-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
Your statement here seems to be a sort-of consensus on this board, but you expressed it clearly. It strikes me as strange that the officer can give me a ticket based on an illegal speed limit and once he's done that the legality of that speed limit is no longer relevant. But, if that's the way it is that's the way it is.
I just re-phrased the content of 22351. I'm not trying to give a consensus opinion; rather, I'm trying to explain what the vehicle code says the law is. I'm also not saying that the police are allowed to give you a ticket using an illegal speed limit. I'm saying that the court decides whether the speed limit is legal or not. Based upon the way the evidence code is written, the burden of proof is on the defendant for claims that are essential to his defense. This means that you have to prove the speed limit is illegal if you want the court side with you.
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
I've seen others ask this same question so here FWIW is the apparently ERRONEOUS thinking that I (and others) have:
- the speed trap case REQUIRES the prosecution to proactively establish speed limit legality
Yes.
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
- pacing cases do NOT require the prosecution to establish the speed limit legality, but the
defendant can DISCOVER the speed survey info himself and show its invalidity if he thinks
the speed limit or the speed survey is incorrect.
- the practical reason why noone challenges PF speed limits is that the underlying speed data
is still valid even if the limit has been downsized.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you either have to prove that the speed limit was illegally established, or that your driving was safe for the conditions at the time and place where you were cited. In order to prove that the speed limit was established illegally, you have to show that the city failed to comply with 22352 or other relevant portions of the vehicle code. Just saying that the survey doesn't justify the limit doesn't get you off the hook, because the legal requirement that the survey justify the speed limit only applies to speed traps. If you use google to search through the entire California Vehicle code, the only places where the word justified appears in relation to speed limits is 40802 and 22358.4. The reason nobody challenges the speed limits for pacing cases is because there's no legal requirement that the survey justify the speed limit, unless radar or laser is used.
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
Is there a case that shows the reasoning you use above or is it more of a "this is how it works in the courts" type of situation?
The best case I can quote is People v. Huffman, which deals with speed traps. However, the court in that case is quite clear that if the survey is valid, then the burden is shifted to the defendant. Since there's no such requirement when you're paced, and you were driving faster than posted limit, then you're in the latter case by default:
If the section 22350 charge rests on an allegation that defendant exceeded a posted or prima facie speed limit, the People must introduce into evidence or permanently lodge with the court a certified copy of a traffic and engineering survey, made within the past five years, justifying that speed limit. (People v. DiFiore (1987) 243 Cal.Rptr. 359, 197 Cal.App.3d Supp. 26, 28-29.) If the court finds the survey does justify the speed limit, then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove his speed was nevertheless safe under the circumstances. (Veh.Code, § 22351, subd.(b).) On the other hand, if a survey is required but not introduced, the officer is incompetent to testify as to the defendant's speed. (Veh.Code, §§ 40802, 40804.)
Also, it would be worth it to read People v. Behjat. That case deals with exactly what the prosecution needs to provide to convict somebody under 22350. If the officer omits certain details, you can move for dismissal arguing that the prosecution hasn't proved its case.
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
I am indeed stuck between two seemingly contradictory positions:
- The survey is invalid and seems to not justify the speed limit set
- The survey also provides evidence that the safe speed is much higher than the limit.
I'd instead focus on what you would need to prove to show that the speed limit was illegally established, or that your speed was safe for the conditions at the time. I'd take a look at VC 22350, 22352, 22357, and 22358, and then decide what you'll have the best shot at being able to prove.
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
More great stuff, TMN:
The MUTCD 2003 CA supplement (which was controlling at the time of the speed survey in my case) says, at 2B.116:
Quote:
Standard:
Prima facie speed limits are specific limits and shall apply unless changed based upon an
engineering and traffic survey and signs are posted that display the new speed limit.
This tells me that the validity of the speed limit in my case is gauged by the same T&ES standards as in speed trap cases. Of course, in my case I have to proactively challenge it which is alot harder.
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
This tells me that the validity of the speed limit in my case is gauged by the same T&ES standards as in speed trap cases. Of course, in my case I have to proactively challenge it which is alot harder.
Sorry, but that's baloney. 40802 is very specific about what is required for speed traps. Have you read it? Can you quote me a case where the court has decided that any of the provisions in 40802 apply when the police haven't used Radar or Laser?
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
You are right; I way oversimplified.
40802 applies only to speed trap cases.
furthermore, the requirements to have a licensed traffic engineer certify the survey only apply to speed trap cases. The 2003 MUTCD CA Supplement only has 1 reference to a registered traffic engineer and that pertains to extending the survey to 10 years.
