survey) I also found People v. Goulet, 13 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 which I believe sets precedent for cases such as this. I have yet to receive the courtesy notice and have no idea how much the fine will be. I will be very interested to hear how Tehericka's case turns out. As I will probably get the same result since our defense is the same.

---

That corner was swarming with cops for a few weeks, I'm not surprised there are others! I opted to get an extension on my arraignment since full bail is required when entering a "not guilty" plea-- had to save up a bit. I'll be going into court tomorrow. Have you made any headway on your case? I assume you've received your courtesy notice by now?

Thanks for posting that case-- definitely makes a few interesting points. Since this is my first speeding ticket (and will be my first trial) I think I'm mostly confused as to how to present my argument in the best way possible. Any idea how you'll be approaching it?

We should keep each other updated-- best of luck!

So how'd it turn out? I also have to fight this Speed Trap and am using the strategies posted here. Any tips?

Quote:

---

Quoting tehericka

---

Does the senior center invalidate [a speed trap] defense?

---

Yes. The speed trap defense only applies to sections of highway whose speed limit is established by specified Vehicle Code sections which do not include the Senior Center section.

Quote:

---

Is there another defense I should be using here?

---

First, note that the holdings in People v. Goodrich, 33 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 is clearly erroneous. They said, "We hold that the rules and procedures governing speed traps and the use of radar are inapplicable to those cases where the state Legislature has mandated a maximum speed of a vehicle — in this case, 25 miles per hour..." But the plain language of the California Vehicle Code is that the state Legislature has not mandated a maximum speed of a vehicle there; it is that the state Legislature has mandated a prima facie speed limit there. A court, no matter how persuasive its arguments, cannot overturn the plain language of a statute.

The meaning of "prima facie" in this context is explained by Vehicle Code 22351(b), which says, "The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing."

Since the speed limit established by VC 22353(2)(c) is a prima facie speed limit, and not a maximum speed limit, you can prove your innocence by establishing by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.

The State of California Department of Transportation has published regulations that basically says that if you were traveling no faster than the slowest 85 percent of vehicles under the conditions then existing, then you were driving safely.

This means that if the engineering and traffic survey says the 85th percentile speed was 46 mph or faster, then you ought to be found not guilty.

If the survey says the 85th percentile speed was 45 mph or slower, a possible defense is to conduct your own engineering and traffic survey that shows a faster 85th percentile speed. A common defect in official surveys is "platooning", where the speed of the first vehicle in a "platoon" of e.g. 10 cars is measured and that speed is used for 10 cars. "Platooning" is illegal. The survey is supposed to measure the speed of 100 vehicles that are each going the speed the driver wants. The effect of "platooning" is generally to artificially lower the 85th percentile speed. Your own survey can avoid such a defect.

Some frequent posters here will be aghast at the thought of conducting your own survey. But your own survey can clearly establish legal speeds above a speed limit sign, especially since such a survey is not likely to be contested because no prosecutor will be present. If the only evidence on an issue is self-serving, the court is nevertheless required to take it at face value, even if the court would have ignored it if it had been contested.

On the other hand, traffic court commissioners tend to not think for themselves very much, and might not be persuaded by such an uncommon argument. So to be an effective defense, you should be prepared to appeal, and that means filing your motion to dismiss in writing, with appropriate cites, so as to more clearly establish the record for appeal.

Quote:

---

I have requested the engineering traffic survey ...

---

The engineering and traffic survey is a public document. You should be able to pick it up without waiting for any discovery request to be granted.

my trial has been scheduled for June 6th- I'll let you know. Hoping to hear from Guvnor007 as well.

One more thing-- I've been going through trial tutorials and the part I'm most confused about is cross-examining the officer after his initial testimony. Is this necessary since I'll be moving for dismissal based on the speed survey? If it is necessary, what type of questions should I ask?

Quote:

---

Quoting tehericka

---

The speed survey is not out of date, but the 85th percentile speed is 42 and there is NO MENTION of a senior center whatsoever. Is this a plausible defense?

---

It may be a plausible defense (in that it might work), but it is certainly not an excellent defense (in that it is legally sufficient).

Despite what That Guy says, a speed trap cannot occur on a section of highway whose speed limit is set by statutes other than mentioned in the definition of "speed trap" (VC 40802). Since the 25 mph speed limit is set under authority of VC 22352(a)(2)(C), that area is not a speed trap.

I still think conducting your own engineering and traffic survey is a route to a good defense.

