Have I Exhausted All Chances of Beating My Speeding Ticket, VC 22349(A)

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

Narrative of ticket
In early June, 2011 I was pulled over and given a ticket for violation of 22349(a) travelling 81 in a 65 by the CHP. It was at night in Ventura County along the 118 freeway.

What I have done to try to beat this
I did trial by written declaration and lost. I simply wrote, I am not guilty hoping that the CHP officer wouldn't send in his testimony. He did and I was found guilty. I went to court and got a copy of his narrative so I have a fair idea as to what he will say in court. I asked for Trial de Novo and was granted a date in November. I went to court and got an extension for this date to December. In early November, I sent a discovery request to the Ventura County DA and received no response. A couple days before my court date in December, I went to court and had a hearing for a motion to dismiss based on failure to provide discovery. The judge ruled that I needed to send my discovery request to the CHP and denied my motion. He did grant me a new extension and now my case is to be heard on Jan 6th.

I debated as to whether I should send my request to the CHP or not. My understanding of discovery is that it is the prosecutions burden to provide discovery. Nevertheless, I did send a request to the CHP and to my surprise I got back everything I asked for. 18 pages worth of documents.

They sent me a copy of the front and back side of the ticket, a copy of the daily field record for the officer (turns out the paper work they sent me was for the wrong day!), records regarding the maintenance and calibration of the radar unit used, and a copy of the officer's training records. They denied my request for a copy of the manual and specifications for the radar unit and directed me to see the manufacturer. I wrote the manufacturer and they said only cops could get that information and I would need to subpoena records. That seems like a dead end there. They also informed me that FCC licensing is not required for each traffic radar unit by FCC rules.

The calibration records seem to be in all good order. The radar unit was calibrated at SDSU in March of 2010. Well within 3 years. The tuning forks were calibrated 8/27/07. Unfortunately, I can't find any law or cases in regards to tuning fork calibration requirements for California. I also have a copy of the radar calibration log for the date of my ticket and it looks like it was calibrated at the start of the shift and end of the shift. Quite a few people think that the CHP needs to recalibrate before and after each citation but this does not look to be so. Am I correct?

I'm left now to go to court on the 6th and hope the officer doesn't show up. Is there anything I'm missing? What are my chances on appeals for illegally denying my motion to dismiss in early December? Any body know some good questions I could ask to cross examine the officer and try to beat this ticket that way?

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I went to court and got a copy of his narrative...

---

Scan and post it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

18 pages worth of documents...

---

Please scan and post those too.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Quite a few people think that the CHP needs to recalibrate before and after each citation but this does not look to be so. Am I correct?

---

Incorrect, before/after shift is sufficient.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Is there anything I'm missing?

---

Your only hope seems to be evidence code based arguments on the paperwork the officer brings in...

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

What are my chances on appeals for illegally denying my motion to dismiss in early December?

---

None. Motion was legally dismissed.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Any body know some good questions I could ask to cross examine the officer and try to beat this ticket that way?

---

22349 is usually difficult to beat....but post the documents....

QuirkyQuark thank you for your speedy reply and answers to some of my questions.

I would like to know what evidence code based arguments I can try.

I figure I have 2 options if the officer shows up:
1) aggressively try to cross-examine him. I found this website which gives questions to ask to attack him on the visual estimation. Cross-examine-officer-speeding-ticket
2) Ask the judge for a reduced fine amount and admit guilt. As you can see in the narrative, the officer visually estimated my speed at 80mph and his initial radar reading was 79mph. He says my speed increased to 81 and that's what he wrote the ticket for. A ticket 16+ mph over the limit is more expensive than a 1-15mph over the limit ticket. Maybe the judge could save me some money here. I paid the extra $60 for traffic school, so that option is available to me. I realize the judge doesn't have to do this..I'm just hoping he would be nice enough to do it.

Here are the scans. I posted them to an online free gallery at minus.com There are 8 scans total. It's quite interesting that they sent me the daily field record dated 6/7/2011 and not 6/8/2011 which is what I asked for and the date of my ticket.
http://min.us/mbjRdmhjRH

I posted a link to the documents, but the submission form said my post needs to be approved by a moderator. How long does that take?

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I posted a link to the documents, but the submission form said my post needs to be approved by a moderator. How long does that take?

---

No idea. Hopefully not long...

In the meanwhile, feel free to PM (private message) me the link.

Ok will do, I'm also interested in what kind of evidence based code arguments there are.

Ok, just PM'd you twice but the messages aren't listed in my sent message box. Weird. Here's the site: http://min.us/mbjRdmhjRH

Thanks, I rec'd the PMs --- they don't show in sent unless you "go advanced" and check the option to keep them there.

Here's a small, all-in-one PDF for folks who prefer to browse the documents that way.

All the judge will care about is the calibration certificate and the training certificates (which you are missing).

See pages 1 and 3 of this PDF:

• Page 1: Note that on an original calibration certificate, the SDSU stamp is red and the signature is blue. Watch out for a color copy!
• Page 3: That is what the radar training certificate should look like. On an original, the seal on the bottom left is gold and embossed (raised edges). It should ALSO say "POST certified" somewhere on there -- which this example doesn't. (but compare the LIDAR certificate on page 2: "POST Certified- Course Number 1270-23320-8 hours")

There's just one basic evidence code argument: to be acceptable as proof of training/calibration, the officer MUST either produce the originals, or a certified copy. A correctly certified copy will contain an original stamp (usually in a color other than black) saying "true copy" (or correct copy, etc.) AND an original signature of a government employee (I haven't seen who this is for the CHP, but the stamp should make it clear). Remember, the photocopy of a certified copy is not acceptable. -- the certification (stamp/signature) on a copy must itself be original.

I'll post in more detail later.

Interesting information in regards to the evidence based code argument. I could imagine the officer bringing in the required documentation but only xerox copies of the certified copies. I really wonder if this would fly in court and I am definitely game to try it.

I forgot to include the training certificate for the officer. I went ahead and updated the gallery, (at Minus) so you can see it there. It looks like his radar training certificate is legit. I don't really have any defense about receiving the wrong daily record log do I?

In regards to cross examining the officer, I found this website (http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/cr...ing-ticket.htm) which has a nice line of questioning for attacking his visual estimate of my speed so I figure I will give that a shot.

I also will be trying a 40803(b) defense.

Speed Trap Evidence 40803(b) states: "In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802.

I know the county prosecutor won't be there so I will motion to dismiss due to lack of prosecution. My case is a radar case and the officer is only a witness no more no less. If there is no official prosecutor, then no one is there to establish the evidence is not based upon a speed trap correct? I know this argument seems tenuous at best, but it's worth a shot too?

