-
Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old - Can the Case Be Dismissed
My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California.
after getting a ticket for speeding I sent out a discovery request letter to the police department and D.A.'s office. I just received a response packet from the police department and among the other things I requested I was given two traffic surveys. In my request letter (which they photocopied and sent back to me in the packet) I specified that I wanted the most recent survey conducted in the last 5 years. I chose this time frame based on threads from this site on how to request informal discovery. The two survey's were conducted in september of 2006 and certified in february of 2007 My ticket was in late march of 2012.
Does the fact that the survey is over five years old from the day I was ticketed mean I can get the case dismissed and if so, how and when can I make this happen? My arraignment is June 8th. I appreciate your input.
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California.
after getting a ticket for speeding I sent out a discovery request letter to the police department and D.A.'s office. I just received a response packet from the police department and among the other things I requested I was given two traffic surveys. In my request letter (which they photocopied and sent back to me in the packet) I specified that I wanted the most recent survey conducted in the last 5 years. I chose this time frame based on threads from this site on how to request informal discovery. The two survey's were conducted in september of 2006 and certified in february of 2007 My ticket was in late march of 2012.
Does the fact that the survey is over five years old from the day I was ticketed mean I can get the case dismissed and if so, how and when can I make this happen? My arraignment is June 8th. I appreciate your input.
The vehicle code has provisions allowing for surveys as old as 7 as well as 10 years old. See VC 40802
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
Thanks for the heads up and the link. I checked it out and understood the VC excep the last paragraph about 7 or 10 year periods at the end. It was not a local street- 3 lanes in each direction, and there was a recommeneded speed limit reduction by 5mph because of "high accident rate" of 3.2 accidents per million cars passed. Does this mean it stays in the 5 year limit period? Like I said I couldn"t understand what differences that last section was trying to set for a 7 year period. Basically, to me, the last paragraph (2)(B) looks like a photocopy of the first paragraph (2), but calls for a 7 year period instead of a 5. ??
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
Thanks for the heads up and the link. I checked it out and understood the VC excep the last paragraph about 7 or 10 year periods at the end.
LOL... Well, then you didn't understand it. But don't feel bad.... I bet you there are some judges who look at that and say "wait, wait.... Let me read that again".
While it is indeed the FEW paragraphs ending with the 2 subsections about the 7 and 10 year periods at the end.
How is this:
California Vehicle Code section 40802.
(a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.
(b)
(1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is one that is functionally classified as "local" on the "California Road System Maps," that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. When a street or road does not appear on the "California Road System Maps," it may be defined as a "local street or road" if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.
(2) For purposes of this section, "school zone" means that area approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. "School zone" also includes the area approaching or passing any school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children if that highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign.
(c)
(1) When all of the following criteria are met, paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be applicable and subdivision (a) shall not be applicable:
(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.
(B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully completed the training required in subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
(C)
(i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic survey has been conducted in accordance with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of subparagraph (D).
(ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.
(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.
(2) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(A) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.
(B)
(i) A particular section of a highway or state highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within one of the following time periods, prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects:
(I) Except as specified in subclause (II), seven years.
(II) If an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and 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, 10 years.
(ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.
For a survey that was conducted less than 5 years (prior to the date of the citation), everything in the BLACK FONT would apply....
For a survey that was conducted 5 years and 1 day to 7 years (prior to the date of the citation), everything in LIGHT BLUE and DARK BLUE would apply.
For a survey that was conducted 7 and 1 day to 10 years, (prior to the date of the citation) Then every thing in in LIGHT BLUE, DARK BLUE and GREEN FONT would apply.
Why the LIGHT BLUE and DARK BLUE in cases where the survey is over 5 but under 7 and over 5 but under 10?
Well, simply because the DARK BLUE is the definition of a "Speed trap" whereas the LIGHT BLUE is a list of items the prosecution must provide (i.e. the burden they must prove) to rebut the presumption that a speed trap was maintained at the time and place where the alleged violation had occurred!
