Speeding, VC 22350 Violation

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

I received a traffic citation for violation of 22350 allegedly going 44 in a 30 mph zone. Here is the run down: Got pulled over in a 40 mph zone headed onto a freeway. Motorcycle officer approaches the car and asks if I know why he stopped me. I honestly didn't know. The only thing I could think of was as I was in the intersection headed onto the freeway ramp the light turned yellow. He said, "No, that was legal." He asked me if I knew how fast I was going and I replied that I travel with the flow of traffic. He said that was my problem -- that there was no other traffic. Then he showed me his (radar?) gun which read "44" and said I was in a 30 mph zone. He went on to say that they (SDPD I assume) are getting complaints from residents "by the hill"(insinuating he was referring to gaining speed going down the hill) in that area that the traffic moves too fast. I said "okay," and gave him my lisence; he went back to his bike and brought me a ticket. He said I could go to online traffic school if desired, that a courtesy ticket "might" come in the mail before the date to appear (1/24/11 -- why so long from date of ticket?), but I should call the court in a few weeks just to make sure I got the information, then had me sign and he sent me on my way. Everything was cordial and respectful.

Here's the run down: I don't think the exact address he listed on the ticket as the location of violation exists, but from Google Maps I can locate the general area. From that location to the location I was pulled over I traveled through three (green) traffic lights -- one of which, unless you don't care about the undercarriage of your vehicle, you must slow significantly -- straight onto the freeway on-ramp, where the speed limit changed to 40 mph. Another car or two had made a right turn onto the ramp behind me. The officer came around them and pulled me over. The weather conditions were dry and clear (he noted "CLR" on the ticket), road conditions were also dry and clear with good road condition and visibility and there was no other moving traffic (he did not indicate anything as far as heavy/light traffic on the ticket). He was correct in that there was no other moving traffic on the roadway, additionally there were no pedestrians on or in the roadway. There were, however, parked cars on the side of the road, but I was not in danger of hitting a parked car. Additionally, he did not indicate the device (radar, I think?), nor the unit number on the ticket. Would I only need this information if I were to request discovery on the device used to determine speed? In my opinion, I was driving safely for the conditions and at no point posed a danger to person or property.

From here and other sites (helpigotaticket, ticket assassin, etc.) it appears the first step is to obtain the Engineering & Traffic Survey for that portion of the road. I checked the CalTrans website and the road is listed as "Minor Arterial" and the characteristics are two lanes in each direction with room for parked cars on both sides of the road. Additionally, I called the Traffic Engineering Department for the City of San Diego. I was told they have 30 days after the request, but usually they do it "right away" and was emailed a request form to fax back. On the form there is a check box asking if the documents are for litigation purposes against the City of San Diego. Do I have to disclose the reason I'm seeking the information? Also, it appears they might be conducting a survey currently. I remember seeing them out there with survey tripods in the recent past (within the last 6-7 months) and there is currently one of those light up signs posted above a speed limit sign that flashes your speed as you approach -- it flashes most of the time I see it. I make a turn at the street immediately beyond it, so I'm going slow to round the corner. That was not a shamless plug to show I'm a careful driver -- okay, maybe a little. ;) In my travel on this road, the times I drive it, which is most weekday mornings and afternoons, traffic generally moves around 45 mph, though some drivers zoom past faster. And lastly, is it advisable to request the survey via a discovery request or directly using the form emailed to me?

I've tried to be succinct, yet provide a detailed account in hopes of receiving some input/advice from the knowledgeable posters here. Thank you in advance.

I'd get the traffic survey using the form you got and post it here, because you still need to make the decision whether to leave your option to attend traffic school solely up to the judge's mood by contesting, or to pay the fine and attend traffic school in exchange for the guarantee that your insurance won't be affected. If the survey obviously doesn't support the posted limit, contesting the ticket is a no-brainer. If there aren't any obvious issues with the survey, then it's a tougher decisions with upsides and downsides to each choice.

Also, am I the only one who thinks that the Ticket Assassin site seriously needs to be put out of its misery? It hasn't been updated in at least five years, and the amount of flat-out wrong information there is ridiculous.[/RANT]

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

Additionally, he did not indicate the device (radar, I think?), nor the unit number on the ticket. Would I only need this information if I were to request discovery on the device used to determine speed?

---

If it was handheld, most probably LIDAR (laser), not radar. You don't need that for discovery, just the citation number and officer name/ID is enough. Although he SHOULD be noting it down on his copy -- for those that don't, I think it would be a valid trial question to ask "and how do you know it was THIS unit you were using on THAT occasion?"

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

I checked the CalTrans website and the road is listed as "Minor Arterial"

---

Great first step! Now you can show the judge that the speed trap law applies on the road.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

Additionally, I called the Traffic Engineering Department for the City of San Diego. I was told they have 30 days after the request, but usually they do it "right away"

---

Technically they have TEN days to decide if the information you want is disclosable (usually only goes for police, etc.), and if it is, make it promptly available. I doubt they'll give you any bother though.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

On the form there is a check box asking if the documents are for litigation purposes against the City of San Diego.

---

No, that is if you are suing the City (or vice versa). In that case they have to have their attorneys review the request, etc. Don't check it. This is a criminal case.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

Also, it appears they might be conducting a survey currently. I remember seeing them out there with survey tripods in the recent past (within the last 6-7 months) and there is currently one of those light up signs posted above a speed limit sign that flashes your speed as you approach -- it flashes most of the time I see it.

---

They are required (by strong recommendation and ethically) to do speed surveys in as inconspicuous a manner as possible. The sign is usually placed as a voluntary check on speed to placate complaining residents. What you saw was probably for some other public works project.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

And lastly, is it advisable to request the survey via a discovery request or directly using the form emailed to me?

---

BOTH. You will get it much faster via the Traffic Engg. Dept. But throw it in the discovery request (goes to the San Diego City Attorney, cc to the SDPD) anyway, there is a tiny chance it may come in handy later.

Thanks for the reply, Honking. Advice noted; and just for the record, I did think it odd the site had not been updated. I found some information there helpful/hopeful, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate. ;)

Quirky, thanks for your thorough reply to my questions. I will request and post the survey when I get it. If it shows the speed is not 'justified' I will be armed with some great evidence to argue. In such an event, I am entertaining a TBD. I've read contradicting things on including a defense on the TBD or just stating "I stand by my plea of not guilty." And, then on the TR205 include the defense I plan to argue. What would the advice of the wise posters here be -- file "I'm not guilty" TBD and hope officer doesn't respond or disclose the defense I plan to use?