Ok this evidence code argument seems interesting, I will try it. I really wonder if it will fly in court.

I'll also try a 40803(b) defense. I know the county prosecutor won't be there, so I'll make a motion to dismiss due to lack of prosecution. The officer is there as a witness no more no less, so who will be there to say the evidence is not based on a speed trap? This argument seems tenuous to me, but it also seems worth a shot.

I also found another website which gives me a line of questions on how to attack his visual estimate, so I'll try that too.

So far, I have 3 things to try in court. I look forward to your post in detail about the evidence code argument. Is there case law surrounding this?

I updated the gallery at minus to include a copy of the officers training certificate. It looks legit to me.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Ok this evidence code argument seems interesting, I will try it. I really wonder if it will fly in court.
...
I look forward to your post in detail about the evidence code argument. Is there case law surrounding this?

---

Given the right circumstances, and if done right, it's a winner on appeal -- the trial court may, in its ignorance, shoot it down.

It's not just case law, it's THE LAW (Evidence Code -- like Vehicle Code). A "writing" (document) cannot be introduced into evidence unless it is properly authenticated. This is usually done for official records via Evid. Code § 1530/1453. Please read section II of this brief for a fuller explanation and cites (it talks about surveys, but is still applicable).

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I'll also try a 40803(b) defense. I know the county prosecutor won't be there, so I'll make a motion to dismiss due to lack of prosecution. The officer is there as a witness no more no less, so who will be there to say the evidence is not based on a speed trap? This argument seems tenuous to me, but it also seems worth a shot.

---

The speed trap laws DO NOT APPLY TO MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS. Additionally, no prosecutor is required. That argument would be laughably ridiculous under the circumstances.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I also found another website which gives me a line of questions on how to attack his visual estimate, so I'll try that too.

---

Unless the court throws out the radar reading, you will be wasting your time on this line of attack.

Well, after even more investigating, looks like my evidence code argument is my only shot. I'll let you know how it goes.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Well, after even more investigating, looks like my evidence code argument is my only shot. I'll let you know how it goes.

---

Ideally, you should let go of any fear/hesitation and.... OBJECT when the officer is testifying. If he mentions "radar/lidar", immediately stand and say "Objection: lack of foundation. Must show training and that radar/lidar was calibrated." If the judge says "Let him finish first", that's fine. Then, when the officer hands you the paperwork to look at (before he hands it to the judge), you check it carefully and make your evidence code objections. They should be in the form: "Objection. Hearsay. Inadmissible as an official record because..."

Keep the following in mind:

• Officer cannot certify about calibration because he has no personal knowledge and is not an expert. Original/certified copy of document is required.
• If there is a problem with training certificates, the officer may testify about his training --- number of hours, etc., but he CANNOT testify that it was "POST certified" (that would be hearsay). Instead, the court must then take judicial notice of POST regulations to satisfy the training requirements. (BUT DON'T TELL THEM THAT!)
• Quote:

  ---

  Quoting People v. Dawkins, 10 Cal. App. 4th 565 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist., 5th Div

  ---

  In any event, there is no question that the officer can testify he or she attended the course. Judicial notice of POST regulations can then establish that the course is POST-certified.

  ---

For what it's worth the...

1) CHP 99A he provided to you shows he recertified on 07/21/2011 (that's after your ticket on 06/08/2011, he needed to send you the prior one.).

2) the TBWD he submitted does not offer anywhere that he is radar trained. Not like it matters now, since he will bring that up in court. Plus, now there is all this stuff that shows he's qualified to operate radar (just not for the date you were written your ticket for)

3) the wrong day for his daily log really does not mean much in the long run. They are about as generic as possible, even the times. What cop ever does everything at exactly 18:30, 19:25, 19:35, 19:40. Even if he missed entering you on the daily record the fact there is a signed CHP 215 promise to appear is all the judge cares about.

In the end, nothing he has provided to you via discovery shows that he was qualified at the current time of the ticket. Heck, when it's your turn, ask him if all the evidence he provided to you shows he was qualified to operate radar at the time of your stop. I'm sure he will say yes. Then stop asking him questions, give the judge his Radar certificate and CHP99a and ask for the whole thing to be thrown out. I'm sure someone can give you the specific court language to use...

Not to disagree with Quirky but simply to put matters in proper perspective, I'm going to go the other way on this one.

For starters...

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I did send a request to the CHP and to my surprise I got back everything I asked for. 18 pages worth of documents.

---

^They seem to be pretty confident about this one!

While the CHP is often more than happy to oblige with a discovery request, anything above and beyond the standard training certifications and single Radar calibration sheet is dealt with on a case by case basis.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Given the right circumstances, and if done right, it's a winner on appeal -- the trial court may, in its ignorance, shoot it down.

---

I think it is safe to assume that by "it", Quirky is referring to the "evidence code based argument", and to that, I say even if its done right, and whether it succeeds in trial or on appeal, it'll win you the battle but not the war. Meaning, you were clocked at 81mph = 16mph over the limit.... In a MAX zone of 65. So I'm not seeing how calibration or how lack thereof will impact a 16mph over reading.

As for P.O.S.T. certification, you're not likely to find a CHP officer out using Radar if he isn't trained/certified, and the judge is free to draw out both of those conclusions without the risk of being overturned on appeal!

Quote:

---

Quoting Quirkyquark

---

It's not just case law, it's THE LAW (Evidence Code -- like Vehicle Code). A "writing" (document) cannot be introduced into evidence unless it is properly authenticated. This is usually done for official records via Evid. Code § 1530/1453.

---

No argument there but really, which part of a 22349 element is wholly (or even partly) dependent upon either of those documents? And even then, you're assuming that the officer is going to present copies that aren't certified. If his copies are certified, defendant hasn't a single issue to argue nor a shred of evidence that the Radar reading is in any way inaccurate!!

Quote:

---

Quoting Quirkyquark

---

The speed trap laws DO NOT APPLY TO MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS.

---

And therefore, none of the provisions under 40802 (related to training/certification) and calibration. So whatchoo got up yo sleeve Quirky?

Here is the case I would normally cite under these circumstances. I realize that People v. Lowe was a pace (speedometer) case while this involved Radar, the fact that this is a 22349 citation makes the "calibration" issue similarly as moot as it was for Lowe with a 22356(b) and ~85mph in 70mph... Lowe even had an additional 22356(a) twist and still failed. As for training, you're still lacking precedent simply because falls along the lines of matters that are subject to judicial discretion to weigh the evidence as he/she sees fit and decide if its totality supports a decision to convict or acquit!

I'm going to assume you're not eligible for traffic school and if so, you've got nothing to lose for trying; but if you were eligible, I think you made a mistake by opting to go this route!