Interesting that the 2012 MUTCD requires a registered civil or traffic engineer approve any 5MPH speed zone downgrade, but the 2003 MUTCD CA Supplement has no such requirement. Bummer.
But, on the positive side I think the case law such as Goulet that fleshes out common law on speed zone downgrading should apply to speed surveys whether or not speed trap laws are involved.
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
themadnorwegian
Sorry, but that's baloney. 40802 is very specific about what is required for speed traps. Have you read it? Can you quote me a case where the court has decided that any of the provisions in 40802 apply when the police haven't used Radar or Laser?
TMN, with all due respect, not to second guess your judgment or question your decision to continue to reply (your choice), I really firmly believe that you will work yourself into frustration here. OP is not asking questions, he's here looking for cheerleaders, people to agree with him, and second his twisted opinions. Hey, we are all stubborn to a degree, I guess, but in this case... A little common courtesy would go a long way; not once has he taken a few seconds to acknowledge the several times we requested information from him. Not because we're nosey (if we were, we would never use the word "redact'), but simply because it makes it EASIER for us to get most points across! His continuing to ignore our questions is simply his way of saying "you, your efforts, expending double the amount of energy here top cover several possible scenarios here because I am stubborn... None of it matters! But here are more questions for you... "
Like I said, you're free to continue busting your chops as you reply!
If his case had potential, I'd be in here trying to make a difference as well. This is a 22449 case in a 22350 disguise; and it'll be over in 3 minutes tops, but only because it'll take 1 minute 45 seconds to shut him up!
There are plenty of lessons to learn here. None are for us... OP could use them all and then some.
Starting with the lesson that when you ask for help, learn how to listen!
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
TMN, with all due respect, not to second guess your judgment or question your decision to continue to reply (your choice), I really firmly believe that you will work yourself into frustration here. OP is not asking questions, he's here looking for cheerleaders, people to agree with him...
Heh, you may not be second guessing my judgement, but I am. This is a very timely post, since you seem to have sensed my imminent exasperation. I can't tell if this is simply a case of the OP strongly wishing I was wrong, trolling, or a psychology experiment, but I'm really out of ways to help.
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
There are plenty of lessons to learn here. None are for us...
I think there may be a lesson for me too: I should know a lost cause when I see one.
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
Interesting that the 2012 MUTCD requires a registered civil or traffic engineer approve any 5MPH speed zone downgrade, but the 2003 MUTCD CA Supplement has no such requirement. Bummer.
True. This is because 40802 was amended in 2009 or 2010 to include the rule about a registered engineer signing off on older surveys. However, what the law giveth, the law also taketh away. In 2012, VC 21400 was amended to require the MUTCD to be re-written to allow cities to apply a 5mph reduction in the 85th percentile speed limit, without requiring an engineering justification.
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
But, on the positive side I think the case law such as Goulet that fleshes out common law on speed zone downgrading should apply to speed surveys whether or not speed trap laws are involved.
I hope TG will forgive me for stealing his line: good luck!
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Thanks TMN:
And thanks TG for that matter, especially for the civility in the last post.
I appreciate the input. The troll remark is baseless. I was asked for the surveys so I posted them as requested. If the surveys truly don't matter then I figure there is no point in posting the un-redacted copy. As for the NTA, today was the first I'd heard about that and I don't have scan and redact capabilities at hand. Plus, TMN was quite helpful and new info tends to divert the thread.
We haven't baselined the case recently, but based on your excellent input, it sounds like my case
currently boils down to: the conditions were great.
TG says:
Quote:
This is a 22449 case in a 22350 disguise;
I assume he means 22349, but I don't catch the drift of his remarks as the survey I posted clearly shows otherwise.
Thanks again for all the help. TMN: sorry for any exasperation.
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
themadnorwegian
a psychology experiment
Man... Now those... I cannot stand!
Wait... I meant I heard they aren't that much fun!
Quote:
Quoting
themadnorwegian
I hope TG will forgive me for stealing his line: good luck!
TG can forgive, but he would be willing to share :D
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
I got discovery from both city (survey) and chp. the chp's notice-to-appear-copy scans completely illegibly; I'm working on a way to get a more legible version posted. In fact, I can't read what's written myself in addition to the fact that I don't know their codes.
The city, in responding, sent me:
- my original discovery request page - date-stamped
- my original cover letter - date-stamped
- photocopies of the survey: completely unstamped. I've already posted a redacted copy of this survey: http://i.imgur.com/SFPEA.png
The city did not send any cover letter or anything signed of any kind. (The CHP, by contrast was very professional, but directed me to the city for the survey).