And, thanks for the explanation of the flashing speed sign. That makes sense. I just have to hope the survey works in my favor. Thanks for the info and I'll post as soon as I receive the survey.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

I've read contradicting things on including a defense on the TBD or just stating "I stand by my plea of not guilty." And, then on the TR205 include the defense I plan to argue. What would the advice of the wise posters here be -- file "I'm not guilty" TBD and hope officer doesn't respond or disclose the defense I plan to use?

---

Not to sound condescending, but if you even gotta ask, then "I am not guilty" is the way to go. :)

Most importantly, it takes only a few minutes to do and still leaves trial de novo as an option if you lose. You have nothing to lose by saving your ammo, and if you lose the TBD, you will have the officer's declaration. Those are critical in planning a defense for VC22350 citations that can't be easily torpedoed on speed survey issues.

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

Not to sound condescending, but if you even gotta ask, then "I am not guilty" is the way to go. :)

Most importantly, it takes only a few minutes to do and still leaves trial de novo as an option if you lose. You have nothing to lose by saving your ammo, and if you lose the TBD, you will have the officer's declaration. Those are critical in planning a defense for VC22350 citations that can't be easily torpedoed on speed survey issues.

---

Ha! That was exactly my point. I am hoping the survey works in my favor, but I don't want to show my hand unnecessiarily. However, I have read several posts where the advice is given to include the defense in the TBD. I don't understand why people would do that -- but I'm not the expert. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up! I really do appreciate your advice. :)

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

What would the advice of the wise posters here be -- file "I'm not guilty" TBD and hope officer doesn't respond or disclose the defense I plan to use?

---

Each of the options seems to present its own worries:

• If you just say "I'm not guilty" -- in the trial de novo (TDN), if the judge sees this "empty" TBD in his file, will it make him think you were wasting the court's time and are a low-life who deserves to be convicted?
• If you lay out a proper defense -- will the officer use it to beat you at your own game in a trial de novo?

Now, as for the former, the TBD is supposed to be irrelevant in a TDN, but judges may still see it in your "file" on their bench. Remember, this is technically a criminal case, and the state has the burden of proving its case against you. You have the right to simply stand there, mute, and let the state do its job. If the judge is really so thin-skinned as to be offended by such a TBD, did you really have a chance in the first place?

The second fear -- that the officer will get wind of your defense and use it against you -- also seems to be overblown. The odd officer may be obsessed enough to go this far, but I doubt most will go to the trouble of getting a copy of your TBD from the clerk beforehand.

Still, the best option to allay both of these worries is what we've discussed in the past: something more than "not guilty", but NOTHING incriminating. Of course, writing such a statement requires being a little artful, and it's not something that should be expected of the first-timer.

Basically, for your case, I agree with HA. However, my perspective is changing these days for 22350 TBDs. Assuming the judge is not a complete rubber-stamp, this is your only chance to put some written material in front of his eyes for his (hopefully) undivided attention. The TBD should include the speed-trap definition/requirements, some case law citations, and a brief "reminder" at the beginning or end telling the judge the things he must double-check before finding it wasn't a speed trap. If the survey is defective and supports you, all the better, and this becomes a no-brainer.

Thanks, quirky. :)

Quote:

---

The second fear -- that the officer will get wind of your defense and use it against you -- also seems to be overblown. The odd officer may be obsessed enough to go this far, but I doubt most will go to the trouble of getting a copy of your TBD from the clerk beforehand.

---

I'm not worried about that at all. ;)

Quote:

---

Still, the best option to allay both of these worries is what we've discussed in the past: something more than "not guilty", but NOTHING incriminating.

---

Just so I'm clear, this is when I actually fill out the TBD TR205? I was planning on submitting a written request for trial by declaration prior to the appearance date on the ticket, then when the clerk sends the TR-205 is when you suggest I include the defense?

Quote:

---

Basically, for your case, I agree with HA. However, my perspective is changing these days for 22350 TBDs. Assuming the judge is not a complete rubber-stamp, this is your only chance to put some written material in front of his eyes for his (hopefully) undivided attention. The TBD should include the speed-trap definition/requirements, some case law citations, and a brief "reminder" at the beginning or end telling the judge the things he must double-check before finding it wasn't a speed trap. If the survey is defective and supports you, all the better, and this becomes a no-brainer

---

Great insights! Request for E&TS was faxed today and they said they would email it. Thanks again!

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

Just so I'm clear, this is when I actually fill out the TBD TR205? I was planning on submitting a written request for trial by declaration prior to the appearance date on the ticket, then when the clerk sends the TR-205 is when you suggest I include the defense?

---

Yes. If you wish to use it, I've prepared a fillable "TBD Request" form that should catch the clerk's eye better than a plain letter. We've had a few cases on this forum where the letter was misread or ignored and lead to complications later. Don't forget the bail check!

Link to fillable form.

This is a screenshot of what it looks like, purple fields are fillable:

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5151/tbdrequestform.png

Thanks for the form, quirky.

I got the survey in email today. I'm not sure if it's complete, as it's only 2 pages. From what I can tell, it doesn't look like what I was hoping for. The survey was completed in 2003, but has a stamp on it that says it's good for 10 years. Accident rate is listed as 3.4 MVM. It also lists no sidewalks (pedestrian safety) as one of the "conditions" but, where I was pulled over there are sidewalks on both sides of the street. 85th percentile says 37. The survey states that it's a "major road" and is "radar enforceable." It's apparent people are not driving close to the 30 now, but the data on the graph from 2003 also notes the 33 mph as the 53.7% In a text box on the bottom reads: 85% 36.7, 50% 31.5, 15% 26.6 I read somewhere about case law (Goulet?) will not allow a posted limit to make the majority of drivers into violators. Also, it has "FormRev 9/26/06" on the bottom of the first page. Does this make a difference? I will try to get this up for feedback. However, I think my best chance is to submit the TBD and hope the officer does not respond.

PHP Code:

---

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/5381/etsurvey.pdf 


---

I hope this works.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

I'm not sure if it's complete, as it's only 2 pages.

---

Actually, your 2 pages has more information than what other 7 page surveys have...

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

From what I can tell, it doesn't look like what I was hoping for.

---

After a quick glance, I don't see any glaring issues... And, considering it was conducted back in 2003, and the fact that it actually predates the publication of the 2003 California MUTCD Supplement (officially adopted on May 20, 2003), you would have to refer back to either the 1996 Caltrans Traffic Manual and/o any documents egulating E&T survey which were utilized as part of a policy that either the City or County of San Diego used at the time.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

The survey was completed in 2003, but has a stamp on it that says it's good for 10 years.