Having the firm belief that an officer not appearing is more a fluke than a slim chance, my answer to your question of:

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Have I Exhausted All Chances of Beating This Ticket?

---

Some may say you never had a chance to begin with, but good luck either way!

Quote:

---

Quoting sniper

---

In the end, nothing he has provided to you via discovery shows that he was qualified at the current time of the ticket.

---

And yet assuming that in his discovery request, he simply asked the generic any and all documents related to training/certification, then I'd say they gave him more than what he's asked for as if to say, "here, none of it will do you any good in the end"!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Not to disagree with Quirky but simply to put matters in proper perspective, I'm going to go the other way on this one.

---

No disclaimers necessary, TG -- your input is ALWAYS appreciated! I know I'm prone to miss the forest for the trees, so a reality check never hurts...

Obviously, if the officer brings the appropriate documents/copies to court, you're toast. ("Given the right circumstances...").
I've seen this go both ways with CHP: some will bring in a binder with nice laminated originals, while others stroll in with a few stapled photocopies.

Also, I think that the reason for the extensive discovery response you received could just as well be a custodian-of-records or a station commander who's a stickler for the law!

I'll have to postpone the expansion of the legal mechanics of evidentiary objections re accuracy/training until later this week, because I'll have to look up stuff only available at the law library. YOU (defendant/Herc) don't need to be concerned about ANY of this at trial, as long as you say the right "magic" words at the right times.

Suffice to say that, legal theory apart, both case law (and statutes) from all over the US holds that to admit a radar reading as evidence, you must establish the accuracy of the instrument and that it was operated correctly as foundation. They differ as to the details, but for CA, VC 40802 helpfully gives us the recommended "standards" to apply to these requirements. Of course, as TG said, the judge is free to apply his own standard, BUT this is not simply a question of determining the credibility of a witness' testimony. It is a mixed question of law and fact, involving the application of law to undisputed facts, and SHOULD as such be reviewed de novo on appeal.

As the mandatory accuracy/training standards for admitting radar/lidar readings as evidence in certain situations, there is a VERY strong argument to be made that they should be applied to all cases. Legislative history backs this, and there should be case law to back this up as well; not to mention an application of equal protection. Further research/discussion is beyond the scope of Herc's current situation...

@Sniper – thank you for your keen observation of this.

1) The date of 7/21/2011 on the CHP 99A looks to be the date he completed LIDAR certification. That doesn't matter much to me. The date above that says 6/22/2011. That's still after my June 8th ticket date. From what I've read, Radar training for CHP is done annually. So if June 22nd was his renewal date, he most likely last did it 6/22/2010 and my date of June 8th, 2011 would fall under that 1 year time span. I guess I could always say, objection, where is the proof of when he trained in 2010? Maybe this training in 2011 was done a month late and I got my ticket in a gap. Who knows? I could easily see the Judge going who cares and moving on with the case.

@That Guy - thank you for your counter point to Quirky. I’m learning so much from you guys.

1) I actually am eligible for traffic school. I've never been convicted of a traffic ticket and the last ticket I received (not that it matters) was back in 2004, which I beat on TBWD. The local cop never sent his letter in. Thus, when I got my ticket this time, I figured what the heck, I'll do that again. On my courtesy notice it said, Pay $442 with proof of correction (I had no front plate, I got that taken care of) and to attend traffic school. I paid the $442, so the way I look at this is, if I'm found guilty, I'll just be ordered to attend the traffic school that I already paid the court for. I believe it's $60 more for this option...they've had my extra $60 for over 6 months now. You say if I was eligible, I made a mistake by opting to go this route? How so? By exercising my rights to defend myself in a trial de novo? You think the judge will be so peeved that I tried to defend myself, he’ll revoke my traffic school request and refund me $60? If that’s the case, I’ll appeal his sentence to the appellate court. It's probably costing the state more than the $442 they collected from me to convict me. I'm might as well defend myself as vigorously as possible. I'm kinda hard-nosed about that kind of stuff.

2) I agree, and think the chances of the officer not showing up are slim to none. The only thing I have going for me is that all trial de novo cases are done at the County seat in Ventura county. His CHP station is in Moorpark, CA and the county seat court is in Ventura, CA. That’s a good 40 minute drive. I’m hoping he won’t want to make the 80 minute drive roundtrip.

@Quirky - once again, thank you for your time in responding to my posts.

1) Yes, I agree, if he brings in the proper documentation (either originals or certified copies) I’m toast. I’m only going to cross-examine him and I won’t be giving any testimony myself. I’ll take my guilty verdict like a man and go to traffic school like the rest of the population. I agree about the station commander being a stickler for the law..I even got a DVD that shows my stop. It’s like watching an episode of COPS, just not as much drama. He pulled me over...I gave him my papers, he went to his car, wrote me my ticket..I signed it and that was that. Very quick.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

On my courtesy notice it said, Pay $442 with proof of correction (I had no front plate, I got that taken care of) and to attend traffic school. I paid the $442, so the way I look at this is, if I'm found guilty, I'll just be ordered to attend the traffic school that I already paid the court for. I believe it's $60 more for this option...they've had my extra $60 for over 6 months now.

---

Well, as far as I know, court will not normally accept a check for more than the amount due for bail when you submit your TBD; if they did in this case and even if it is specified that it was for traffic school, then I still don't see that as a guarantee that you will be granted that option if you were to be found guilty. Unless the judge specifically allows that option after a TDN, the clerk is not likely to make it available

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

How so? By exercising my rights to defend myself in a trial de novo?

---

Nice twist there... Realistically, a judge cannot deny you your right to plead not guilty or request a TDN. In fact, I'd like to think they'd encourage it, if and when it is substantiated with a hint of a defense.

But to simply request a TDN in hopes the officer won't show up, (and you can be sure that a judge has a keen sense of what a decent defense is and what a pretentious meaningless cross examination will entail)... Might tick off a judge or two that I've come across!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

You think the judge will be so peeved that I tried to defend myself, he’ll revoke my traffic school request and refund me $60?

---

The question is not "revoking" your request, it is more like "approving" it. In other words once you're past the arraignment stage, there is no guarantee that traffic school will be available. In most courts- it is no longer an automatic option for those who were eligible; instead, it becomes a discretionary matter for the judge to decide.

Dare you ask the reason why it was denied if it was? The judge is under no obligation to state a reason for the denial on the record!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

If that’s the case, I’ll appeal his sentence to the appellate court.

---

Appealing your guilty verdict and sentence on the grounds that you were denied traffic school (if the denial is within the guidelines) will not get you much; appealing the traffic school denial simply because it was denied will also likely be a waste of your time.

For a judge who's aware of what he can and cannot do, the rules are clear and the precedents have been set. And you're not likely to outsmart a knowledgeable informed judge! But you can try!

