Re: 22349(A) - Tickets Claims Radar Was Used, but Accused Speed 80+
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
You'll find about 3 or 4 references to pacing in that book, the one stretched out and seemingly mention iss a line of questioning that consists of about 29 questions (IIRC) that (1) most of which are beyond basic and will serve to prove nothing, and (2) there is not a judge in the state who would allow you as much leeway as to illicit answers to questions such as "are you aware that a tires' air pressure depends on the temperature?" + "have you had the tires on that vehicle rotated recently and if so when?" + "do you agree that a depth perception affects your ability to pace?" or sit through that many questions in an attempt to undermine the validity or accuracy the most basic method of estimating speed.
You're entitled to your opinions, and obviously (the book also states this), trying to blindly follow its script to the word is folly. The officer CAN forget to bring the calibration certificate (I've seen this happen). IMO, the information in that book is valuable for folks new to the art of ticket fighting, and assuming the OP gets a judge who is somewhat open-minded, he can certainly try to "trip" the officer up. Given that he can't attend traffic school, if he has time and the will, he has nothing to lose.
Agreed that the tire-based line of questioning would look foolish in this case, but might certainly be considered relevant for a <5 mph over. If you (OP) use the book, don't forget to use your brains too :-)
Re: 22349(A) - Tickets Claims Radar Was Used, but Accused Speed 80+
Quote:
Quoting
quirkyquark
The officer CAN forget to bring the calibration certificate (I've seen this happen).
And under which legal authority (California vehicle Code section or case law citation) are you suggesting that the officer is required to produce a calibration certificate to validate the charge of exceeding the maximum statutory speed limit?
Edited to add: From People v. Lowe, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 249 - Cal: Appellate Div., Superior 2002
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.
Quote:
Quoting
quirkyquark
IMO, the information in that book is valuable for folks new to the art of ticket fighting, and assuming the OP gets a judge who is somewhat open-minded, he can certainly try to "trip" the officer up. Given that he can't attend traffic school, if he has time and the will, he has nothing to lose.
The information in the book provides a great reference when it comes to general descriptions of how traffic court operates. When it comes to specifics, I highly doubt Mr. Brown or any of his underlings have stepped foot in a California traffic court since he wrote his first edition back in 19-who-knows-when. That said, I think that the number one & number two rules that a newby should learn about traffic court is: (1) don't go in there pretending you're an attorney, and (2) whatever you do, whether he's sympathetic or not, don't ever piss off the judge... And the line of questioning that is above and beyond anything mentioned in the officer's testimony, is not likely to get the judge excited about a delay that is bound to prove nothing. Lastly, just because one does not qualify for traffic school does not mean all bets are off!
Quote:
Quoting
quirkyquark
Agreed that the tire-based line of questioning would look foolish in this case, but might certainly be considered relevant for a <5 mph over.
Well, for 15mph over, it would certainly be foolish to push for a calibration certificate!
Re: 22349(A) - Tickets Claims Radar Was Used, but Accused Speed 80+
Agreed with everything said in the previous post; thanks for the case law cite. Still, it can't hurt to ASK about calibration since the trier-of-fact is free to decide whether proof is required or not. Of course, the latitude a defendant is allowed will always depend on the judge's temperament and never pissing him off is certainly cardinal. That is no reason to not even consider asking about calibration. I have personally seen a speedometer pacing case at 70 in a 55 dismissed because the *judge* asked the (local, not CHP) officer if he was aware WHEN his speedo was last calibrated and he didn't have an answer!
And yes, don't take the Brown books word about anything for granted! TG is probably right in that it hasn't been updated recently by folks with actual traffic court experience. Every court does things (slightly) differently, and probably the best thing you can do is observe at least one session, preferably with whoever your judge is going to be. THAT will help you immensely in coming up with a strategy and deciding which arguments might fly and which won't.