Let me also add that even though there is no statutory requirement for it, and in cases where the survey is LESS than 5 years old (whereas the paragraphs in the BLACK FONT apply, the officer will more likely than not still present items from the paragrpahs with LIGHT BLUE FONTS such as:
- "When radar is used" Minimum of 24 hours of P.O.S.T. Radar Training and certification;
- "When LASER/LIDAR is used", the above PLUS not less than 2 hours of P.O.S.T. LASER/LIDAR training;
- Present a current valid and complete Engineering and traffic Survey which justifies the posted Prima Facie speed limit;
- Describe conditions or events that led him to conclude that the defendant's speed was unsafe; And lastly,
- Present proof that the speed measuring device has been calibrated within the last 3 years prior to the date of the citation.
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
It was not a local street-
Did you in fact check the California Road System Maps?
I've never come across one that is, but it is always good to eliminate that as a possibility. If you didn't, you might go through with a request and wait forever for a survey that is not likely to show up!
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
... and there was a recommeneded speed limit reduction by 5mph because of "high accident rate" of 3.2 accidents per million cars passed.
Sound to me like you've already requested and obtain the E&T survey.... I obviously would have to look at it to offer an opinion, so if you can scan it, upload it to a web-hosting site (photobucket.com works well).. and then post links to it here that would be great.
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
Does this mean it stays in the 5 year limit period? Like I said I couldn"t understand what differences that last section was trying to set for a 7 year period.
Well, whether the survey justifies the posted speed or not does not necessarily reflect on how long it can be utilized for.
The survey MUST justify the limit for RADAR?LASER evidence to be valid. Whether that happens within the 5 year age of the survey or whether it happens within the period of 7 years since it was conducted, a valid speed limit (and unless something major is changed on that roadway) will remain valid for the entire period, regardless of whether it is 5 years or 7 years.
In other words, you evaluate the survey and see whether it was done correctly, that it meets certain requirements, and if a speed limit reduction is recommended and implemented, that it is done with a valid justification which fits the guidelines. As far as it being over 5 years old, there is nothing to consider or think about until trial time. You simply listed and watch as the officer testifies, to see whether he will meet the requirements and present the items required of him. If he does then that is not an issue, if he doesn't then you can object and he ill have to produce what is required, otherwise, and if he has not met the burden required, you can motion for a dismissal!
IN spite of what most people say, ^that^ is much easier said than done!
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
Basically, to me, the last paragraph (2)(B) looks like a photocopy of the first paragraph (2), but calls for a 7 year period instead of a 5. ??
Irt sure does. However, the difference lies in the prosecution's burden which is described under 40802(c)(1)(A) through 40802(c)(1)(D).
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
So basically no matter what, the fact that the survey is over 5 years old is not enough to get the case dismissed.
My original intent was to submit a trial by written declaration, is there a way I can use the" burden of proof clause" you referenced in that scenario to get the reviewing judge to dismiss the case?
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
So basically no matter what, the fact that the survey is over 5 years old is not enough to get the case dismissed.
Correct. The fact that the survey is over 5 years old is not enough to get the case dismissed!
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
My original intent was to submit a trial by written declaration, is there a way I can use the" burden of proof clause" you referenced in that scenario to get the reviewing judge to dismiss the case?
They still have the burden of proving a speed trap did not exist but just the fact that the survey is over 5 years old isn't going to cut it!
So, as I already suggested, you can post a survey or a link to it, so we can see what, if anything, might improve your odds of a dismissal. Otherwise, I'm sorry you're disappointed!
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
I won't be able to set up a link or scan etc. Because i'm a very lo-tech guy. I don't have internet at my house, i've just been using wifi on my barely smart phone for all this.
So for the written trial should I mention somewhere that it was a speed trap to bring to the judge's mind to look for burden of proof or does the judge just automatically look for that?
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
I won't be able to set up a link or scan etc. Because i'm a very lo-tech guy. I don't have internet at my house, i've just been using wifi on my barely smart phone for all this.
