Two Vehicles Pulled Over at Same Time for Speeding Using Radar

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

I received a ticket for speeding on a California highway. The device used to measure speed was radar. The infraction code is 22356 (b) and I was cited for 80+ with a posted limit of 70. 70 is the posted limit for the majority of the highway in the desert (otherwise it is 65). I was on cruise control at a safe speed and within the posted limit in the #2 lane (2nd from left) on a highway with 4 lanes in each direction. A vehicle passed me in the #1 lane at a much higher rate of speed. As the vehicle was passing me on the left the patrol car came into view in the distance on the right shoulder. At this point, the other driver was about a car length in front of me (to the left) and slammed on the breaks. I never took the cruise control off and we both passed the patrol car side by side at approximately the same speed (70 mph). The patrol car entered the highway and I immediately thought "that guy just got busted" and continued driving as usual. Short story long, the officer pulled us both over after trailing the other vehicle, giving instructions on his loudspeaker, pulling up beside me, etc...

The officer said "I pulled you over for speeding at 87 mph in a 70". I immediately knew he had the wrong guy since the speed he quoted was grossly higher than the rate I was traveling. It was midnight on a dark night and we were the only vehicles traveling in that direction for a half mile in either direction.

The officer stated that he "clocked our vehicles" (plural) going 87, then at 82, and then some other number in the 70's (74 I think). I told him about the other driver slamming on his breaks and he then stated that he observed our vehicles passing him at the same rate of speed. It sounds to me like he is making a subjective decision on the assumption that we were both speeding since he clocked someone and we both passed him side by side.

The radar box on the ticket was checked off and the option for "patrol car" was underlined. I called the CHP and they stated that it means the radar was vehicle mounted (not hand held). The distance was listed at 1,473 feet.

I am planning to dispute the ticket via Trial by Written Declaration. I still need to figure out the process for sending a request for discovery and when that should happen. My questions....

1) The court listed is in Indio, CA (Riverside County) where the citation was issued. The county seat is Riverside Superior Court which is 75 miles closer to where I live. Should I request a change of venue to Riverside before requesting the Trial by Written Declaration? My reasoning is that if I lose the trial by mail, the trial de novo would take place in Riverside, not Indio, right? I'm hoping this increases the chance that the officer does not show up if it goes that far. Good strategy? Even possible?
2) Do I send the request for discovery after requesting the trial by mail or right now? I'm assuming I would want all the info to decide whether to even go to trial.
3) Is it reasonable to argue that the officer's ability to visually assess the situation was greatly impaired due to the fact the he would be looking at 4 headlights in his rear view/side view mirror, at night, at a distance of almost 5 football fields? FYI - My car is black. Were his mirrors even adjusted properly to be able to see the #1 and #2 lanes from his parking spot on the shoulder?
4) Can a vehicle mounted radar accurately clock the speeds of 2 vehicles at the same time?
5) The officer is assuming (in my opinion) that 2 strangers were both driving door handle to door handle at 87 mph through the desert. Highly improbable if you ask me. Worth mentioning?

I think I can raise enough questions and create enough doubt if done properly (even if all officer training, radar certifications, etc... are current)

Any thoughts and help is greatly appreciated!

SBJustice

Quote:

---

Quoting SBjustice

---

The distance was listed at 1,473 feet.

---

If a distance is disclosed, the officer used Laser not Radar. And if the is the case, he did not use his rear view mirror for the visual estimate, he was looking directly at both vehicles. And if he was looking directly at both vehicles and whether he obtained one vehicle's speed and visually compared to the other and it appeared similar or whether he was able to obtain two independent speed readings for both vehicles, that means one of you wasn't passing, you were both driving at similar speeds; and both methods would be acceptable since the measured speed was 17mph in excess of the limit.

Quote:

---

Quoting SBjustice

---

I think I can raise enough questions and create enough doubt if done properly (even if all officer training, radar certifications, etc... are current)

---

No disrespect but there really aren't enough questions out there to try and overcome the accusation that you were 17mph over the limit. My guess is even an experienced attorney would plead this one out.

Quote:

---

Quoting SBjustice

---

The officer is assuming (in my opinion) that 2 strangers were both driving door handle to door handle at 87 mph through the desert. Highly improbable if you ask me. Worth mentioning?

---

First, is that your way of NOT admitting you were driving door handle to door handle at 87mph? I mean is it your opinion that the officer is assuming the you were both strangers? That you both were travelling at 87mph? Or both, that you're strangers travelling at 87mph?

Second, why is it improbable? Assume that one vehicle at 88mph was passing the other at 86mph, it could seem like handle to handle for a while...

Third, who's to say that you DON'T know each other?