You will recall that this is a pacing case, so the prosecution has no duty to submit an engineering survey. The question is, if I want to submit their survey into evidence, does it need to be certified?
If so, is it my responsibility to do something beyond the discovery request I made?
And, yes, I've read this outstanding thread that relates:
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...=130838&page=4
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Success!!
I got the TBD back: Not Guilty!. I'll post more info soon.
I'm very surprised. I figured I'd have to go to trial and appeal.
Thanks all.
- - - Updated - - -
http://imgur.com/FAMPa
That's my TBD defense. (Yes, I took the suggestion to protect my anonymity by modifying the city name and more on the traffic survey I posted)
Thoughts:
- I kept the TBD to two pages which was hard, but important IMO
- I came away with a positive view of CHP after a rough start. I suppose there's a bad officer here and there, but my CHP officer was professional AFTER the citation and I'm confident he would have been honest on the stand.
- Kind of disappointing that the acquittal letter didn't contain any real information; just a form saying not guilty and I'll get my check in 90 days.
- TG had a lot of good input, even though he was obnoxiously wrong about so many points such as my ultimate acquittal and the "troll" accusation and the fact that someone can be not guilty and still get a ticket and so on.
- One thing that I suspect TG was right about is the futility of doing your own speed survey. If such a
survey would prove something useful, there are probably ways that are more successful in
actual court.
- Note, however, that the traffic engineer (and TG when he tried to play traffic engineer) are dead
wrong on the technicals. Traffic engineering is a complex task. But the collection of raw speed data
for the speed survey is a very narrow task. In my case, the selection of which cars to survey matters
FAR MORE than the accuracy of measuring the speed of those cars. Consequently, a reasonably
smart person could do a far more accurate survey than the one produced by the city in my case.
I call out TraffEng for offering criticism but no constructive input. He erroneously assumed I
was criticizing the profession, ignored my questions and converted his umbrage into bad analysis.
Lastly, I'm left with the impression that most people can get out of tickets if they were driving normally, but perhaps it's just my good luck here.
Adios
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
themadnorwegian
True. This is because 40802 was amended in 2009 or 2010 to include the rule about a registered engineer signing off on older surveys.
One little correction: the "...registered engineer evaluates..." language has been there since 1998, when 40802 was amended to allow survey extensions to 7/10 years. (Stats.1998, c. 1037, § 1.) The 2012 MUTCD requirement for justification by a registered engineer for any downgrade appears to be entirely the DoT's effort, probably because of the codification of the rounding/reduction in VC 21400.
Quote:
Quoting
themadnorwegian
However, what the law giveth, the law also taketh away. In 2012, VC 21400 was amended to require the MUTCD to be re-written to allow cities to apply a 5mph reduction in the 85th percentile speed limit, without requiring an engineering justification.
To clarify for future readers, VC 21400 allows *rounding down* the critical speed to the nearest 5-mph increment, instead of *rounding up*, without justification. For example, if the critical speed is 34.7 mph, the limit can be set at 30 mph. However, no further reduction can be applied when such "rounding down" has been done.
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
quirkyquark
To clarify for future readers...
And to do the same for future readers... Well, here you go lbk, certainly more trouble than you could ever be worth, but that's usually how it turns out to be with people with your level of total ignorance; here is the reply you weren't expecting:
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
Success!!
I got the TBD back: Not Guilty!. I'll post more info soon.
I'm very surprised. I figured I'd have to go to trial and appeal.
Thanks all.
You really must take us for fools. Right, “success”, and a “not guilty” finding... With ^that^ declaration?
A "Not Guilty" finding <---> Defendant won on merit, by presenting legal arguments which impacted the prosecution's ability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt or diminished the validity of the evidence they presented.
You did nothing of the sort.
I suspect that the notice came back with either (1) a "dismissed", possibly meaning the officer did not submit a declaration or, (2) and the higher likelihood is that it came back "Guilty" and in your frustration, you're back here to talk smack, complain about all the help you got from me and trefang.
See the way it turned out, the answers we gave you early on, were all that was needed. But in your stubborn ignorance, and your lack of the mental capacity to comprehend what you were being told, you kept on with the same ideas you came here with, hoping someone will come along to cheer you on. Instead, each and every person who posted in this thread told you how wrong you are, how you are wasting your time... And yet only I and trefang get mentioned by name? Do you think I am offended by your criticism and your name calling or do you think I feel sad for you because in spite of the efforts put forth by several people, you still weren't able to capitalize on anyone's opinion or help???