Well, here is a picture I took with my phone, uploaded to the net and here is the link...
[IMG]http://i1086.photobucket.com/albums/...nyonSurvey.jpg[/IMG]
So if you want to do it, it can be done... When there is a will, there is away!
Also, you maybe able to get internet access at your local library.
There are often times that E & T surveys have many issue that you can compile to try and argue for a dismissal, but unless I can see the survey, I wouldn't be able to point to any of those issues, and even if I do see it, I cannot guarantee that it you upload it and post it, that your case will be dismissed.
So it is up to you...
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
So for the written trial should I mention somewhere that it was a speed trap to bring to the judge's mind to look for burden of proof or does the judge just automatically look for that?
Well, you don't really mention or state it was a speed trap... The proper way of of saying it would be as follows:
"A current and valid engineering and traffic survey must be introduced by the prosecution into evidence to rebut the presumption of a speed trap"
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
That sounds pretty good to mee, thank you for all your time.
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
Alright, so my trial date is set a little over a month from now. After reading from this and other sites and books I have a few questions.
- I was clocked at 71mph in a 40 zone, can my ticket be changed at any time from a 22350 to a 22349?
- After pleading Not Guilty, the judge advised me that my license could be suspended for 6 months if I am found guilty. Is this a bonus punishment they are adding because I plead not guilty, and if so, what are the chances that they will incur this punishment? My trial is in Sacramento county in the Carol Miller Justice Center.
- I have read that since the traffic survey is over 5 years old that it puts additional burden on the prosectution. Does anyone know what this additional burden is?
I would like to share the traffic survey here, but apparently I am not tech savvy enough. I scanned the survey to a PDF, but I have no idea how to post it to a URL in order to share it here...???
I will have further questions about the survey when I can get it posted, but I don't want to get ahead of myself.
thank you for your help so far.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh, one last thing. I received my discovery request right on time from the Police Department, but it has been over a month and I still have not recieved anything from the D.A.'s office. I was advised from the clerks office to send out a request to the DA vs the city attourney. Does not getting anything back make any difference?
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
- After pleading Not Guilty, the judge advised me that my license could be suspended for 6 months if I am found guilty. Is this a bonus punishment they are adding because I plead not guilty, and if so, what are the chances that they will incur this punishment? My trial is in Sacramento county in the Carol Miller Justice Center.
They aren't adding it because you are contesting it, but by contesting it you're giving them the option to add it.
13200. Whenever any person licensed under this code is convicted of a violation of any provision of this code relating to the speed of vehicles or a violation of Section 23103 the court may, unless this code makes mandatory a revocation by the department, suspend the privilege of the person to operate a motor vehicle for a period of not to exceed 30 days upon a first conviction, for a period of not to exceed 60 days upon a second conviction, and for a period of not to exceed six months upon a third or any subsequent conviction.
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
Well this would be my first conviction in almost 10 years, so does that mean they cannot suspend my license for more than thirty days? Why then did the judge say 6 months?
- - - Updated - - -
Well this would be my first conviction in almost 10 years, so does that mean they cannot suspend my license for more than thirty days? Why then did the judge say 6 months?
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
ok, this should work and be photos of the traffic survey i was sent from the police department. The biggest possible flaw I see is that on the EastBound page, the 85th is at 48mph, thus making a 50zone appropriate, yet the posted speed limit is at 40mph. This is a TEN mph reduction, not a FIVE. The question is, does this qualify for anything in my favor because I was driving Westbound when I was cited...
here is wesbound, the direction I was travelling
http://s1057.photobucket.com/albums/...rent=west1.jpg
here is Eastbound, with the 85th at 48mph
http://s1057.photobucket.com/albums/...rrent=east.jpg
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
If only life were that simple. If this highway consisted of multiple roadways, then the city could set a different speed limit on each in accordance with 22361. However, in this case the speed limit needs to be the same on both sides of the road. For whatever reason, the city decided to survey each side of the street separately; however, the speed limit has to be the same on both sides. This means that you need to take the raw data from both sides of the street and combine it. Then calculate the aggregate 85th percentile speed. When I do this in excel, I get a 85th percentile speed of 46mph, which means that this is really only a 5mph reduction.