One thing I would NOT try is using the same line you used here: "(I want what I want. Or else).... I'll appeal".

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

It's probably costing the state more than the $442 they collected from me to convict me.

---

Again, your threats aren't likely to sway the outcome... The state has already lost money on your case, so what's a few more hundred dollars!

We all deserve to be treated equally, and these are matters that have already been settled as far as who gets what and when!

So just because you opted to pay an additional $60 when it wasn't needed or required does not grant you any special privileges or any guarantees that you'll be treated any differently than any other 22349 case if you're found guilty....

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I'm might as well defend myself as vigorously as possible. I'm kinda hard-nosed about that kind of stuff.

---

Might as well, and by all means, please, go for it... It certainly is your right to defend yourself, and its your time to invest if you prevail or waste if you lose. Just keep in mind that you have no right to dictate the outcome!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

The only thing I have going for me is that all trial de novo cases are done at the County seat in Ventura county. His CHP station is in Moorpark, CA and the county seat court is in Ventura, CA. That’s a good 40 minute drive. I’m hoping he won’t want to make the 80 minute drive roundtrip

---

Well, if that is typical procedure, then it makes me wonder how many officers opted not to appear simply because of the distance, how long that lasted, and what their commanding officers did to change that. Then again, I do see a chunk of overtime on that time-sheet you received via discovery, not sure how many officers will turn that down these days. As for the 80 minute drive, its not like they don't spend entire shifts driving around. Not likely to sway his decision one way or another!

Yes, you make good points and I'm fully aware that traffic school is not guaranteed to be given, even if I'm eligible. Is there any case law in regards to someone being offered traffic school and then having it revoked because they did a Trial De Novo? I can't find any. I'm really curious as to why a judge would revoke traffic school for someone in a normal 22349(a) case if they are eligible.

I know this case law exists: The court may nor arbitrarily refuse to entertain such a request because the defendant enters a plea other than guilty or exercises his or her right to trial. Cal Rules of Ct 4.104(c)(3); People v Enochs, supra (court’s ruling on the request should not be affected by the order in which plea, explanation, and request for school are presented; judge’s policy of denying requests made after plea and explanation was capricious and arbitrary); People v Schindler, supra, 20 C4th at 433; People v Wozniak (1987) 197 CA3d Supp 43, 44, 243 CR 686.

Traffic school is a very common practice and the fact that the court has already offered me the option, which I paid for, means I expect to go that route. Of course, when I am in court I will be presenting myself and my defense in the most humbling of fashions and I will try my best not to say anything that might piss him off. From my first encounter with the Judge, he seemed like a straight shooter.

It's is true that in each county, each judge will vary. In Ventura county it is standard procedure for the court to offer traffic school to anyone that is eligible. A clerk informed me that the computer figures this out and does this automatically. It makes sense too, as they get an extra $60 for me choosing this route. If he denies my traffic school request, which I'm eligible for, the county coffers will be out $60. Quite frankly, I don't really see any point in that. It's not like they don't need the money.

I have 2 instances of paperwork from the county in which they offered me traffic school. 1) the courtesy notice and 2) the decision of the judge that ruled on my TBWD. Note that on my letter I simply wrote, "I am not guilty". I did not write in my letter that I request traffic school. Below where it says guility on the TBWD ruling, the clerk of ventura county wrote the dates that I have to complete traffic school by. This was some date in late November. Obviously, since I chose to do a Trial de Novo, I ignored that date.

So in conclusion my strategy on Friday will be as such:

If the officer doesn't show up...wow I get lucky.

If he does show up..I'm filling a pre-trial motion (EXCLUDE HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY MACHINES NOT PRESENT IN COURT(CA EVID CODE 1200) and will asked for it to be ruled on before the officer gives his testimony. The argument in this motion is exactly what Quirky told me about foundation for the radar evidence. I got this from Dort Law (http://store.payloadz.com/details/95...et-trials.html). If the judge denies my motion, I probably won't cross examine him and I won't give testimony myself. I'll go straight to closing arguments and there I will humbly ask the judge to honor my traffic school request if he finds me guilty (which we all know will happen...let's be honest).

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Well, as far as I know, court will not normally accept a check for more than the amount due for bail when you submit your TBD...

---

I can confirm that some counties automatically include the traffic school fee in the "bail" due, per the courtesy notice.

If you were offered traffic school after TBD too, and have paid the fee, I think it will be difficult for the judge to deny traffic school if you lose. Whenever you make the request for traffic school (if not automatically offered), include the payment and that it was offered after TBD in your request!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

If he does show up..I'm filling a pre-trial motion (EXCLUDE HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY MACHINES NOT PRESENT IN COURT(CA EVID CODE 1200) and will asked for it to be ruled on before the officer gives his testimony. The argument in this motion is exactly what Quirky told me about foundation for the radar evidence. I got this from Dort Law (http://store.payloadz.com/details/95...et-trials.html). If the judge denies my motion, I probably won't cross examine him and I won't give testimony myself. I'll go straight to closing arguments and there I will humbly ask the judge to honor my traffic school request if he finds me guilty (which we all know will happen...let's be honest).

---

Filing a (written) motion on the eve of trial is a VERY BAD IDEA (as in, make the judge very mad bad). Court rules usually require written motions to be noticed and served AT LEAST 10 days before hearing. The judge will DENY that motion, on procedural grounds or on merit. All it says anyway is that foundation is required to include radar evidence (DUH). Make foundation objections -- MERELY to require introduction of the documents at the appropriate time -- and then see if they are properly authenticated. <--- that is the crux of the "evidence code" strategy, not the foundation objections themselves!!

Yes, Quirky I'm thinking along the same lines as you. I was offered traffic school and have paid it as included in my bail due. I think it would be very difficult for the judge to deny me it. Provided I'm not a complete a$$hole.

I was thinking the same thing as you regarding my motion and having to file it 10 days before, etc. I purchased it from a legit attorney Christopher Dort (#196832 Current Status: Active) and I wrote him with those concerns. He said this: "take them in with you. present them to judge to start. bring 2 copies: 1 for cop, 1 for judge; hand it to court clerk or bailiff when your case starts. instructions included." Those were the exact words from a licensed attorney in the state of California. Who knows...if it matters, the motion is technically a motion in limine. Maybe, it's ok for these type of motions to be ruled on last minute.

If the motion is denied, I will be making those objections are you instructed me to.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Who knows...if it matters, the motion is technically a motion in limine. Maybe, it's ok for these type of motions to be ruled on last minute.

---

Motions in limine are typically used in jury trials where some issue is to be decided outside the presence of the jury.