The laser beam would have been approximately 4.5ft wide at that distance (3ft beam @ 1000ft). There's no way he could clock them both at once with laser (radar could). Using laser, separately, he could, but from that far, he would be unable to get an instant lock on either vehicle. He probably wasn't sure which vehicle's speed he read (happens a lot with LIDAR from that far) and decided to write both of you tickets. Like any other business, not everyone is going to be fair.

While that's not extremely far, it's far enough you can try some distance arguments. Only New Jersey has it as a statewide requirement to stay under 1,000ft or the state must provide an expert, which isn't economically feasible for them.

Most departments do in fact train their officers to stay under a certain distance. Even if it's not legally required, you might get a judge who finds the point interesting.

I appreciate the feedback and I'm just working off the information on the ticket and that was provided by the CHP. While your comments address most of the least important subjective issues, they don't really address the reality of the situation.

This is not a situation where I'm trying to beat a ticket. I wasn't speeding and the burden has been unfortunately shifted to me to prove it. I was at no time traveling any of the speeds noted by the officer so there is a 0% probability that my vehicle was clocked. The question is, how do I fight this so that I don't pay someone else's ticket?

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks, LostInTime. I guess I'll need to figure out if it was LIDAR or radar. The ticket says radar and the CHP said it was a vehicle mounted unit based on the markings on the citation.

Do you happen to know more about the capabilities of radar? Is it possible to clock 2 vehicles at the same time? I've read that most units have a "fastest vehicle" (probably the wrong verbiage) that tracks the speed of the vehicle traveling at the highest rate of speed. This would support the grossly overstated speeds quoted to me by the officer.

I agree with your opinion that the officer probably did not know which vehicle he clocked and made a subjective decision. I never witnessed the officer outside of his vehicle, getting back into his vehicle, etc... He could have been using a gun outside his car and got back inside before he came into sight, but I didn't see anything to support that. Discovery should address this. My assumption was that he was doing some paperwork, noticed a "hit" on his radar unit, and checked his side mirror to take a look. He witnessed two vehicles in close proximity to each other at a distance of 1473 feet.

I think my best strategy is to attack and discredit the radar speed. I was never traveling at any of the speeds noted by the officer. I'm hoping this will isolate his observation as the sole factor in his assessment. I can then begin to break down and attack his observation. I think I can cause enough questions and doubts to give myself a decent shot.

Vehicles coming directly at you or going directly away from you are the hardest to visually measure. This was also in the dead of night and the officer had to make his assessment based on 4 headlights coming at him at a distance of 5 football fields. The officer also quoted several different speeds (87, 83, and 75). I assume this means he was looking at his speed indicator, looking in the mirror, looking at the speed indicator, looking in the mirror, looking at the speed indicator, looking in the mirror, etc...

This means the officer would need to have the ability to potentially differentiate a variance of 25ft in 1 second (glancing in his mirror). 87 mph is 127.6 ft/sec and 70 mph is 102.6 ft/sec. Do you think it is a good argument that the officer would not be able to accurately measure a distance variance of 25 ft between 2 vehicles at a distance of 1473 feet?

Any thoughts on my idea to request a venue change to Riverside from Indio since it's closer to my house?

SBJustice

I'm assuming this first part was directed at me...?!

Quote:

---

Quoting SBjustice

---

I appreciate the feedback and I'm just working off the information on the ticket and that was provided by the CHP. While your comments address most of the least important subjective issues, they don't really address the reality of the situation.

This is not a situation where I'm trying to beat a ticket. I wasn't speeding and the burden has been unfortunately shifted to me to prove it. I was at no time traveling any of the speeds noted by the officer so there is a 0% probability that my vehicle was clocked. The question is, how do I fight this so that I don't pay someone else's ticket?

---

You really think so? Least important? Not the reality?

You want reality? Reality is, the officer will testify for 45 seconds, and unless you are a miracle worker, you will be convicted of this citation whether you want to admit it or not. That is "reality". But you're free to go on your wild goose chase trying to un-shift the burden. It wasn't me who shifted anything, by the way... At the end of the day, you're in possession of a citation that says you were speeding, and it even specifies your alleged speed; your plain old simple denial will net you nothing. And yes, that too is reality... But you're free to deny it all you want!

Wait until you get the discovery. Even That Guy agrees (which should tell you something), if there's a distance, it's LIDAR. Yet, the officer marked radar. There's no way he just invented that distance out of the blue via his own calculations. This is also not to be expected from CHP - maybe some small department in the Central Valley, yes.

You could point out this error and possibly have the ticket dismissed.

Keep in mind though...they're given a buffer zone larger than the Pacific Ocean for "error".

Do a trial by written declaration since the venue is so far. If you lose the trial by written declaration, then consider the change of venue for your trial de novo if necessary, although it may look somewhat frivolous to request a change of venue for a traffic ticket.