But wait, that is about me and trefang, and since you aren't whining about others who posted here, that might imply you're content with their offerings... But where is their “thank you”? They don't get individually named and thanked? All they get is a measly “Thanks all”?
Fact is, you were clearly determined to prove how a twisted your thinking is, how lacking your abilities are, how irritating and aggravating your attitude and behavior had to be to make your presence known. Otherwise, yiou clearly had nothing to contribute... And you're calling me obnoxious? Yes, I called you a troll, and in fact, you're still trolling... Yes I told you you will lose, and I'll demonstrate why in a bit... I challenge you to point to a single sentence that I posted here that was not accurate. On second thought, you're clearly still bitter because I disagreed with your asinine logic and your idiotic drivel, and therefore you're incapable of facing reality and realizing it is your ignorance that caused the issues, not I. And so to come back only to get a second opportunity to smack your lips... You posted 2 words to show appreciation; and then paragraph upon paragraph of negativity, criticism of those who attempted to properly guide you to that which is in your best interest.
All that and you're pretending you won your case? Really/ Answer this for me... How hateful would you be if you would have lost?
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
http://imgur.com/FAMPa
That's my TBD defense. (Yes, I took the suggestion to protect my anonymity by modifying the city name and more on the traffic survey I posted)
Yeah, I'll leave that part to the end and I will show you that there is no potential chance in hell that you could have won this case with your asinine arguments.
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
- I kept the TBD to two pages which was hard, but important IMO
Actually, you'll see how you had so much fluff there, you included some info twice to get it to go two pages; One page may have been sufficient. (Are you really still trying to fool someone here? You tried that previously, and it only proved how lacking your abilities are. Give it up).
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
- Kind of disappointing that the acquittal letter didn't contain any real information; just a form saying not guilty and I'll get my check in 90 days.
Actually, a TR-215 says 60 days... You can't even be accurate with the pre-printed language...
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
- TG had a lot of good input, even though he was obnoxiously wrong about so many points such as my ultimate acquittal and the "troll" accusation and the fact that someone can be not guilty and still get a ticket and so on.
Keep your compliment... As for the criticism, seriously, you are not one to talk about obnoxious... Although that term does fail to describe how horridly irritating you were at times. As for the "ultimate fake acquittal", that is another component of the trolling you're still doing.
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
- One thing that I suspect TG was right about is the futility of doing your own speed survey. If such a survey would prove something useful, there are probably ways that are more successful in actual court.
You wouldn't know the difference if it smacked you upside the head. So spare me! And I honestly don't need your confirmations to validate my opinions.
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
- Note, however, that the traffic engineer (and TG when he tried to play traffic engineer) are dead wrong on the technicals. Traffic engineering is a complex task. But the collection of raw speed data for the speed survey is a very narrow task. In my case, the selection of which cars to survey matters FAR MORE than the accuracy of measuring the speed of those cars.
I actually started criticizing the entire paragraph until I got to the last (underlined) sentence... Which clearly shows the depth of your ineptitude and your inability to understand what was repeated to you several times in this thread. I feel sorry for you but more importantly, I sincerely feel like these thought that you come up with can be so freaky they would be a danger to those around you.
Oh, and you can be sure that I am not here to brag, but simply because I am not at the risk of jeopardizing my job, there are times when my analysis of the technicals, is more accurate and correct compared to that of a traffic engineer. You wouldn't know the difference though!
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
Consequently, a reasonably smart person could do a far more accurate survey than the one produced by the city in my case.
And even if that is true, you unfortunately failed at both tasks, being reasonably (or even remotely) smart or producing an accurate survey; and you still do not understand how worthless your "accurate survey" would be!
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
I call out TraffEng for offering criticism but no constructive input. He erroneously assumed I was criticizing the profession, ignored my questions and converted his umbrage into bad analysis.
I call you out for being too stubborn to even begin to comprehend the purpose, methodology, reasoning, behind the how/why and where a survey is conducted and the results are implemented, but I also call you out on having no common sense, for making arguments that are useless meaningless and moot, and for being a bad driver who's ability to differentiate between safe and unsafe is clearly lacking, as well as for having to be so far out in wrong field that we had to endure how infinitely irritating you are while we attempted to set the record straight. This last reason here is one big justification as to why any judicial officer would not even consider finding you "not guilty"! But you're free to lie yourself into submission...
Let me get to your -not so brilliant- declaration:
Here is the copy as you posted it (Page 1). However, let me explain the markings I made:
Page 1
http://i1086.photobucket.com/albums/...arationPg1.jpg
The language marked in blue is the same information. No need to repeat it/one of those paragraphs can go...