---

it is indeed older than 7 years and therefore that stamp does in fact extend it to 10 years.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

Accident rate is listed as 3.4 MVM.

---

Compare that to the average for that street classification which = 0.57

That is just under SIX FOLD...

And that alone would justify a 5mph reduction from the 85th percentile speed...

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

It also lists no sidewalks (pedestrian safety) as one of the "conditions" but, where I was pulled over there are sidewalks on both sides of the street.

---

Well, where you were pulled over is typically a distance away from where the violation occurred... But that is neither here nor there... I think the listing of "No sidewalks...." is simply one item in a KNOWN list of "CONDITIONS REVIEWED WHEN SETTING THE SPEED LIMIT" (i.e. known conditions that would normally justify a reduction).

However, on this survey (and just beneath the section where you see the "No Sidewalk...." part, the ONLY "CONDITION FOUND" was the "ACCIDENT HISTORY".... Which (again) is sufficient to justify a reduction on its own (see VC 627.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

85th percentile says 37.

---

Correct, and IIRC, back in those days, the limit posted from that would be the 5mph increment BELOW the 85th percentile, which is 35mph; however because of the extremely high Accident Rate, an additional 5mph reduction can be justified. Thereby validating the 30mph posted speed limit.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

It's apparent people are not driving close to the 30 now, but the data on the graph from 2003 also notes the 33 mph as the 53.7% In a text box on the bottom reads: 85% 36.7, 50% 31.5, 15% 26.6 I read somewhere about case law (Goulet?) will not allow a posted limit to make the majority of drivers into violators.

---

Its not that it would not allow it, here is the actual paragraph (keep in mind this is from the 2006 MUTCD -I'm not sure what the 1996 manual has in it):

Quote:

---

Quoting 2006 CA MUTCD - Page 2B-10

---

The establishment of a speed limit of more than 10 km/h (5 mph) below the 85th percentile speed should be done with great care as studies have shown that establishing a speed limit at less than the 85th percentile generally results in an increase in collision rates; in addition, this may make violators of a disproportionate number of the reasonable majority of drivers.

---

And here is the citation from Goulet:

Quote:

---

Quoting People v. Goulet

---

"The establishment of a speed limit of more than 5 miles per hour below the 85 percentile (critical) speed should be done with great care as this may make violators of a disproportionate number of the reasonable majority of drivers."

---

Though one must realize that to make that determination on the basis of 5mph, is a push simply because the first reduction of 2mph from 37mph to 35 is done automatically. So it might be safe to assume that the court, and in mentioning "more than 5 miles per hour" (and to use this survey as an example) setting it at 25mph...

I can still see how an argument can be made that with the average speed at 31.5, that 50%+ would be found in violation!

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

Also, it has "FormRev 9/26/06" on the bottom of the first page. Does this make a difference?

---

I think that refers to the date the form (a blank form) was last "REVised"

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

I think my best chance is to submit the TBD and hope the officer does not respond.

---

I think I might tend to agree...


ETA: I think I found a minor issue, not sure it would get you too far though...

I know Quirky is going to want a professional Engineer stamp on the original survey... But he is also better qualified to explain Evidence Code requirements than I... So don't fret as of yet!

Quote:

---

After a quick glance, I don't see any glaring issues... And, considering it was conducted back in 2003, and the fact that it actually predates the publication of the 2003 California MUTCD Supplement (officially adopted on May 20, 2003), you would have to refer back to either the 1996 Caltrans Traffic Manual and/o any documents egulating E&T survey which were utilized as part of a policy that either the City or County of San Diego used at the time.

---

Ugh. From that, I am guessing that they do not have to keep up with the most current standards?

Quote:

---

Compare that to the average for that street classification which = 0.57

That is just under SIX FOLD...

And that alone would justify a 5mph reduction from the 85th percentile speed...

---

This does seem high to me. I drive this section of road about 10 times a week and I have yet to see even one accident. Not saying they didn't happen, as they are in the data...just sayin. Additionally, I wonder if they are comparing apples to apples (ie: does "Major Road" = "Minor Arterial"?)

Quote:

---

I can still see how an argument can be made that with the average speed at 31.5, that 50%+ would be found in violation!

---

A small glimmer of hope. ;)

Quote:

---

ETA: I think I found a minor issue, not sure it would get you too far though...

I know Quirky is going to want a professional Engineer stamp on the original survey... But he is also better qualified to explain Evidence Code requirements than I... So don't fret as of yet!

---

I was wondering about that myself. I did note the other comments you made, thanks for all the input. I appreciate your opinion. :)

Oh, FWIW: The section of roadway I was pulled over at did not have sidewalks (on ramp to state highway). However, the section I was cited as being in violation had sidewalks on both sides of the street with ample room for parked cars along each side as well. Not that it probably matters.

OK, to start off on a high, considering the survey itself, and the fact that it is 7+ (and 5+) years old, this is a sure winner on appeal. But our goal is to never get that far (or hopefully, even to a trial de novo) in the first place! To that end, some of us experts are playing guinea pigs for the rest of ya! (Well, ThatGuy, HonkingAntelope and me, for sure...)

In keeping with my new policy of making a 22350 argument in the TBD whenever possible, instead of just "not guilty", let's talk about the problems in the survey addressable there. As TG mentioned, evidence-based objections are available -- a lot of them, in fact, considering the mandatory training/calibration/maintenance requirements imposed by VC 40802 for a 5+ year survey. However, those won't go far in a TBD, and you *may not* want to tip your hand just yet.

---

The survey is subject to the current MUTCD criteria because its 7-year re-evaluation occurred in 2010

This Caltrans Policy Directive established stricter standards for setting the speed limit, for surveys conducted after July 1, 2009. The same language made it into the 2010 MUTCD, effective January 2010. The directive doesn't state when it applies, but they clarified retroactivity in the MUTCD, stating:

Quote:

---

Quoting CA MUTCD 2010, pp. 2B-7 & 2B-8

---

Standard:
This method of establishing posted speed limits shall apply to all engineering and traffic surveys (E&TS) performed on or after July 1, 2009 in accordance with the Department’s Traffic Operations Policy Directive Number 09-04 dated June 29, 2009.

Support: Any existing E&TS that was performed before July 1, 2009 in accordance with previous traffic control device standards is not required to comply with the new criteria until it is due for reevaluation per the 5, 7 or 10 year criteria.

