22349(A) - Tickets Claims Radar Was Used, but Accused Speed 80+

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California, Fwy 118.

Hey all, Id like to thank you all in advance. So heres the story:

I was pulled over about a month ago, for allegedly doing 80+ in a 65mph zone. I was driving my uncles car and had my 2 nieces with me and I can assure you I have more sense of responsibility than driving recklessly. Anyways, when I was pulled over the officer stated that he didnt radar me, he paced me. The "approx speed" he marked down on the ticket was "80+". I took his word for it and now I'm looking at the ticket again and he actually checked the radar box, filled in the Beat and Area boxes....Now my questions are:

1) Does the discrepancy between what I was told and what the ticket says even matter in court?

2) In court if he says that he did use a radar on me, would saying...

"if my speed was indeed gauged by the radar, why was there not a precise speed written down on the ticket and why couldn't the accusing officer give me a verbal exact alleged speed?"

get me anywhere?

3) How would you play this case?

Thanks again

Quote:

---

Quoting braves211

---

1) Does the discrepancy between what I was told and what the ticket says even matter in court?

---

A simple check mark on the Radar box could be an error on his behalf... If he told you he paced, then he paced. Both methods are equally as valid and equally as acceptable. So I don't see a reason why he would have to change his answer or lie about it.

Quote:

---

Quoting braves211

---

2) In court if he says that he did use a radar on me, would saying...

"if my speed was indeed gauged by the radar, why was there not a precise speed written down on the ticket and why couldn't the accusing officer give me a verbal exact alleged speed?"

get me anywhere?

---

No... Simply because he could have clocked your speed at 83 or 87 or whatever speed reading the Radar showed that is "higher than 80" = 80+ and yet he simply chose to cite you for the lower speed (which, by the way, carries the lowest fine amount associated with 1 to 15mph over the limit)...

Quote:

---

Quoting braves211

---

3) How would you play this case?

---

Take traffic school.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Take traffic school.

---

I can assure you that if traffic school was an option for me then I would not be posting this problem. If am not eligible for traffic school, how should I play this case?

Thank You

Quote:

---

Quoting braves211

---

I can assure you that if traffic school was an option for me then I would not be posting this problem. If am not eligible for traffic school, how should I play this case?

Thank You

---

And I can assure that had there been a viable defense for you to present, then you would have seen it in my last post.

Sorry to be blunt but aside from the officer not submitting a declaration (of you choose a TBD) or not appearing if you opt for a trial, you will undoubtedly be found guilty.

A + after the speed is common for officers who have a heart (you never see a + on my tickets...). The officer understands where the speeding brackets are for a 65 MAX zone, 66-80, 81-90, and 91+. Each bracket, starting with the lowest one has a progressively higher fine attached to it. Quite simply, the officer gave you a break for 80+. Any judge understands what the + means. If you want to argue, "You honor, I was doing 86 MPH and this knucklehead officer wrote me for 80. He is lying, I was never doing 80." Will get you cut off by the judge saying, "guilty!" If the judge is having a bad day he/she may even raise your fine to the appropriate bracket.

By the way, the reason I never write a + is because if someone is driving X MPH they can pay the price for driving X MPH. I mean after all, they earned the speed written on the ticket, they might as well have proof they were going that fast.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

And I can assure that had there been a viable defense for you to present, then you would have seen it in my last post.

Sorry to be blunt but aside from the officer not submitting a declaration (of you choose a TBD) or not appearing if you opt for a trial, you will undoubtedly be found guilty.

---

I have already decided to try court, I just wanted to know if anyone had any useful advice on how to play the case

Quote:

---

Quoting braves211

---

I have already decided to try court, I just wanted to know if anyone had any useful advice on how to play the case

---

Sort of like putting the horse before the carriage... Your case though, good luck either way!

File a TBD and write "im not guilty" on the statement of facts. As TG said, your chances of winning on merits are virtually nil, but in-between the officer not responding to TBD/TDN, possible dismissal due TDN not being scheduled in 45 days, and a few other technicalities, you stand an okay chance of winning with nothing to lose except time by fighting.

Get a copy of "Fight your Ticket and Win in California" and look up both general procedure/strategy as well as possible defenses to pacing if you really want to make a go of it in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Get a copy of "Fight your Ticket and Win in California" and look up both general procedure/strategy as well as possible defenses to pacing if you really want to make a go of it in court.

---

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.

When you're dealing with a vehicle that can reach a top speed of 125+mph in less than a few seconds, at any given moment during the day, you'd be hard pressed to question the quality and frequency of maintenance it receives. Add in periodic speedometer calibrations that exceed any legal requirements by a few folds, and really any hope of beating this type of citation is not going to come from trying to trip the officer!

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 :-)

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!

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.