ALL written motions are subject to notice requirements and the 10-day rule. The judge has the discretion to "shorten time" and rule on these at the last second, but they may want a good reason as to why you didn't comply with the rules. They can also deny it simply on procedural grounds.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

If the motion is denied, I will be making those objections are you instructed me to.

---

Absolutely. Even if a motion in limine to exclude evidence is granted, attorneys will still object if (related) evidence is introduced to preserve the issue for appeal.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

I can confirm that some counties automatically include the traffic school fee in the "bail" due, per the courtesy notice.

---

Yes, but can you confirm or even suggest that ANY court will guarantee a defendant the option to traffic school merely by including the traffic school fee in the bail amount?

Fact of the matter is, a trial, is not the only avenue out of a courtesy notice. There are other options.

OP in this case is using "revoking the traffic school offer. Well, as far as I know and regardless of which court this is, the mere mention of traffic school on the courtesy notice is not an guarantee you'll have that option under all circumstances; it is simply an option to take traffic school, pay the fine and be done. You choose to go any other direction and -as we discussed at length in another thread- the traffic school option becomes -up to the discretion of the judge-!

Now, if you choose to front the state the $60, well that's pretty generous of you, but you don't get any special privileges for that.

That is how I understand it. I've been wrong before so this isn't any different!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Yes, but can you confirm or even suggest that ANY court will guarantee a defendant the option to traffic school merely by including the traffic school fee in the bail amount?

---

Of course not. As I said, it would be "difficult" to refuse, i.e. out of a sense of fairness and equity -- he's already paid for it, and he was offered it after being found guilty at TBD. That doesn't mean a judge can't refuse it, with no explanation required.

---

Interestingly, the changes made to Rule 4.104 as a result of the new traffic school requirements (no more dismissal) may create a possible challenge to the judge's "discretion" to refuse traffic school to an otherwise eligible defendant.

Before July 1, 2011, the clerk was authorized to grant requests "as pretrial diversion." Now, it simply says "upon request by the defendant". The purpose, in other words, was to automatically hand out the reward of a dismissal in return for accepting traffic school and not going to trial. The judge also had the discretion to order traffic school more than once in 18 months.

After the change in July, no dismissals are possible -- instead the DMV simply "holds confidential" one point per 18 months. That creates the conundrum I'd referred to in our earlier thread on the subject. The clerk is now authorized to hand out traffic school upon request by the defendant for certain violations --- there's no reward any more. Arguably, this creates a prima facie assumption that the Judicial Council "believes that [such] defendant's circumstances indicate that [such a] defendant would benefit from attending school." And, there should be no effect of the "order in which the plea, explanation, and request for traffic violator school are presented." So, if the clerk is authorized to grant traffic school simply upon request, why should the judge also not do so for "automatically eligible" defendants, even if it is post-conviction?

I'll try to take that up on appeal if I'm in this situation..

Edit: Alternately, since there's no "pretrial diversion" in the clerk's authorization section, you could just not bother with asking the judge at trial, and if convicted, go request it from the clerk! Must grant it....upon request. :)

If I were appealing on this basis, I would do the above too and contest both the direct denial by the clerk, and the implicit lack of discretion to deny traffic school.

Anyone see a problem with the certificate of calibration by IACP? The analyst does not note why he is qualified to run these tests ... alas, another unknown person running unknown tests..

Quote:

---

Quoting davidmcbeth3

---

The analyst does not note why he is qualified to run these tests ... alas, another unknown person running unknown tests..

---

If you look carefully, you will see that there is NO MENTION of who's running the tests or doing the analysis. The person authenticating it as a certified copy is this guy, who is undoubtedly (over)qualified to be doing the testing. I doubt he does it personally though....got a department to run!

The tests are not unknown and are extensively specified in the NHTSA publication on LIDAR.

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Of course not. As I said, it would be "difficult" to refuse, i.e. out of a sense of fairness and equity -- he's already paid for it, and he was offered it after being found guilty at TBD. That doesn't mean a judge can't refuse it, with no explanation required.

---

The contrast between the underlined sentences is like night and day...

Quirky, I realize you're not going to admit it or even hint at it... But I will: Paying for traffic school in conjunction with the bail amount for a TBD/Trial is in no way shape or form a guarantee to have that option available at any and all times during the process.

I will qualify the above and every thing i am stating below by saying that this is the way it worked prior to the most recent change dated July 1. 2011. In all honesty, (and yes, shame on me) and while I have in fact glanced at the related code sections, I am yet to read them or even attempt to understand what the changes are all about!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Yes, you make good points and I'm fully aware that traffic school is not guaranteed to be given, even if I'm eligible.

---

And yet the rest of your post indicated that you are guaranteed and are sure you will be granted traffic school.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I'm really curious as to why a judge would revoke traffic school for someone in a normal 22349(a) case if they are eligible.

---

Again, the judge is NOT "revoking" anything... Instead, it is YOU who has decided to forgo the traffic school option at each and every stage.

When you initially received the courtesy notice, you had the option to pay the fine, take traffic school to avoid the point. Once you opted to do a TBD, you opted to forgo that process to try and fight the charge by TBD.

When you lost your TBD, and *IF* you were offered the traffic school option, you had the option to take the traffic school option to avoid the violation point as a result of being found guilty in the TBD. Once you filed a request for a TDN, you essentially opted to decline that offer, as well as to negate the conviction by TBD and to go for an in court trial.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I know this case law exists: The court may nor arbitrarily refuse to entertain such a request because the defendant enters a plea other than guilty or exercises his or her right to trial. Cal Rules of Ct 4.104(c)(3); People v Enochs, supra (court’s ruling on the request should not be affected by the order in which plea, explanation, and request for school are presented; judge’s policy of denying requests made after plea and explanation was capricious and arbitrary); People v Schindler, supra, 20 C4th at 433; People v Wozniak (1987) 197 CA3d Supp 43, 44, 243 CR 686.

---

Yeah, don't leave out these case law citations:
A court has discretion to grant or not grant traffic violator school. (People v. Schindler (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 431, 433; People v. Levinson (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d Supp. 13, 21.) - A court is not required to state its reasons for granting or denying traffic violator school following a defendant’s conviction for a traffic violation. (Schindler, supra, at p. 433.) - and this court rule 4.104(c)(1) "A judicial officer may in his or her discretion order attendance at a traffic violator school in an individual case for diversion under Vehicle Code section 41501(a) or 42005(b); sentencing under Vehicle Code section 42005(a); or any other purpose permitted by law.

In fact, rule 4.104(c) part of which you cited above, is titled "JUDICIAL DISCRETION"... If that does not tell you the entire story, I don't know if I can say anything that will convince you!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Traffic school is a very common practice and the fact that the court has already offered me the option, which I paid for, means I expect to go that route.