---

(While Supports are only informative, here it's clarifying an ambiguity in the directive which could otherwise be interpreted to be stricter. It also replaces similar 'exception' language for grandfathered surveys from the previous MUTCD.)

So, at its 7-year reevaluation on 3/4/2010, your survey was subject to the directive and the 2010 MUTCD requirements, including:

• Standard: When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 10 km/h (5 mph) increment of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic...
• Standard: If the speed limit to be posted has had the 10 km/h (5 mph) reduction applied, then an E&TS shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the lower speed limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. The reasons for the lower speed limit shall be in compliance with CVC Sections 627 and 22358.5.

In my opinion, on its face, the survey is non-compliant with the 2nd standard. The two word "conditions and justification" ('ACCIDENT HISTORY') is inadequate, and nothing in the stamp or otherwise suggests that it has been approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. Simply stating "P.E." is not sufficient; at least a P.E. license number/discipline/name or P.E. seal containing this information is necessary. Note that this is mandatory; similarly, VC 40802 also specifies "registered engineer" for the 7-year extension.

WRT TG's comment: while I would argue that this PE-stamp info is necessary on original old surveys as well, it does not require exclusion but simply goes to the "weight of the evidence." -- i.e., the judge is free to decide if this lack of a PE-stamp makes the survey less reliable. Of course, in this case, there's no need for that argument :D

Here's an example of what the stamp/info looks like:
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/490...llancaster.png

.

This is your big bright-line argument, which renders any other discussion of whether that 7-year "stamp" can constitute a "re-evaluation", etc. unnecessary. Just FYI, compare that to the 2-page "encyclopedia" the LADOT calls its extension.

---

I may explain these in detail later, but here are some other issues. While they may be harder to argue than the issue above, I strongly believe you should dump them in the TBD as additional ammo --- unlike a trial, the judge can't really cut off your written statement!

• The data sheet incorrectly computes the critical speed as 36.7 mph, at least as per the MUTCD's simplified, recommended methodology You can look at this post and the surrounding ones in that thread from TG/HA for more info. Here, 15% of 147 vehicles total ~= 22. Counting down from the top, the 22nd vehicle is in the 37 mph bin, i.e. 37.00-37.99 mph. How can its speed be 36.7 mph? Can one (Your Honor!) trust the rest of the data then? Similar to that post, the cumulative percentage also refers to the "end point" of that bin, not the "starting point." i.e., 37 mph contains the 85.7, 85.0, 84.3, and 83.6th percentiles.
• The cover sheet should be excluded simply on the basis of violating the contemporaneity requirements of the hearsay exception. It contains THREE different dates, YEARS apart, with an undated signature. Here's the requirements for an official record to be admissible:
  
  Quote:

  ---

  Quoting Evid. Code, Sec. 1280

  ---

  (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event.
  (c) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworthiness.

  ---

---

Off-hand, for a possible trial de novo only, here are the two big issues to me:

• The cover sheet is not certified as a true copy and is therefore inadmissible as an official record. (Evid. Code, secs. 1530, 140x)
• The data sheet is a certified, BUT the certification/signature MUST be original; a photocopy of a certified original is not admissible. (see second paragraph of this post, citing People v. Skiles (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1178).

Also, using the "makes majority of drivers violators" Goulet/MUTCD statement is NOT an easy bright-line argument because (a) it is vague and (b) both Goulet and the MUTCD recommendation where this appears are NOT binding on any non-LA courts. Still, as I said, you SHOULD certainly make 'complex', secondary arguments like this in your TBD (because there's a good chance that the next time you can fully make them will be on appeal!)

Once again, thank you, Quirky! I am still digesting your post and will respond when I get my thoughts in order. I am so grateful for your replies -- and those of HA and TG, of course. :)

Quote:

---

OK, to start off on a high, considering the survey itself, and the fact that it is 7+ (and 5+) years old, this is a sure winner on appeal. But our goal is to never get that far (or hopefully, even to a trial de novo) in the first place!

---

That's a good point. Hopefully it doesn't have to get that far. And I appreciate the wisdom of those who've gone before me, so to speak. :)

Quote:

---

In keeping with my new policy of making a 22350 argument in the TBD whenever possible, instead of just "not guilty", let's talk about the problems in the survey addressable there. As TG mentioned, evidence-based objections are available -- a lot of them, in fact, considering the mandatory training/calibration/maintenance requirements imposed by VC 40802 for a 5+ year survey. However, those won't go far in a TBD, and you *may not* want to tip your hand just yet.

---

I'm rethinking that, too. I can see the benefit you pointed out about it possibly being the only time to get undivided attention to the merits of my argument. Additionally, I don't want to hand over my entire defense unnecessarily.

Quote:

---

The survey is subject to the current MUTCD criteria because its 7-year re-evaluation occurred in 2010

---

This made my day!

Quote:

---

While Supports are only informative, here it's clarifying an ambiguity in the directive which could otherwise be interpreted to be stricter. It also replaces similar 'exception' language for grandfathered surveys from the previous MUTCD.)

So, at its 7-year reevaluation on 3/4/2010, your survey was subject to the directive and the 2010 MUTCD requirements, including:
•Standard: When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 10 km/h (5 mph) increment of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic...
•Standard: If the speed limit to be posted has had the 10 km/h (5 mph) reduction applied, then an E&TS shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the lower speed limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. The reasons for the lower speed limit shall be in compliance with CVC Sections 627 and 22358.5.

---

Excellent work! Even only being a Support, the verbage makes it apparent what the intent is.

Quote:

---

In my opinion, on its face, the survey is non-compliant with the 2nd standard. The two word "conditions and justification" ('ACCIDENT HISTORY') is inadequate, and nothing in the stamp or otherwise suggests that it has been approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. Simply stating "P.E." is not sufficient; at least a P.E. license number/discipline/name or P.E. seal containing this information is necessary. Note that this is mandatory; similarly, VC 40802 also specifies "registered engineer" for the 7-year extension.

---

It is interesting the list of "conditions considered" is far more expansive than the "conditions found." In effect, are they stating they examined all the listed concerns, yet "Accident History" is the only justification? And I agree, "ACCIDENT HISTORY" is not adequate. I'm not sure a judge/commissioner would 'buy' that, but the lists are clearly labeled. Are most surveys more specific?

The next point, "...and must be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. I looked into the P.E. who signed off on this and he is listed as a "Traffic Engineer" on the state licensing website. I agree with the stamp issue. Not including the pertinent information with the name seems lazy and sloppy work, but is it enough, really, if the person is ligitimately a Traffic Engineer?