The language marked in red as follows": First, the part about the officer not identifying any special dangers... where do you get these ideas from? All the cop has to do is ask you for license registration and insurance, write up a citation, ask you to sign it and send you on your way.
The language in yellow on page one: wherein you state: "I was not only driving safely I was a model DMV driver who exemplified my own ....." I would suggest that anyone who was driving on a city street on a Saturday morning, where they claimed that traffic was clear, visibility was "outstanding".... That you would have noticed the officer behind you pacing you at 15 mph over the limit! You, on the other hand, were oblivious, inattentive, probably careless and as such, none of your observations count and your attempt to exaggerate your own ability is clear. So that has to go or it carries more weight to harm you than benefit you!
Next, the part at the bottom of page one, marked in red and titled "Illegal Prima Facie Speed limit" and the paragraph itself which starts with: "Attached is the relevant E&T survey..." Actually, as you were told many more times than I would care to count, the E&T survey is NOT RELEVANT. So this part must go...
Moving on to page 2:
Page 2
http://i1086.photobucket.com/albums/...arationPg2.jpg
The top paragraph marked in red, titled "Traffic Survey" is for the last time, "not relevant", the speed limit is not in question nor is it a matter of contention and so your attempt to use that in an effort to invalidate the survey and subsequently the speed limit is as much a failure as any of your other ideas. So this part is not needed and has little impact on the case; it must go!
Last but not least. the two paragraphs/lines in light green are in reference to a photograph you claim is representative of the segment of the roadway where you got busted... Well, it basically and simply is inadmissible in a TBD simply because you made zero attempt to try and authenticate it. And even if it can be admitted, it represents zero value to your case because it was not taken at the same time of when the offense occurred, therefore it is not representative of anything related.
Oh, one more thing... Since a survey is not required, and the speed limit is not in question, there is no need to submit a survey. So delete the line referring to a survey under “attachments”, and since you no longer have any “attachments”, you can delete that word as well.
OK, so I took the liberty of removing the paragraphs I mentioned above, and condensed the text of the declaration you submitted to the court which leaves you with this:
http://i1086.photobucket.com/albums/...laration-1.jpg
Not even a full page!
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
Lastly, I'm left with the impression that most people can get out of tickets if they were driving normally, but perhaps it's just my good luck here.
Neither... Your ignorance is not a means to beating a traffic citation...
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
Adios
Promises, promises!
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
You really must take us for fools. Right, “success”, and a “not guilty” finding... With ^that^ declaration?
I should have pointed this out in my clarification, TG, sorry! Agreed with everything you said.
To lbk: put your money where your mouth is -- go to the court and get a copy of the officer's declaration (TR-235) and post it up. If it exists, that should tell us whether you won on merit or simply luck!
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
The legal argument in my pacing case was:
- the prima facie speed limit is invalid (per Cal MUTCD and People v. Goulet)
- and therefore the speed limit wasn't "established as authorized" (per CVC 22351b)
- to undermine a prima facie assumption of guilt in a criminal case one merely needs to establish "reasonable doubt" about the validity of the prima facie assumption (Cal Evidence code 607)
- therefore the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt independent of the invalid speed limit (i.e. the case is converted to a straight 22350 case)
- and the facts (especially without a speed limit) showed I was a safe driver
- therefore I was not guilty
I was found not guilty. Given that TBDs rarely generate not guilty verdicts, the natural assumption should be that the above argument won the case. The first question of the first post of this thread is: what are the legal implications of an invalid prima facie speed limit. I've never received a legally-grounded answer though TMN gave some serious input. TG, in particular, has offered rants of "irrelevant" but that's far from a legal argument. "Your honor, I don't need case law; it's irrelevant because I say so" :)
So, noone - including especially TG - has yet offered a legal argument (citing case law or statutes as I have done above) to back up their claim that an invalid prima facie speed limit is irrelevant to a 22350 pacing case.
Now, it's certainly possible that other factors won the day. Most likely among these is that my argument was sufficiently plausible to require an actual prosecutor and/or the testimony of traffic division personnel whose time they didn't want to waste on a minor traffic violation. But if that were the case it seems like the case might be dismissed instead of the "not guilty" finding I received. Much less likely is that the CHP officer failed to submit a statement since he promptly responded to discovery.
But when I posted my "not guilty" the skepticism of the above posts lurches into the paranoid. And obviously no amount of documentation would satisfy such paranoia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I researched a number of traffic violation websites. I stayed at ExpertLaw because the advice and information was the best around. That includes TG who provided good information.