Not sure if anyone's still following this thread, but as my court date approaches I have some interesting notes:

I'm scheduled for trial this Friday morning, so in the interest of being well-prepared I sat in on a few cases today. After running through the present cases (all of which were unsuccessful) and dismissing everyone, the judge stopped me on my way out to ask why I was there. I told him I'm a journalism student researching the court system and that I'm particularly interested in speed trap laws. We spoke for a few moments and I merely mentioned "senior center" and he instantly brought up College Ave, saying "that's a tough case to beat." He seemed certain that speed trap laws do not apply in senior zones. I raised a few of the points made on the first page of this thread and he waffled a bit. He cited 22352 and 40802, and I asked if he could point out to me the language that specifically outlines this particular issue. He looked through the VC for a moment and then seemed to stop to lecture me instead on the safety of pedestrians.

I kept trying to nail down something specific in the text but he continued to bring it back to "seniors at risk" and I didn't get anywhere. Ultimately I'm left feeling frustrated and a little discouraged, since he seemed dead-set on a position of "It's a senior center, so the speed survey doesn't matter" but wouldn't point back to anything specific in the code.

Naturally I'll be hoping for a different judge on Friday morning, but I expect this issue to come up again regardless. Any tips on how to argue the vague verbiage here? I've read 22352 and 40802 over and over and I'm just not understanding how the need for a speed survey is negated by these two codes.

Quote:

---

Quoting tehericka

---

Not sure if anyone's still following this thread...

---

I'm still here... And frankly, after rereading the thread, I maybe second guessing some of the points I made (I'll have to dig around a little more and I'll post if I come up with anything). Don't fret though, make your case as planned and hope for the best. Who knows, maybe someone else will chime in with another view.

Oh, and a "journalism student"... :D

Do you think he got excited thinking he might get his name in print somewhere? And what are you going to say/do (about not being a journalism student) if the same judge happens to be there Friday morning?

I must say though that he must be a nice guy if he sat there and chit chatted with you! I've only come across one down to earth judge who would be inclined to do that... Unfortunately, he has recently retired!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

I'm still here... And frankly, after rereading the thread, I maybe second guessing some of the points I made (I'll have to dig around a little more and I'll post if I come up with anything). Don't fret though, make your case as planned and hope for the best. Who knows, maybe someone else will chime in with another view.

Oh, and a "journalism student"... :D

Do you think he got excited thinking he might get his name in print somewhere? And what are you going to say/do (about not being a journalism student) if the same judge happens to be there Friday morning?

I must say though that he must be a nice guy if he sat there and chit chatted with you! I've only come across one down to earth judge who would be inclined to do that... Unfortunately, he has recently retired!

---

Thanks That Guy! Everyone I talk to about this case seems to raise an eyebrow and say "good luck!" so we'll see how it goes haha.

And actually, I AM a journalism student (just graduated, in fact) which is part of why I've continued to pursue this. Honestly I think I might've given up and just paid if I weren't so damned curious :D

It's funny, public officials always clam up if you say you're a journalist, but if you tack "student" on at the end they'll tell you whatever you want to know in the interest of teaching you something. I wasn't thrilled with this judge's opinion on my case, but it was definitely cool of him to take the time.

Let me know if you come across anything else, I'll be hitting the books until Friday!

From an engineer's standpoint, I don't see what you're presenting will be a good defense against your ticket. The prima facie speed limit for the roadway is 35 mph as established by the pre-2009 E&T Survey. The prima facie speed limit for the segment of the roadway with the senior center is 25 mph.

It would not qualify under the speed trap laws. See below and note how the senior center part of the prima facie speed limit is not included in the speed limits that require an E&T Survey. (Senior center is 22352 subdivision (a), paragraph (2), subparagraph (C)).

40802. (a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:

...

(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

22352. (a) The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof:
...

(2) Twenty-five miles per hour:

(A) On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or residence district unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code.
...

(C) When passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard "SENIOR" warning sign. A local authority is not required to erect any sign pursuant to this paragraph until donations from private sources covering those costs are received and the local agency makes a determination that the proposed signing should be implemented. A local authority may, however, utilize any other funds available to it to pay for the erection of those signs.

Quote:

---

Quoting bruinPE

---

From an engineer's standpoint, I don't see what you're presenting will be a good defense against your ticket. The prima facie speed limit for the roadway is 35 mph as established by the pre-2009 E&T Survey. The prima facie speed limit for the segment of the roadway with the senior center is 25 mph.