In regard to the original survey not having the stamp, yet not requiring exclusion -- If the judge were to find the original survey valid without that, is it plausible he would consider the re-evaluated survey acceptable without it as well? CVC specifies "registered engineer" but doesn't expressly state that they must supply proof of credentials. It should be required, as anyone can claim credentials -- but I can foresee an opposing argument that he is employed by the city and, therefore, credentials are considered "proven." Could the judge - legally - do this?

Additionally, when searching the engineer online, something interesting came up. It may not mean anything, but a couple of things stand out. Wouldn't working for a "for-profit" Traffic Engineering entity in the duration of employment by the city in the same capacity be a conflict? Of course this is assuming his employment with the city was uninterrupted. In any event, the corporation is kaput now...

All of P&s Traffic Engineering Inc's powers, rights and privileges in the State of California have been suspended. This could have happened because they failed to file a return and/or pay taxes to the California Franchise Tax Board, or because they failed to make certain informational filings with the California Secretary of State.

http://california.14thstory.com/ps-t...#ixzz1gTzhBpGn

I will get to the other points you made tomorrow. I agree they are important and should be included. As always, a sincere thanks is in order.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

Additionally, I don't want to hand over my entire defense unnecessarily.

---

Partly that, and partly that some evidence code arguments only mean much in a confrontational setting (i.e. in-person trial). With respect to defense strategy, I agree, since you don't want to take the chance of putting the officer on alert that you will be making sure his paperwork at trial is all in order. The sloppier he is in that respect, the easier your way...

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

And I agree, "ACCIDENT HISTORY" is not adequate. I'm not sure a judge/commissioner would 'buy' that, but the lists are clearly labeled. Are most surveys more specific?

---

The laundry list means nothing. To make that point to a judge/commissioner, at least in a TBD, you include one or two samples of surveys which are MUCH more specific.

For example, here's a survey from Lancaster after the new guidelines went into effect. See PDF pages 6-9. Arguably, it goes above and beyond! I'm sure we'll be able to find examples from larger cities as well.

As far as memorandums go, you already have that LADOT example, which, although from before the new requirements went into effect, covers most

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

Not including the pertinent information with the name seems lazy and sloppy work, but is it enough, really, if the person is ligitimately a Traffic Engineer?

---

The snarky retort is that these are the sorts of technicalities on which cases much more serious than this one are won! :D

It is enough if that fact cannot be legitimately established at trial. The two common ways I can think of would be to (a) have the traffic engineer testify to his credentials in person or (b) have the court take judicial notice of an original or certified record from the board which grants PE licenses attesting that he is a PE (the record must, of course, be produced physically in court). Most other ways you could think of, of proving this fact, would be excluded as hearsay, e.g. a second-hand pronouncement by the judge or cop that he or she KNOWS that XYZ is properly certified, or even an official city document which claims this fact without including the pertinent information!

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

In regard to the original survey not having the stamp, yet not requiring exclusion -- If the judge were to find the original survey valid without that, is it plausible he would consider the re-evaluated survey acceptable without it as well? CVC specifies "registered engineer" but doesn't expressly state that they must supply proof of credentials. It should be required, as anyone can claim credentials -- but I can foresee an opposing argument that he is employed by the city and, therefore, credentials are considered "proven." Could the judge - legally - do this?

---

No. If the re-evaluation is not proper, the survey's time limit reverts to 5 years --- the original is irrelevant. The term "registered engineer" has a specific legal meaning:

Quote:

---

Quoting CA Bus. & Prof. Code, sec. 6706.3

---

Any reference in any law or regulation to a registered engineer, or to a registered civil, electrical, or mechanical engineer, is deemed to refer to a licensed engineer, or to a licensed civil, electrical, or mechanical engineer, as the case may be.

---

As for the "city = proven" contention, it could be done legally only if there is a municipal regulation or other official administrative policy, proven appropriately in court, stating "only licensed civil or traffic engineers may be employed as THE city traffic engineer."

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

Additionally, when searching the engineer online, something interesting came up.

---

The link doesn't work. But anyway, this may be overkill for now -- no point in trying to impeach his credibility unless he shows up at trial as an expert witness. A gratuitous ad hominem attack may not go well in either a TBD or at trial.

You are exactly right. The defense would only really be effective during in-court trial. Just want to make sure I understand this. If I want that information admitted into evidence, must I make a discovery motion or do I have a reasonable expectation the people should bring the documentation to prove their case to court without discovery request?

Quote:

---

The laundry list means nothing. To make that point to a judge/commissioner, at least in a TBD, you include one or two samples of surveys which are MUCH more specific.

For example, here's a survey from Lancaster after the new guidelines went into effect. See PDF pages 6-9. Arguably, it goes above and beyond! I'm sure we'll be able to find examples from larger cities as well

---

Wow. That survey from Lancaster is very thorough and provides for a stark comparison.

Quote:

---

The snarky retort is that these are the sorts of technicalities on which cases much more serious than this one are won!

---

Point taken. ;)

Quote:

---

It is enough if that fact cannot be legitimately established at trial. The two common ways I can think of would be to (a) have the traffic engineer testify to his credentials in person or (b) have the court take judicial notice of an original or certified record from the board which grants PE licenses attesting that he is a PE (the record must, of course, be produced physically in court). Most other ways you could think of, of proving this fact, would be excluded as hearsay, e.g. a second-hand pronouncement by the judge or cop that he or she KNOWS that XYZ is properly certified, or even an official city document which claims this fact without including the pertinent information!

---

Great! I would be highly surprised if they could produce either of those, on the spot, in court.

Quote:

---

No. If the re-evaluation is not proper, the survey's time limit reverts to 5 years --- the original is irrelevant

---

So the re-evaluation is not valid due to the lack of the stamp and therefore reverts back to the original 2003 date, making it technically out of date. That looks like a tough one for them to try to get around. Thanks!

Quote:

---

As for the "city = proven" contention, it could be done legally only if there is a municipal regulation or other official administrative policy, proven appropriately in court, stating "only licensed civil or traffic engineers may be employed as THE city traffic engineer."

---

Good. I highly doubt they’ve gone to all the trouble. And I took note of your response to the other poster you linked to re: President Obama/Julia Roberts. And you provided the case law for that as well. Thanks. I have a feeling I'll have to use this -- unless the stars align perfectly for a "not guilty" verdict on the TBD.

Just to make sure I'm keeping up...