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
good call, thank you much. Did you by any chance notice anything else possibly noteworthy?
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
ok, this should work and be photos of the traffic survey i was sent from the police department. The biggest possible flaw I see is that on the EastBound page, the 85th is at 48mph, thus making a 50zone appropriate, yet the posted speed limit is at 40mph. This is a TEN mph reduction, not a FIVE. The question is, does this qualify for anything in my favor because I was driving Westbound when I was cited...
here is wesbound, the direction I was travelling
http://s1057.photobucket.com/albums/...rent=west1.jpg
here is Eastbound, with the 85th at 48mph
http://s1057.photobucket.com/albums/...rrent=east.jpg
Even if you can squeeze an argument invalidating the Eastbound speed limit, you're still dealing with a valid Westbound 85th %ile of 46, with the 45mph as the nearest increment, they opted to reduce that another 5mph to 40mph and they cited a number of reasons.
I actually disagree with their reasoning listed under "OTHER CONDITIONS"... Simply because 13 businesses and 8 multi family residential units would not qualify against the qualifier under VC 627(c)(1). With this being almost a mile long, they would need a total of 13 units per 1/4 mile or 52 units as a total.
However, they do list bicyclists and pedestrians, and although they qualify one as a designated lane and the other as using sidewalks, I think those two categories will always get the nod for a reduction.
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
good call, thank you much. Did you by any chance notice anything else possibly noteworthy?
I do see how they came up with the 3.89 A/MVM Collision rate (actually, 3.8944), but am I missing something or is there no reference (city/county/state) rate to compare that to?
Still, that is a huge accident rate, with 46,000+ vehicles per day, and 128 accidents in 2 years... Just a whole bunch of a lot of everything!
But, even if you exclude the accident rate as a possible casue to reduce the limit, you still have several other reasons (two of which I described above) to justify it.
You just picked a bad spot to speed through... And to get as high as 70mph, that simply shuts down the judge's sensory receptors.
You've
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
Thanks for the in depth response(s) everyone. ThatGuy, Did you start to write more and then it cut you off or was that last word an accident?
- - - Updated - - -
Thanks for the in depth response(s) everyone. ThatGuy, Did you start to write more and then it cut you off or was that last word an accident?
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old. Can the Case Be Dismis
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
ThatGuy, Did you start to write more and then it cut you off or was that last word an accident?
That Guy doesn't have accidents... Not with words at least!
I simply had an extra "You've" and wanted to give it away... So I posted it!
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old - Can the Case Be Dismi
Alright, I have one last group of questions before I go to trial and I think I'll be as ready as I'll ever be.
-Most importantly, at what time during the trial do ask for a dismissal if the officer neglects to supply all the evidence needed to prove it wasn't a speed trap (certificate of laser training, et al)? The format for trials at this court are that first the officer gives his testimony and then I am allowed to question him. After that I give my testimony and then present evidence/witnesses. Finally the Judge will ask both of us questions s/he feels are necessary and then makes a decision.
- I sent out my discovery request before I plead not guilty, and the return sheet from the police dpartment reads : "the names and addresses of all prosecution witnesses who will testify at trial- none". Is this only because I had not enetered a plea and the officer had not yet been subpoenaed?
-2 part question. I have still not received a reply to discovery request from the DA's office. Is this also because I had it served before I entered a plea? And what is the point of sending a discovery request to the DA anyway, wont if have all the same information as the PD reply? And does not revieving anything from the DA give me any advantage? This tunred into a 3 parter I guess.
-last question. Is the 7 and 10 year clauses of the speed trap law an amendment added after all the classic speed cases such as People vs FLAXMAN, because not one of those cases ever mentions a 7 or 10 year window.