That said: ThatGuy is a troll.
TG "challenged" me "to point to a single sentence that I posted here that was not accurate." Lord, where do I start:
TG Says:
"Actually, a TR-215 says 60 days... You can't even be accurate with the pre-printed language... "
The letter says 90 days, so evidently I can be accurate,
TG says:
"I mean here we are on post 29 and we still have no idea if this was a pace case or a Radar/Lidar case!"
In fact, on post 1 in my FIRST sentence I say that it's a pacing case.
TG says:
This is a 22449 case in a 22350 disguise; and it'll be over in 3 minutes tops.
Wrong on both sentences here, unless you're claiming you thought I would WIN in 3 minutes!
TG says (on post 29)
"This is where I am going to stop"
And yet he continued posting with an increase in paranoia and ad hominem.
TG says (on post xx)
"not once has he taken a few seconds to acknowledge the several times we requested information from him."
Not true. I addressed the issue several times. What's worse here is that you used these lies in
service to your effort to persuade other people to stop posting on the thread. The definition
of trolling.
Beyond these straight factual mis-statements. TG:
- mis-analyzed the statistical discussion
- spewed general nonsense in the TBD critique
- mis-analyzed the speed survey discussion
- and continues to declare that invalid speed surveys and invalid prima facie speed limits are irrelevant in a pacing case. This assertion is refuted if you simply ask yourself whether a city could arbitrarily declare a 5MPH speed limit on a highway and start citing drivers with pacing.
In fact, here's a partial list of threads that show ThatGuy is a troll
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144878
"Look THAT GUY. Again, you've failed to contribute anything. I don't see any counter points or references to laws or codes or anything (either in your latest post or ANY of your previous). You keep talking up your stance and how you are righteously trying to help...So where is your actual information? I'd love for a third party to comment on this and evaluate this thread."
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143642
"So THAT GUY, please, if you don't actually have anything to contribute, take your "troll"ing elsewhere. I'd love for another user to read through this and get their view on your posts..."
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146377
"Do you have anything worthwhile to offer beyond "If the cop said you did it, you're obviously guilty"? Because that's a total waste of everyone's time and I just don't know why you even bothered. Unless, as I suspect, you're just a troll."
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148509
"I don't need to hear from people who just want to judge and troll others."
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126247
"I, Lapdog12, am very concerned and frightened by the actions of the poster using the screen name "That Guy". I am concerned for the fact that someone would take the time to try to "research" me and then make a slanderous claim as stated in the above quote from "That Guy". I am concerned because if he is willing to do that then I have no idea what he may try to do next."
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...=143290&page=2
"Please, quit trolling my thread with your non-sense. "
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...997#post582997
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...=134192&page=2
"If you wish to troll .. go to another forum."
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...=144369&page=2
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...=134018&page=4
"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!"
http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/show...=134097&page=3
"Wow, what a troll! I'm not engaging you in conversation, you engaged yourself and redirected Quirky's attention towards something we've already dismissed and moved past on. Are you sure you don't care? You seem to nitpick everything someone says and you sure spend a lot of time in this thread. I would be working on my defense with Quirky had you not swayed direction of topic. Now PLEASE make an exit from this thread."
So, let the doubters cite a legal argument against my legal argument.
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Actually the most likely reason you won is the officer failed to submit their paperwork to the court. Your argument, as shown by people with FAR more knowledge and experience with California traffic law, was not legally worth a darn.
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
thanks, free9man. Kudos for sidestepping the conspiracy theorists about my "not guilty" verdict.
Still, if the legal argument I make is so obviously "not legally worth a darn" - as you put it - how come noone has made a legally-grounded counterargument against it in 53 posts and 5 months, including your post? The very first question of the very first post raised this issue.
TMN actually expressed lukewarm support for the notion that a valid prima facie speed limit is relevant for pacing cases:
Quote:
The best case I can quote is People v. Huffman, which deals with speed traps. However, the court in that case is quite clear that if the survey is valid, then the burden is shifted to the defendant. Since there's no such requirement when you're paced, and you were driving faster than posted limit, then you're in the latter case by default:
I'd instead focus on what you would need to prove to show that the speed limit was illegally established
TMN refers to the absence of a "requirement" of speed surveys when you're paced. The requirement for speed trap cases is that the survey is proactively produced by the prosecution. That fact doesn't imply a speed survey is irrelevant to pacing cases, just that the prosecution need not automatically produce it. In that sense it seems TMN is at best ambiguous about the valid pf limit requirement. Plus, TMN goes on to suggest proving an invalid pf speed limit. What is the point of TMN's comment if illegal speed limit's are irrelevant?