It would not qualify under the speed trap laws. See below and note how the senior center part of the prima facie speed limit is not included in the speed limits that require an E&T Survey. (Senior center is 22352 subdivision (a), paragraph (2), subparagraph (C)).

40802. (a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:

...

(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

22352. (a) The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof:
...

(2) Twenty-five miles per hour:

(A) On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or residence district unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code.
...

(C) When passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard "SENIOR" warning sign. A local authority is not required to erect any sign pursuant to this paragraph until donations from private sources covering those costs are received and the local agency makes a determination that the proposed signing should be implemented. A local authority may, however, utilize any other funds available to it to pay for the erection of those signs.

---

Which pretty much brings us back to the way I assessed it at first, along with the appellate decision in People v. Goodrich which was based upon the fact that the 25mph limit here is set by the legislature and (citing Goodrich) "there can be no "artificially low" posted speeds when the Legislature has fixed the maximum at 25 miles per hour". The only reason why I changed my tune was because the survey made no mention whatsoever of the 25mph speed or the senior center... But as I reread the thread again today, didn't feel confident it would fly.

tehericka, the reason I was holding off on confirming or denying my change of heart for a while is because I wanted to check and see the details of the 2 amendments that were made to 22352 -one in 1998 and one in 2001 (as you can see at the bottom of the page on the DMV website. I wasn't able to find anything re the 1998 change (no archives that far back), and as it turns out, the references made in that section to senior center pre-existed the 2001 amendment... So no dice on that bit of research.

More importantly, I was hoping bruinPE would see this and post an opinion.

Also, as far as People v. Goulet, 13 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 as suggested by Guvnor007, I don't see how that would apply by way of the same analogy as above and considering the fact that the one basis for setting the speed limit to 35mph was that it must be justified by a valid survey; **but the survey presented in the Goiulet case did not justify the limit, and pursuant to speed trap rules, the officer is incompetent as a witness and the case should have been dismissed by the lower court, but it wasn't. Defendant appealed, and the decision was reversed**. In your case, the posted 25mph limit in this case is set by statute and therefore no speed survey is required, and speed trap rules are not applicable.

So you've gotten a layman's opinion, a professional engineer's opinion as well as a hint as to how a judge might rule by way of your visit with your new friend. Hate to pull the rug from under you a few days before trial, but hey, better know now than get disappointed in court. Of course nothing is preventing you from trying that defense and seeing how it goes, though at this point in time, if it were up to me and if I were to get the opportunity for traffic school (typically, it maybe offered immediately before the trial), I'd take that and still be thankful.

Let us know how it goes.

**Edited to correct the Goulet case info**

Yikes. at this point I suppose I'm just hoping the officer won't show-- I got the ticket back in November of last year, so fingers crossed.

Was worth a shot at least, and I learned a lot in the process. I think I'll raise the issue of the speed survey at the beginning and if I get knocked out on that one I'll just go with the basic speed defense and simply hope for a reduced fine + traffic school.

Thanks so much to everyone!

Quote:

---

Quoting tehericka

---

Yikes. at this point I suppose I'm just hoping the officer won't show-- I got the ticket back in November of last year, so fingers crossed.

---

That (along with traffic school) might be your only way to a dismissal.

Quote:

---

Quoting tehericka

---

Was worth a shot at least, and I learned a lot in the process. I think I'll raise the issue of the speed survey at the beginning and if I get knocked out on that one I'll just go with the basic speed defense and simply hope for a reduced fine + traffic school.

---

Basic speed defense won't be as convincing as you'd hope for. But like I said, you've nothing to lose (except possibly a shot a traffic school in that the judge is under no obligation to grant your request nor is he required to state a reason for his denying your request).

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Basic speed defense won't be as convincing as you'd hope for. But like I said, you've nothing to lose (except possibly a shot a traffic school in that the judge is under no obligation to grant your request nor is he required to state a reason for his denying your request).

---

Understood! The way it worked this morning (and how I assume it'll go down on Friday) is that roll was taken by one judge in a larger courtroom before sending individual cases off to smaller rooms... if officers were absent she dismissed those cases immediately. If the officer DID show she gave the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty but didn't offer any fine reduction or traffic school. It seems that at this point the only way to get that would be to go through with the trial, in which case I feel compelled to say SOMETHING for myself (hence basic speed defense) rather than just going "oops," you know?