All your help is greatly needed and appreciated so thank you all in advance.
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old - Can the Case Be Dismi
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
-Most importantly, at what time during the trial do ask for a dismissal if the officer neglects to supply all the evidence needed to prove it wasn't a speed trap (certificate of laser training, et al)? The format for trials at this court are that first the officer gives his testimony =+-(ST THIS POINT)-+= and then I am allowed to question him. After that I give my testimony and then present evidence/witnesses. Finally the Judge will ask both of us questions s/he feels are necessary and then makes a decision.
^Marked^... Its called an 1118 motion (in reference to Penal Code section 1118 which states the following:
PC 1118. In a case tried by the court without a jury, a jury having been waived, the court on motion of the defendant or on its own motion shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more of the offenses charged in the accusatory pleading after the evidence of the prosecution has been closed if the court, upon weighing the evidence then before it, finds the defendant not guilty of such offense or offenses. If such a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence offered by the prosecution is not granted, the defendant may offer evidence without first having reserved that right.
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
- I sent out my discovery request before I plead not guilty, and the return sheet from the police dpartment reads : "the names and addresses of all prosecution witnesses who will testify at trial- none". Is this only because I had not enetered a plea and the officer had not yet been subpoenaed?
That's how they always answer that. The officer will of course be appearing.
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
-2 part question. I have still not received a reply to discovery request from the DA's office. Is this also because I had it served before I entered a plea? And what is the point of sending a discovery request to the DA anyway, wont if have all the same information as the PD reply? And does not revieving anything from the DA give me any advantage? This tunred into a 3 parter I guess.
There is no point in really discussing this.. If you've received discovery then it matters not where it came from, you've received it. If you haven't received discovery then you can mention it to the court prior to the beginning of your trial and the court will likely allow you to review the information by ordering the officer to provide it for your review at that point.
Quote:
Quoting
AJAlegria
-last question. Is the 7 and 10 year clauses of the speed trap law an amendment added after all the classic speed cases such as People vs FLAXMAN, because not one of those cases ever mentions a 7 or 10 year window.
Unless a matter or an issue is explicitly mentioned, then assume it isn't or wasn't considered... Not as an oversight, but because it did not exist. Flaxman was in 1977, the amendment adding the 7 and 10 year provisions was enacted in 1998... Which would only leave Behjat and Huffman, both of which were year 2000 cases; the court did not indicate the age of a survey in neither of those cases. Then there were Cooper and Lowe which were a 2002 cases, Cooper tried to fake the appellate by claiming speed trap existed but as it turned out he was paced, Lowe simply appealed by discrediting the officer's speedometer accuracy. No E&T survey was required for either.
All are good questions, but lets assume that the court will find much of the officer's evidence as valid, how will you overcome being 31mph over the limit? THAT, is the real question!
-
Re: Traffic Survey Where I Was Cited is More Than 5 Years Old - Can the Case Be Dismi
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
^Marked^... Its called an 1118 motion (in reference to Penal Code section 1118 which states the following:
PC 1118. In a case tried by the court without a jury, a jury having been waived, the court on motion of the defendant or on its own motion shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more of the offenses charged in the accusatory pleading after the evidence of the prosecution has been closed if the court, upon weighing the evidence then before it, finds the defendant not guilty of such offense or offenses. If such a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence offered by the prosecution is not granted, the defendant may offer evidence without first having reserved that right.
So at what point do I bring this up, just right after the officer finishes talking th first time? And what do I say/what is the proper language? do I just say "your honor I motion for dismissal because..."?
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
All are good questions, but lets assume that the court will find much of the officer's evidence as valid, how will you overcome being 31mph over the limit? THAT, is the real question!
Well, I have a reason that will at the very least prevent the judge from throwing the book at me. But, if anything does go right and there is one of the many reasons it could be seen as a speedtrap doesn't that completely disqualify the officer as a witness and require all evidence be disregarded?
side note, is the judge even going to look at traffic survey to see if its invalid?