Arguments for TBD are:
• Lack of stamp or seal of PE on survey
• Therefore, re-evaluation is invalid and date of survey reverts to 2003 and is inadmissible per CVC40802 requirements.
• Critical speed discrepancy on the data sheet. The listed “critical speed” at 36.7 is inaccurate and calls into question the accuracy of the rest of the data.
• Cover sheet is problematic due to multiple dates, spanning years, and the signature is not dated.

And simply stating“ACCIDENT HISTORY” as the only criteria used to justify reducing the limit the additional 5 mph. What exactly would constitute adequate justification? Although not stated as such, couldn't they claim the accident rate is due to the laundry list of conditions? I know TG made this point in his post above. Just trying to think of the opposing argument for these scenarios.

It is interesting as noted in the directive

Quote:

---

Some agencies would then simply apply the 5 mph reduction to keep the speed limit at the same level or lower. Also, appropriate justification was not written up in the E&TS for many of these speed zones and speeding tickets were not upheld in court if the presiding official saw a speed limit set below the 85th percentile speed.

---

I wish they had gone on to define what "appropriate justification" requires.

I'll reply in detail by the weekend. Feel free to post a reminder if I haven't :)

Meanwhile, just wanted to clarify this:

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

The defense would only really be effective during in-court trial.

---

If this gets to a trial de novo, you probably won't even have to bring up all of the nitpicky stuff we discussed. Since this is a 5+ year survey, the prosecution needs to prove the officer's proper training, calibration of the radar/lidar, testing by the officer on or around the day of the citation and, of course, the memorandum extending the survey. Most of this requires documentation which must be produced in court; documents must be originals or certified copies (NOT copies of certified originals), and of course, no funky multiple-date stuff, etc. Objections to exclude documents not meeting these requirements should be enough without having to argue about the content. Training and testing are partial exceptions which may be proven by officer testimony, but there are loopholes there too (for you).

When you have the time, for the gory details read this post and its "Part 2", along with TG's previous post in that thread for context. It may look intimidating, but the "rules" for what to look for and how to object at trial can be boiled down into very simple form.

Additionally, this brief I prepared for another member outlines how to possibly deal with some of these issues at trial and is probably easier to read than the above.

Thanks, Quirky. I'm still wrapping my brain around all the great info in the last few posts, so no worries. Thanks! That brief is awesome, btw. :)

Hey Quirky, just been re-reading your last few posts in this thread. Looking forward to your "more detailed" response. In the meantime, I am still awaiting the arrival of the 'courtesy' ticket in the mail (my "appear by date" is still over a month away). Keeping in mind not wanting to tip my hand in the TBD, is it appropriate to use the survey I received from the city engineers office and then request "official" survey once I get the TR 205or only if I have to go TDN?

I'm still muddling my way through the brief and other threads....

Thanks again. You are so helpful and I really appreciate it.

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

If I want that information admitted into evidence, must I make a discovery motion or do I have a reasonable expectation the people should bring the documentation to prove their case to court without discovery request?

---

Sorry for the delay in replying; thanks for the reminder!

What information? The prosecution (officer, really) has a duty to bring in all evidence they think necessary to prove their case without any request on your part. HOWEVER, some judges/commissioners may not know the law, e.g. if you say "This survey is just a summary, where is all the XYZ data?", they might counter with "Well you should have asked for that in discovery if you wanted it." Of course, you'll win that point on appeal, but we're trying to not go that far.

So, you should send the following discovery request, possibly including something novel I also asked another poster to try:

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

I want to try out a theory of mine in your TBD (on Brady discovery violations, if you're curious.) Please send a discovery request to the district attorney asap, certified mail/return receipt, asking for the survey, the other usual stuff (officer's copy of ticket, notes, lidar maintenance/calibration docs, etc.) and including the following text:

---

Any exculpatory evidence, information, documents, and other materials in the possession of, or that have come to the attention of, the District Attorney or of any police department involved in the investigation of the case against the defendant. (Penal Code sections 1054.1(e), 1054(e). See Giglio v U.S. (1972) 405 US 150, 31 L Ed 2d 104, 92 S Ct 763; Brady v Maryland (1963) 373 US 83, 10 L Ed 2d 215, 83 S Ct 1194.)

(at conclusion)
Defendant asks that this document be treated as a continuing request through the completion of trial.

---

---

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

Arguments for TBD are:

1. Lack of stamp or seal of PE on survey
2. Therefore, re-evaluation is invalid and date of survey reverts to 2003 and is inadmissible per CVC40802 requirements.
3. Critical speed discrepancy on the data sheet. The listed “critical speed” at 36.7 is inaccurate and calls into question the accuracy of the rest of the data.
4. Cover sheet is problematic due to multiple dates, spanning years, and the signature is not dated.

---

More or less. You link the "accident history" part with #1/2 though. As for #3, you also use it to say, "well, if the critical speed was somewhere between 37.00-37.99 mph, it could have been MORE than 37.5. In that case, because of the new re-evaluation criteria, it should have been rounded up to 40 mph and under no circumstances could have been reduced to less than 35 mph."

Also, argue that the speed as set (30 mph) makes violators out of a majority (60%, or 88 out of 147 vehicles) of the drivers and is, for that sole reason, unjustified. (See Goulet case law as well as MUTCD/1996 Traffic Manual guidelines on setting speed limit).

Quote:

---

Quoting factdouble

---

I wish they had gone on to define what "appropriate justification" requires.

---

You don't need that definition. What the directive requires is "shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the lower speed limit." Two words are NOT a "conditions AND justification" by any stretch. I'm sure analogous case law can be found. See your PM for additional info.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

So, you should send the following discovery request, possibly including something novel I also asked another poster to try:

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

I want to try out a theory of mine in your TBD (on Brady discovery violations, if you're curious.) Please send a discovery request to the district attorney asap, certified mail/return receipt, asking for the survey, the other usual stuff (officer's copy of ticket, notes, lidar maintenance/calibration docs, etc.) and including the following text:

---

Any exculpatory evidence, information, documents, and other materials in the possession of, or that have come to the attention of, the District Attorney or of any police department involved in the investigation of the case against the defendant. (Penal Code sections 1054.1(e), 1054(e). See Giglio v U.S. (1972) 405 US 150, 31 L Ed 2d 104, 92 S Ct 763; Brady v Maryland (1963) 373 US 83, 10 L Ed 2d 215, 83 S Ct 1194.)

(at conclusion)
Defendant asks that this document be treated as a continuing request through the completion of trial.

---

---

How would that be included on the letter to the Law Enforcement Agency, Quirky? Or is the plan to only include it on the letter to the D.A./C.A.?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

How would that be included on the letter to the Law Enforcement Agency, Quirky? Or is the plan to only include it on the letter to the D.A./C.A.?