---

No, it means you misinterpreted the process and are trying to manipulate it into a guarantee that you'll have the traffic school option as an ace up your sleeve if you lose your TDN! More power to you if it happens to slip by the court and work in your favor. But please, don't try and change the way things have worked for years!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

In Ventura county it is standard procedure for the court to offer traffic school to anyone that is eligible.

---

That's the way it woks in every county...

California Rules of Court 4.104(b) Authority of a court clerk to grant pretrial diversion

(1) Eligible offenses

Except as provided in (2), a court clerk is authorized to grant a request to attend traffic violator school when a defendant with a valid driver’s license requests to attend an 8-hour traffic violator school as pretrial diversion under Vehicle Code sections 41501(a) and 42005 for any infraction under divisions 11 and 12 (rules of the road and equipment violations) of the Vehicle Code if the violation is reportable to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

A clerk informed me that the computer figures this out and does this automatically.

---

Nothing new there either.... Once the citation information is entered into the system, the courtesy notice is automatically generated and on it, is information related to traffic school eligibility. So unless your citation or the information on it falls under the disqualifying conditions under 4.104(b)(2), then you are automatically eligible!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

It makes sense too, as they get an extra $60 for me choosing this route. If he denies my traffic school request, which I'm eligible for, the county coffers will be out $60.

---

If the $60 was in fact the determining factor in deciding whether a defendant qualified for traffic school or not, then NO ONE will be denied that option at any stage during the process. Fact of the matter is, and you're free to search the forums for proof that there are times where traffic school is flat out denied. Whether it is after a trial, after a TBD or after a TDN.

Here is one of many recent examples:

How to Ask for Traffic School During Trial De Novo

Quote:

---

Quoting RandaChino

---

So, I went to my trial, and the result was very disappointing - the judge denied to let me do traffic school.

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I have 2 instances of paperwork from the county in which they offered me traffic school.

---

Which language on those "2 instances of paperwork from the court" does it state that the traffic school offer is a standing offer that lasts throughout the entire process?

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

1) the courtesy notice

---

Nothing out of the ordinary there... The majority of defendants receive a courtesy notice telling them the have the option for traffic school at the outset.... (unless they are made ineligible by one of the disqualifying conditions under 4.104(b)(2)

You declined that offer by requesting a TBD...

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

and 2) the decision of the judge that ruled on my TBWD.

---

Nothing out of the ordinary there either...

And you declined THAT offer when you requested a TDN!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Note that on my letter I simply wrote, "I am not guilty". I did not write in my letter that I request traffic school.

---

There are plenty of judges who will voluntarily offer it....

There are some who will outright refuse to!

Its a crap shoot!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Below where it says guility on the TBWD ruling, the clerk of ventura county wrote the dates that I have to complete traffic school by. This was some date in late November. Obviously, since I chose to do a Trial de Novo, I ignored that date.

---

No, no.... You declined to attend traffic school by virtue of your request for a TDN. Now, while your judge might voluntarily offer it to you if you are found guilty, that does not mean that this is the way it happens nor is it the way it is supposed to happen. In fact, even Quirky, and despite his apprehension to step off the fence on this one, will confirm to you that the judicial office making that decision is supposed to consider and evaluate each request independently. So lets hope, for your sake, that that one judge is not on vacation on Friday!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

If he does show up..I'm filling a pre-trial motion (EXCLUDE HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY MACHINES NOT PRESENT IN COURT(CA EVID CODE 1200) and will asked for it to be ruled on before the officer gives his testimony. The argument in this motion is exactly what Quirky told me about foundation for the radar evidence. I got this from Dort Law (http://store.payloadz.com/details/95...et-trials.html).

---

Motion denied... The Evidence Code does not contemplate that a machine, a Radar gun in this case, can make a statement.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

...let's be honest

---

Hopefully, you'll be practicing what you preach on Friday when you report back!


Good luck!

@ That Guy,

Wow, thats a nice line by line anaylsis. I appreciate all the effort you put into it. Your devils advocate approach is enlighting. I'm getting a bit confused now. In your opinion, what should my next move be? For example, if you were in my shoes and had to go to court on Friday, would you immediately ask the judge before the trial begins for traffic school?

I'm sorry but I don't think I did justice in explaining the motion I bought from Attorney Christopher Dort. In a nutshell, it basically says in a bunch of legalese, that if the officer is going to testify to radar evidence of my speed, he needs to have the proper foundation for it. i.e, he needs to present the calibration and radar daily log, and they need to be original or certified copies. He essentially says that in 3 pages of legal mumbo jumbo. Maybe it gets denied or maybe not.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Quirky, I realize you're not going to admit it or even hint at it...

---

:confused: I thought I just did!?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

....[Will] ANY court ... guarantee a defendant the option to traffic school merely by including the traffic school fee in the bail amount?

---

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Of course not. As I said, it would be "difficult" to refuse, i.e. out of a sense of fairness and equity -- he's already paid for it, and he was offered it after being found guilty at TBD.

That ... mean[s] a judge [can] refuse it, with no explanation required.

---

I think I mis-phrased my answer to your question, and then further confused you via the unnecessary double negative...sorry!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

I will qualify the above and every thing i am stating below by saying that this is the way it worked prior to the most recent change dated July 1. 2011. In all honesty, (and yes, shame on me) and while I have in fact glanced at the related code sections, I am yet to read them or even attempt to understand what the changes are all about!

---

It still works the same. Let me try to put this simply (since the above confusion may have leaked into the rest of that post!) --- the rule change does not change anything for now, and anyone who thinks my speculative argument re the effects of change is their ticket to guaranteed traffic school should have their head examined!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

For example, if you were in my shoes and had to go to court on Friday, would you immediately ask the judge before the trial begins for traffic school?

---

Here's what I would do. If your officer is there before the judge enters the courtroom, ask him straight up for the paperwork. You have a right to look at it before trial (discovery). If the documentation is properly certified, just ask the cop if you can do traffic school straight up. If he asks the judge on your behalf, there is no realistic way the judge will refuse it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I'm sorry but I don't think I did justice in explaining the motion I bought from Attorney Christopher Dort. In a nutshell, it basically says in a bunch of legalese, that if the officer is going to testify to radar evidence of my speed, he needs to have the proper foundation for it. i.e, he needs to present the calibration and radar daily log, and they need to be original or certified copies. He essentially says that in 3 pages of legal mumbo jumbo. Maybe it gets denied or maybe not.

---

Look, you know I disagree with the motion. If this were a medium or large county superior court, I would strongly discourage you from even bringing in that motion. No judge there is going to read through "3 pages of legal mumbo jumbo" --- especially if you can't explain it, or give a summary to the judge.