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
I was found not guilty. Given that TBDs rarely generate not guilty verdicts, the natural assumption should be that the above argument won the case. The first question of the first post of this thread is: what are the legal implications of an invalid prima facie speed limit. I've never received a legally-grounded answer though TMN gave some serious input. TG, in particular, has offered rants of "irrelevant" but that's far from a legal argument. "Your honor, I don't need case law; it's irrelevant because I say so" :)
If you want to have a serious discussion about this, then please refrain from name calling and personal attacks. I think you're inferring causality where it may not exist. There may be a number of reasons why you were found not guilty. The merit of your argument could be one reason, but there may be others too. I'm quite tired of guessing about facts, and I've found myself doing this more than I would like on a number of threads. If you would scan and post everything you submitted as part of your TBD (redacting personal information, of course), and everything the officer submitted as part of his TBD, then I think we could get a better understanding of the reason for the not guilty verdict. Without that, I don't see any point in engaging in speculation because there are just too many possibilities left open by the absence of information that you could provide.
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
TMN:
I welcome your call for a serious discussion. The serious discussion I would like is on the legal merits of the following argument.
- the prima facie speed limit is invalid (per Cal MUTCD and People v. Goulet)
- and therefore the speed limit wasn't "established as authorized" (per CVC 22351b)
- to undermine a prima facie assumption of guilt in a criminal case one merely needs to establish "reasonable doubt" about the validity of the prima facie assumption (Cal Evidence code 607)
- therefore the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt independent of the invalid speed limit (i.e. the case is converted to a straight 22350 case)
- and the facts (especially without a speed limit) showed I was a safe driver
- therefore I was not guilty
A key here is that, as per cal evidence code 607, the prima facie assumption of guilt can be undermined by mere "reasonable doubt" about the facts creating the prima facie situation -in this case, the speed survey authorizing the speed limit. True, the prosecution has an opportunity to rebut such arguments, but requiring the prosecution and/or traffic department to show up may be enough, in practice.
----------------
I've long since posted the TBD and the speed survey. The location is Atlantic southbound at 36th street in long beach. I've also long since explained that the NTA is illegible when scanned, and the back isn't legible much unscanned. It's a 22350 based on pacing: 45MPH in a prima facie 30.
The back page has notes, among other undecipherables, that I was neither passing nor being passed and has what appears to be some notes that the officer was at least 150 feet away during the pace.
Google will give you as good a view of the location as my photograph - right side is southbound. On Saturday morning the traffic is very light.
I've no intention of going downtown to file paperwork to get the officers statement. I won, and a particular judge's reasons for not gulity aren't as important to me as the serious discussion of the legal argument. In other words, an appellate judge ruling on the relevancy of a valid speed limit in a pacing case (or my argument above) is the gold standard. That's impossible now that I won, and there's simply no way of telling exactly the trial judge's views on my case.
Lastly, the scans of my case are largely irrelevant to the serious discussion of the legal issue I seek. The legal issue is whether - and how - it matters that a speed limit is valid in a pacing case. True, the speed survey shows evidence of an improperly set speed limit, but the more pertinent question - since there seems to dissent about it among followers of this thread - is whether an invalid speed limit matters in a pacing case.
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
themadnorwegian
If you want to have a serious discussion about this, then please refrain from name calling and personal attacks. I think you're inferring causality where it may not exist. There may be a number of reasons why you were found not guilty. The merit of your argument could be one reason, but there may be others too. I'm quite tired of guessing about facts, and I've found myself doing this more than I would like on a number of threads. If you would scan and post everything you submitted as part of your TBD (redacting personal information, of course), and everything the officer submitted as part of his TBD, then I think we could get a better understanding of the reason for the not guilty verdict. Without that, I don't see any point in engaging in speculation because there are just too many possibilities left open by the absence of information that you could provide.
TMN, we tried getting through to this idiot and he left no doubt in my mind that he's not here to discuss the law. He's here to yack the same crap he's been told several times and by many is meaningless. Never in my entire life have I ever come across someone who is as stubborn and as stupid as this dumb ass. He had almost nine weeks of time to -as requested by Quirky and if I may rephrase his request- put his money where his crap trap is, to obtain and post the officer's declaration. yet all he did was spend an inordinate amount of time being a psychotic stalker, reading post after post of mine looking for something -who knows what- and what you see above is the result. Nothing related to the topic at hand, nothing to suggest he understood a single word that was posted, nothing that is even remotely close to what the officer submitted in his case, and certainly nothing that is an accurate representation of the outcome of his case.