---

My policy is to send just one letter: addressed to the DA/CA, with an exact copy cc'd to the LEA as a courtesy. This way, you have complied with the discovery statutes AND realistically increased your chances of getting (some of) that info sooner.

Now, just sending to the LEA may get you what you want, and judges/commissioners/clerks/DA-CA office employees may tell you to do just that. But you must adhere to the letter of PC 1054, et seq. to preserve any (possible) discovery issues for an appeal (or if discovery sanctions are your only hope, an interlocutory writ, e.g. if the trial court denies your motion to compel discovery of the LIDAR manual, or whatever.) Similarly, although its meaningless in and of itself, it's a good idea to include a line or two on "reciprocal discovery" in the informal request: "I will be the only witness on behalf of the defense, there is no other evidence I plan to present at the moment, etc."

The idea, as the original post with that recommendation stated, is that IF the survey is clearly deficient, you argue, in TBD/TDN, that Brady error makes dismissal an appropriate sanction under PC 1054.5(c), regardless of whether any lesser sanctions have been exhausted or not.

Edit: To work, this assumes that (forgetting the DA) the LEA does not send you the survey (even if they say "you can get it from Public Works"). Of course, technically, Brady discovery requires no request -- they are obligated to send it to you if they know of it. Explicitly mentioning it in the informal request, and including/showing a copy, is the sort of thing though which may help sway a TBD/TDN court better than just quoting precedent.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

My policy is to send just one letter: addressed to the DA/CA, with an exact copy cc'd to the LEA as a courtesy. This way, you have complied with the discovery statutes AND realistically increased your chances of getting (some of) that info sooner.

---

Right, as you may well already know, I've always preached that part as well.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Now, just sending to the LEA may get you what you want, and judges/commissioners/clerks/DA-CA office employees may tell you to do just that. But you must adhere to the letter of PC 1054, et seq. to preserve any (possible) discovery issues for an appeal (or if discovery sanctions are your only hope, an interlocutory writ, e.g. if the trial court denies your motion to compel discovery of the LIDAR manual, or whatever.) Similarly, although its meaningless in and of itself, it's a good idea to include a line or two on "reciprocal discovery" in the informal request: "I will be the only witness on behalf of the defense, there is no other evidence I plan to present at the moment, etc."

---

Agreed again...

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

The idea, as the original post with that recommendation stated, is that IF the survey is clearly deficient, you argue, in TBD/TDN, that Brady error makes dismissal an appropriate sanction under PC 1054.5(c), regardless of whether any lesser sanctions have been exhausted or not.

---

So from this, I get that it is safe to assume that you'e arguing Brady on the trial level, not the appeals level. And first though for me was: "you better wish that your judge is knowledgeable enough about speed traps to know when a survey is clearly deficient because without that I'm not sure an argument that 'not knowing -ahead of time- the survey is deficient violated my rights because I could have moved for a dismissal'".... But then again, if the survey is clearly deficient, then why do you need Brady? That (the underlined) should lead to a dismissal anyway!

So I'm clearly still missing something!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Edit: To work, this assumes that (forgetting the DA) the LEA does not send you the survey (even if they say "you can get it from Public Works"). Of course, technically, Brady discovery requires no request -- they are obligated to send it to you if they know of it. Explicitly mentioning it in the informal request, and including/showing a copy, is the sort of thing though which may help sway a TBD/TDN court better than just quoting precedent.

---

Still missing something! :dispirited:

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Right, as you may well already know, I've always preached that part as well.

---

Your sermons have indelibly shaped my views on the subject... :)

As for the rest, you've raised a very important Catch-22-ish point. I will need to look at case law and see how one would actually formulate such a defense to answer better -- which means, hopefully, not depending on the presence of any deficiencies to begin with. Will do in the next few days....

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Your sermons have indelibly shaped my views on the subject... :)

---

I appreciate that, I take it as a compliment AND I am relieved to know that all that typing wasn't done in vain!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

As for the rest, you've raised a very important Catch-22-ish point. I will need to look at case law and see how one would actually formulate such a defense to answer better -- which means, hopefully, not depending on the presence of any deficiencies to begin with. Will do in the next few days....

---

Oops! Didn't mean to complicate matters!

Quirky,

You mention the LADOT extension. I also have a recent copy of one of their traffic surveys and there is no registered engineers seal or stamp on it either.
Are they somehow except from having to stamp their documents ?

Condenado

Quote:

---

Quoting condenado

---

Quirky,

You mention the LADOT extension. I also have a recent copy of one of their traffic surveys and there is no registered engineers seal or stamp on it either.
Are they somehow except from having to stamp their documents ?

Condenado

---

It depends on whether the survey is 7+ years old... Otherwise, it does not require a stamp. Only a signature and a registration # would suffice!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

It depends on whether the survey is 7+ years old... Otherwise, it does not require a stamp. Only a signature and a registration # would suffice!

---

Well, nothing in the VC requires a seal or stamp. For the 7+ extension, OR whenever there is a 5 mph reduction in a survey or a 5/7 extension after 7/1/2009, a professional engineer's approval is required. In theory, just a name followed by P.E. is enough.

The seal/stamp is in fact required by the Business and Professions Code:

Quote:

---

Quoting Cal. Business and Professions Code

---

§6706.3: “Any reference in any law or regulation to a registered engineer…is deemed to refer to a licensed engineer”

§6731: “Civil engineering embraces the following studies or activities in connection with…highways:
… (e) The preparation or submission of designs, plans and specifications and engineering reports.
…Civil engineering also includes city and regional planning insofar as any of the above features are concerned therein”

§6735(a): “…All final civil engineering calculations and reports shall bear the signature and seal or stamp of the licensee, and the date of signing and sealing or stamping.”

§6764: Each professional engineer licensed under this chapter shall, upon licensure, obtain a seal or stamp of a design authorized by the board bearing the licensee's name, number of his or her certificate or authority, the legend "professional engineer" and the designation of the particular branch or authority in which he or she is licensed.

[See California Code of Regulations, 16 CCR §411 for format of Seal and Signature.]

---

So you use B&PC sec. 6735(a) to argue that just "P.E." is not enough, you need a seal/signature. The argument is stronger where the VC/MUTCD explicitly require a P.E. to sign off, and weaker in general (e.g. old surveys, etc.). In the latter case, the argument goes to the weight of the evidence and not admissibility, so it's really weak.