This is probably a tiny court. The judge may be patient, and even look at the motion and try to understand it. I very much doubt he will simply say -- "OK, no radar evidence admissible. Case dismissed!" See, this kind of motion works when you actually know what the evidence is and how it is authenticated (or not). Here, you don't. Bottom line is, there's nothing the motion does which the evidentiary objections don't. And you don't run the risk of pissing off the judge at the beginning by making it look like you're wasting time with something you didn't write yourself.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Your devils advocate approach is enlighting.

---

You can call it "devil's advocate. I call it the reality of traffic court!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I'm getting a bit confused now.

---

(a) Lose the entitlement + (b) quit being so stubborn = you won't be so confused!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

In your opinion, what should my next move be? For example, if you were in my shoes and had to go to court on Friday, would you immediately ask the judge before the trial begins for traffic school?

---

I won't be in your shoes and if I were, you left yourself very few options, so my opinion would not be of any value. But to address your example, by looking at it from the judge's point of view, and if I were the judge, I would simply decline your request pending the conclusion of your trial. Some may even ask the judge if he/she would allow them the traffic school option if they were to lose, and a knowledgeable judge who is aware of the rules would simply see right through that and wouldn't touch that question with a 20 foot pole. Simply because you're asking the judge to either offer you a guarantee or an outright refusal of the traffic school option before a trial -i.e. a decision that is contradictory to all known case law examples known on the topic!

There are some courts who (I assume to simply reduce the court's workload fro the day) will offer the traffic school option prior to trial and without telling you whether your officer is there or not. Other than that, you gotta take your lumps and see what happens!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I'm sorry but I don't think I did justice in explaining the motion I bought from Attorney Christopher Dort. In a nutshell, it basically says in a bunch of legalese, that if the officer is going to testify to radar evidence of my speed, he needs to have the proper foundation for it. i.e, he needs to present the calibration and radar daily log, and they need to be original or certified copies. He essentially says that in 3 pages of legal mumbo jumbo. Maybe it gets denied or maybe not.

---

I'm curious as to how much you "bought" that for!

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

If you look carefully, you will see that there is NO MENTION of who's running the tests or doing the analysis. The person authenticating it as a certified copy is this guy, who is undoubtedly (over)qualified to be doing the testing. I doubt he does it personally though....got a department to run!

The tests are not unknown and are extensively specified in the NHTSA publication on LIDAR.

---

It seems as if we agree .. the person who actually did the testing is an unknown. I think you are jumping to conclusions about the department head...and I am familiar with the NHSTA specs...nowhere on the cert does it list any test method ... a fatal flaw IMO.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Some may even ask the judge if he/she would allow them the traffic school option if they were to lose, and a knowledgeable judge who is aware of the rules would simply see right through that and wouldn't touch that question with a 20 foot pole. Simply because you're asking the judge to either offer you a guarantee or an outright refusal of the traffic school option before a trial -i.e. a decision that is contradictory to all known case law examples known on the topic!

---

That gives me an idea to play devil's advocate --- since there is a good chance traffic court judicial officers may not be very knowledgeable about this pitfall. Just ask outright if you will be granted traffic school if you lose after trial. If they naively say "no" you know there's a good chance you'll get it on appeal...

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

I'm curious as to how much you "bought" that for!

---

I believe it's $20. Now, "[d]ont have a good defense to a CA traffic court failure to appear or misdemeanor case? Cant pay a fine? Dont Give Up" Try a Motion to Dismiss Case (PC 1395)! "This is the motion Attorneys use as a last resort when nothing else works. It is a basic request for fairness, and justice (equitable releif in legaleze)."

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

you left yourself very few options, so my opinion would not be of any value.

---

What are those options? You may think they may not be of any value but I do. I'd like to compare and contrast your response with Quirky's. No need to respond if you don't have any options.

The motion was $20

@Davidmcbeth Thank you for your opinion on the calibration certificate but I won't be using this defense as I don't personally think I would get very far with it. I know nothing about NHSTA specs nor will I be able to present such an argument while nervous in court. This is my first rodeo in traffic court.

BTW, Herc, don't forget the "recommended" guidelines for certification and training in the Vehicle Code, should you need to quote it. They are only required for VC 22350 violations in some circumstances, but it stands to reason that the standards should be the same regardless of your speed or the section you are accused of violating.

Quote:

---

Quoting VC 40802

---

(A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

&

(D) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

you left yourself very few options, so my opinion would not be of any value.

---

What are those options? You may think they may not be of any value but I do.

---

See, in trying to be a smart ass with your post, you screwed up the wording so I will answer you question exactly as it is worded: The only option you have is to appear for your TDN (which I believe is today), listen to the officer testify, present your defense, be found guilty, and hope the judge will allow you traffic school but not because you're entitled, only because he chooses to make it an option!

Now, you want me to present you with an idea for a defense? There are none!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

I'd like to compare and contrast your response with Quirky's. No need to respond if you don't have any options.

---

Is it safe to assume that those two sentences are somehow related? If so, let me address them seperately, and then I'll come back and give you a combined response...


You want to compare and contrast with Quirky? For starters, I don't think you're qualified but hey, give it a shot:

With all due respect to Quirky, and while I do agree with his suggestion that the regulations described in VC 40802 should be the standard for both PF limits and Max limits, I offer that they are not.

Yes, the officer might still testify to and present training certificates and calibration certificates, but that, I see as an effort to shut down any possible avenues to any possible foundation objections and arguments but not necessarily to qualify the officer as sufficiently trained or to quantify the speed estimate as sufficiently accurate.

And therefore if you can find a judge who will dismiss based on an argument that is 40802 based, then you've found a judge who is pro defendant and one who will find himself facing an appeal if there had been a prosecutor in that courtroom.

The easy argument to appeal that would be this: "if the legislature had intended for the same rules to apply to both PF limits and Max limits, then they could have included 'ALL speed limits' rather than being specific to 'PF limits'".

Conversely, I agree with Quirky that your $20 motion will NOT work (and I've already stated that in a prior post and even gave you a tip to a case law citation as to why it will be denied). In fact, it is indicative of enough desperation on your part, that if you were to try it, the average judge might be inclined to grant you traffic school as a means to compensate you for your loss!

Seriously, I should tell you that I am not looking for confirmation from you or anyone else who might post here. My opinions are so because I believe them to be such, not because I am testing theories... Even if you were to come back and report the exact opposite of what I've stated, it bothers me not simply because I know there is valid basis to my opinions. So check yourself before you start critiquing others.

And last but not least, I too am appreciative of Quirky's knowledge and expertise and I am honored that he's decided to join us on this forum. Fact of the matter is, and I've said this many times and I'll say it again, I am here to offer my help with what I know as well as learn about that which I do not know! I think that should cover an answer to both those sentences combined!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

I too am appreciative of Quirky's knowledge and expertise and I am honored that he's decided to join us on this forum.