All three of you, Quirky, free9man and you, have alluded to the possibility that this psycho's "TR-215 Form - Decision And Notice Of Decision" notified him he was found "Not Guilty" and I will say "no way"... It either said "dismissed" because the officer never submitted his, or he lost his case and the judge found him "GUILTY"... After all, he won't be the first OP to come back and clearly, flat out lie about the outcome just to save face. Well, with this idiot being as stubborn as he is, I wouldn't be surprised if he knows he's been found guilty and he is still living in denial!
In the alternative, if I thought this guy had even a slither of decency in him and that he will reply honestly, I would put money on the validity of the following scenario but he does not and so I won't. Still here is what I think happened:
He submitted his TBD back in June... At about the time he made that post on June 15... It took the court approximately 90 or so days to go over his declaration, he was found guilty and was notified of the result somewhere around mid September... Instead of acting like a real man would, coming back apologizing for being a dumb ass, and admitting he was wrong all along, he comes back on September 14 pretending he won, in hopes that we will sit here and hypothesize the reasons why he won from which he can then draw up a new defense for his TDN.
He got nothing... Certainly nothing from me, only criticism and an inference that he duplicated several paragraphs in his TBD, additionally, and don't ask me how I knew but in reply to his closing comment of “Adios”, I replied with
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Promises, promises!
Then Quirky shows up a couple of days later and posted his challenge to this psycho to which he never replied.
Point is, he got nothing... Yet still, he was not done. He submitted his request for a TDN within the required period of 20 days, his TDN was scheduled 45 or so days later... That is about 65 days... He shows up to that, gets ripped into shreds in court, loses and tail between his legs he goes home with nothing. Takes him a couple of days to recover and to help himself get over his bitter anger for being such an idiot, his only therapy is to read through each and every thread that I ever posted in -looking for who knows what- so he can post the drivel he posted about me as if I care what a true dimwit thinks about me. That took a few days to put together, say 3 days... Making it a 68 day period of silence.
Now remember, his last post before the period of silence began was on September 18... And the date on Sunday where he came back to post all the recent crap he came up with was Sunday, November 25, 2012. For a difference of.... Drum Roll Please.... 68 days!
Notwithstanding all of the speculation, and regardless of the process, why would anyone comeback seeking validation the first time (in September) if he had received the ultimate answer, the only opinion that matters, from the only authority that matters, the court!
If he won back in September, why on God's green earth would he still be the bitter, hateful, ignorant, psychotic idiot that he showed himself to be in his most recent postings? Why would he still be looking to discuss the case 68 days later and have his newly developed understanding in what seems to be a new analogy and a new understanding of the issue from what he had presented previously? Is he looking to appeal? That would be laughable but I would not put it past Mr. Ignoramus!
This idiot couldn't win a free prize in a box of cracker Jacks. Are you going to tell me he won a trial? If you know anything about me you know that I despise liars with a passion... Although this dumbass has me feeling sorry for him because he clearly has some serious deficiencies... We all wasted a huge amount of time here but I can still say I learned something.
And so, OK, you asked him to redact and post his declaration and that of the officer... And he replied with... None of the above! Well, I had previously redacted his declaration for him, but I now see that the link is bad. So here it is again, for those who are still thinking he might have won at the TBD level:
http://i1086.photobucket.com/albums/...eclaration.jpg
Sorry, but that is not going to win a TBD. There is no justice in this world if anyone is going to infer that a judge/commissioner could not sift through the declaration the OP posted and end up with what you see up there and still found him “not guilty”.
So what's the point in discussing anything with him... I know I am not looking to learn anything from him! Neither are you. Let him bark on his own, eventually, and like a dog he really is, he'll be gone before we know it.
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
themadnorwegian
If you want to have a serious discussion about this, then please refrain from name calling and personal attacks.
I'll let TMN handle the last post.
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
lbk
I'll let TMN handle the last post.
You still can't see straight can you! That TMN sentence was part of what I quoted in my post. But even if I didn't, the reason TMN posted that was because you couldn't refrain from spewing your bitter hateful crap all over everybody... Now you want to act civil?
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
Nevermind.
I wasn't being critical, quite the contrary... I simply wanted to acknowledge that you contributed in this thread. :encouragement:
-
Re: How to Create and Present Your Own Speed Survey
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
I wasn't being critical, quite the contrary... I simply wanted to acknowledge that you contributed in this thread. :encouragement:
That wasn't aimed at you TG, I was typing out something else but decided not to waste the time on OP.