Quote:

---

It depends on whether the survey is 7+ years old... Otherwise, it does not require a stamp. Only a signature and a registration # would suffice!

---

This survey was done 2001, re evaluated for the additional 3 years to make it a 10 year survey in 2008. I got the citation in May of 2011. The signatures dont even have "P.E" after the name on the adendum for the extension. Just a signature and in one place, one person signing for another, like, "smith for jones". That kind of thing.

Quote:

---

Quoting condenado

---

This survey was done 2001

---

What month in 2001!

Survey was done in june of 2001.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Well, nothing in the VC requires a seal or stamp.

---

I'll agree... At least, no explicit requirement for a stamp!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

For the 7+ extension, OR whenever there is a 5 mph reduction in a survey or a 5/7 extension after 7/1/2009, a professional engineer's approval is required. In theory, just a name followed by P.E. is enough.

---

And in reality, it is only for the 7 year extension, that the VC require that:

a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, as required by VC 40802(c)(2)(B)(i)(II)then it can be extended to 10 years.

And since a stamp would be the easy quick way to prove PE registration, hence my comment above!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

So you use B&PC sec. 6735(a) to argue that just "P.E." is not enough, you need a seal/signature. The argument is stronger where the VC/MUTCD explicitly require a P.E. to sign off, and weaker in general (e.g. old surveys, etc.). In the latter case, the argument goes to the weight of the evidence and not admissibility, so it's really weak.

---

The way I see it, if you're in traffic court, and once you venture a step or 2 outside of the VC, your argument becomes pretty weak (and desperate) in the eyes of the *judicial officer!

* I can qualify that further but its only my unproven theory so I'd rather not!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

And since a stamp would be the easy quick way to prove PE registration, hence my comment above!

---

True, but coronado is right in that LADOT doesn't do it! See this memorandum.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

The way I see it, if you're in traffic court, and once you venture a step or 2 outside of the VC, your argument becomes pretty weak (and desperate) in the eyes of the *judicial officer!

---

I think the MUTCD requirement (post-July 2009) that any reduction be justified in writing by a professional engineer is entitled to equal weight, though you may have to make the 21400->MUTCD connection first.

Quote:

---

True, but coronado is right in that LADOT doesn't do it! See this memorandum.

---

The second paragraph in quirky's mentions a registered engineer almost as if he were a third party.
Could it be that neither of the signers actually did the work, and didnt want to use their seal for somebody else's work?

Quote:

---

Quoting condenado

---

Survey was done in june of 2001.

---

So June of 2001 through May of 2011, still under 10 years and as Quirky stated, the signature/stamp issue goes to the weight of the evidence, and the consensus seems to be its not a hill you wanna die on (meaning, find another battle to fight)!

How about you post this survey instead of revealing one teeny weeny tidbit at a time... Even if its not related to a pending case, its always interesting to see a different survey from a different entity, and a different time...

Better yet, how about we continue this discussion in its own thread instead of hijacking someone else's!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

How about you post this survey instead of revealing one teeny weeny tidbit at a time... Even if its not related to a pending case, its always interesting to see a different survey from a different entity, and a different time...

---

http://www.msn101.com/content/emotic...ing_XYWCVN.gif
Yes please!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

So June of 2001 through May of 2011, still under 10 years and as Quirky stated, the signature/stamp issue goes to the weight of the evidence, and the consensus seems to be its not a hill you wanna die on (meaning, find another battle to fight)!

---

Exactly! See, my perspective is somewhat warped by the appellate process, in that what you object to (i.e., bring up) at trial directly affects a possible appeal. So, assuming it was a properly certified copy, I would certainly bring up the signature/stamp issue if it weren't there, but that's more to preserve it for appeal rather than try to reason the whole thing out there with the judge! Unless you happened upon a judge who usually handles criminal matters AND his courtroom happened to be mostly empty, I doubt a "regular" traffic court would let you run with that argument.

To give you an example from my own trial based on that linked survey/memorandum, you can see how easily the judge swatted it off --- it's a little extreme, but still pretty typical:

Quote:

---

THE DEFENDANT: ... Well, umm, what the Vehicle Code says is that conditions which justify—because the critical speed is 43 miles-an-hour, and which would normally, per the rules of the Department of Transportation be set to 40 miles-an-hour. But in this case it was set to 35. And the survey does not provide an explicit reason, required by—which the Vehicle Code requires, as to why that five mile-an-hour downward reduction occurred.
THE COURT: Well, you can ask the officer if you wish. [inaudible] he can answer. Did you wish to ask him?
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, with all due respect, the officer is not a traffic engineer or other expert witness, I mean——
THE COURT: Well, if you don’t want to ask him, then you don’t need to ask him.
THE DEFENDANT: Sure. And, Your Honor, as far as the—the addendum goes I want to point out to the court that there are a number of inconsistencies in the addendum.
As the Vehicle Code, in fact as the speed trap section requires: “a registered engineer must evaluate to see if any changes have occurred, and if they haven’t, the survey can be extended for an additional three years,” which it was from seven.
On the addendum, I do not see any indication that the people signing off on it are registered engineers. It simply refers to “a registered engineer,” it does not say who—
THE COURT: Sir, I’m going to save time. I’m ruling that the addendum is admitted, that I have reviewed it and that I do find it is within the, uh, parameters of what’s required by law. That will save us a little bit of time, because that is what I found.

---

I started a new thread "speed survey ladot issues"
Also put a link to the survey which should work...new to this or I would have done it sooner. Ignore my penciled in notations
To save time I post the link here too http://imageshack.us/g/815/speedsurvey015.jpg/

Quirky I know what you mean about judges and crowded courtrooms in the court where my case is being heard usually a pro tem handles the traffic cases very quickly but i plan to refuse that and ask for a real judge. In the past its worked out in that usually its a judge who rarely hears traffic cases, not that busy and more inclined to pay attention.

Okay, update time: I sent my informal TBD request, bail money and informal discovery to the SDCA and the court. The only response I have received is the TR-200 & TR-205. The due date is 10 days away, so I need to fill out and return the TBD. Since I have received no response, not even the “we are not responsible, ask the LEA” how should I proceed in writing the TBD? Is it advisable to use the survey I have and use the arguments discussed previously in this thread (ie:P.E. Stamp using the business code, the error in the 50% speed --calling into question the creditbility of the rest of the data, and that it makes a majority of drivers in violation)? Or would it be best to note the lack of response to discovery and wait and play my hand if needed on a TDN?

QQ & TG thank you in advance! I hope you guys see this and can reply. You have both been so helpful. Thanks!