---

After those kind words from TG, it would be very unfair if I did not emphasize this: my "knowledge and expertise" have only been acquired by standing on the shoulders of giants such as TG, and others who've posted in this particular forum.

-----------

I agree with TG that there is no law making the 40802 5+ year standard applicable to any other code violation, including those where 40802 itself applies (i.e., less than five years). The basic requirement is that there be sufficient foundation for the officer's training AND the instrument's accuracy. The judge has the discretion to decide how much (or how little) is "sufficient." In theory, the officer could just say "I am trained, and I know the instrument is accurate" and that could be enough.

Discussing how to make such an "oral" argument in front of a skeptical (pro-prosecution) judge, or on appeal, is beyond the scope of this thread, but I hope to return to at least the appeals part in the near future.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

@Davidmcbeth Thank you for your opinion on the calibration certificate but I won't be using this defense as I don't personally think I would get very far with it. I know nothing about NHSTA specs nor will I be able to present such an argument while nervous in court. This is my first rodeo in traffic court.

---

They try to get the certificate in as a business record. So all you need to do is become familiar with the requirements of laying a proper foundation .. nothing technical at all. 99% of the time, a proper foundation is not testified to.

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...=131229&page=3 is a thread that actually has a link to Quirkyquark's trial of recent ... you can see that the judge just ask the cop if this was a business record and that's it (cop answered yes). This is not enough to get a document introduced as a business record.

Now if you could ask the cop "why are they calibrated" or a series of questions to get to the answer of "to support speeding convictions" then an argument can be made for Melendez-Diaz opinion to be controlling where the author needs to come in and testify. Because its now a document produced to effectively be used to help convict you.

So the objection isn't really a scientific objection, its a foundation objection. Testing done using methods unknown by people unknown. I have written test methods wherein the product spec was like 2-5 but in the method if a result was 1 or 6 it was still to be reported as being 2-5. Go figure, huh?

So become familiar with foundation requirements (ie what needs to be said before a document or statement can be entered into the court record). Not hard to understand. Have some case law ready to spout out as a reference.

Good boy, That Guy, was that too hard to do? You presented your option fully loaded with your condescending nature, general bad attitude and made this thread some kind of a pissing match in your head. You clearly revel in the misfortunate circumstances of others and I have no desire in having any more dialogue with you. Of course since you are an internet troll through and through you will enjoy crafting some witty comeback where you will quote me line by line to prove to yourself how brilliant you are. Enjoy yourself!

How it is possible that someone like Quirky can be a genuine help and you be a genuine ass? When did this thread become me versus you? You might want to "check yourself" on that. What's wrong in asking what you would do and then comparing that with what Quirky would do? He had no problem helping me. I came to this forum humbly and learned alot. You seem to have read something I wrote in a negative fashion and ran with it. You enjoy speculating about my "qualifications" and yet know nothing about me. You sir are no gentleman or a scholar for that matter. I will give you credit for pointing out that traffic school is not an entitlement but only an option that a judge may grant regardless of eligibility. Thank you for that small point. Besides that, your copious posts were utterly useless to me. No one appreciates your argumentative discourse. Then again, I can't expect this thread to be full of nice people. You always gotta have an ass. That's the net for you folks!

Conclusion

Judge did his roll call. He called my name and then the officers. The CHP officer was present. He explained that if anyone wants to change their plea, he would fine them $200 and if eligible, grant them automatically traffic school without hearing the circumstances of the case. I looked back at the CHP and saw his thick binder of paperwork and quickly rose to take the plea option. All in all, I saved $240 from my original bail amount and was granted traffic school. He said I'll be getting my money back in 30 to 60 days. Thank you for your help to all those that came here with genuine good intentions. You know who you are.

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Good boy, That Guy, was that too hard to do? You presented your option fully loaded with your condescending nature, general bad attitude and made this thread some kind of a pissing match in your head. You clearly revel in the misfortunate circumstances of others and I have no desire in having any more dialogue with you. Of course since you are an internet troll through and through you will enjoy crafting some witty comeback where you will quote me line by line to prove to yourself how brilliant you are. Enjoy yourself!

How it is possible that someone like Quirky can be a genuine help and you be a genuine ass? When did this thread become me versus you? You might want to "check yourself" on that. What's wrong in asking what you would do and then comparing that with what Quirky would do? He had no problem helping me. I came to this forum humbly and learned alot. You seem to have read something I wrote in a negative fashion and ran with it. You enjoy speculating about my "qualifications" and yet know nothing about me. You sir are no gentleman or a scholar for that matter. I will give you credit for pointing out that traffic school is not an entitlement but only an option that a judge may grant regardless of eligibility. Thank you for that small point. Besides that, your copious posts were utterly useless to me. No one appreciates your argumentative discourse. Then again, I can't expect this thread to be full of nice people. You always gotta have an ass. That's the net for you folks!

---

Oh look who's back with a mouthful of shit to spew everywhere. Interesting how the real bitter you shows today and yet yesterday, you were all nice and cordial (and pretentious).

Just in case you are just as mistaken about the value of your opinion of me as you were about how it will go in court, you should know that I could care less what you think. I gave you my opinion and as it turned out, it was concise, accurate and representative of what you experienced. If that pisses you off even more, deal with it! I'm not here to baby sit you or make you feel better!

Quote:

---

Quoting Herculator

---

Conclusion

---

Conclusion is you chickened out, and the act you were putting up here faded along with all hopes for recovery from that conundrum you put yourself in through your own ignorance and entitlement!

Justice prevailed, you paid a reduced fine, and were granted traffic school by a generous caring judge! I hope you said thank you to the nice judge!

Oh and by the way, you could have accomplished the same exact result at the arraignment thereby saving yourself all the time and effort that you've wasted!

Better luck next time!

And yet the bitter you has been present all along. I have a friend who's a great psychotherapist. PM me if you'd like her number. I really think she can help you out. Why lower myself to argue with you before my case was concluded? That's a waste of limited pre-trial time. After all the time you wasted on a case that's not even yours, in being so...(see previous post) is astounding to me. I really thought you would come up with something better. Go ahead and give it another go.

I got exactly what I wanted from these forums. A list of all options and things I could try in court. I weighed the risk and rewards and chose the best option. It's not like anyone guaranteed a win with their option. It's funny how it pains you to see that I got a reduced fine. Oh the anger you must feel. If you think that's "chickening out" you clearly are just here to be a troll. Off to the next thread you go troll. Whose fun can you spoil next?

Better luck next time? hahaha and on that note, my condescension meter just broke. Great job!