How to Determine if a Speed Survey Exists

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

I was cited for CVC 22350 in the City of Industry, CA. I was told that the agency which cited me-- LASD, Industry Station-- keeps a copy on file of all the speed surveys in their jurisdiction. However when I went to the station I was told by the desk officer that they do not have copies, but rather the city does. I pursued this with the city, and was told that the city contracts with an engineering firm (with an office right next to the Industry Sheriff Station) to keep copies of all the speed/traffic and engineering surveys.

An employee of that engineering firm told me over the phone that there is/was no survey of the stretch of road I was cited on.

I pleaded "not guilty" and I am scheduled to appear in court in roughly 2.5 months.

I have been reading on this forum and have noted the common "LA DA declined to respond to my informal discovery request" threads. I am ready to send my informal discovery request; my question is, how best to document the fact that a speed survey does not exist? I am anticipating no helpful response to my discovery request.

Thanks in advance...

If you are going to trial, you don't have to prove it doesn't exist. If they don't have one in court, it doesn't exist as far as the trial goes.
If you want to actually obtain it to check the validity, your best bet is to try CALTRANS. However, you should go ahead and request the information from the DA anyhow.

Assuming the DA and everyone does the usual and declines to respond in a helpful manner:

To whom would the Subpoena Duces Tecum be sent? The LA County DA? I'm assuming a motion to dismiss will be rejected on the basis of the informal discovery request being ignored.

What is a reasonable time frame for sending the SDT? Maybe a month after the informal discovery request?

Hold up for a moment!!!

Where is it under the vehicle code that every 22350 citation requires the prosecution to produce an E&T survey?

There are a variety of roads and highways that are under a statutory maximum limit, and even then, a 22350 citation can be issued under certain circumstances and they're isn't going to be a survey that is produced, not one that is required nor one that even exists. Also, there are cases which might include a prima facie standard set speed as is the case for alleys, schools, senior citizen centers... etc. In rare instances, one would have to also qualify whether the road is classified as a local road(definition under CVC40802)... And your post offered very little to even qualify that last part.

So you need to tell us what the speed limit and what speed you were cited for!

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

To whom would the Subpoena Duces Tecum be sent?

---

To the party in possession of whatever it maybe that you are asking them to bring along when they appear... But what are you going to subpoena?

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I'm assuming a motion to dismiss will be rejected on the basis of the informal discovery request being ignored.

---

There is no legal basis for any such outcome. And you did say you've read enough posts to understand that part...

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

What is a reasonable time frame for sending the SDT? Maybe a month after the informal discovery request?

---

There is not a single reason why a 22350 case would require that a subpoena be issued and served. I don't know what it is yo are trying to subpoena but regardless, you are either requesting something you do not need, or something they do not have/doesn't exist. So whether you serve one now or the day before the trial there is a great likelihood that you are wasting your time by requesting one and the court's time to issue one.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

Assuming the DA and everyone does the usual and declines to respond in a helpful manner:

To whom would the Subpoena Duces Tecum be sent? The LA County DA? I'm assuming a motion to dismiss will be rejected on the basis of the informal discovery request being ignored.

What is a reasonable time frame for sending the SDT? Maybe a month after the informal discovery request?

---

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Hold up for a moment!!!

Where is it under the vehicle code that every 22350 citation requires the prosecution to produce an E&T survey?

There are a variety of roads and highways that are under a statutory maximum limit, and even then, a 22350 citation can be issued under certain circumstances and they're isn't going to be a survey that is produced, not one that is required nor one that even exists. Also, there are cases which might include a prima facie standard set speed as is the case for alleys, schools, senior citizen centers... etc. In rare instances, one would have to also qualify whether the road is classified as a local road(definition under CVC40802)... And your post offered very little to even qualify that last part.

So you need to tell us what the speed limit and what speed you were cited for!

---

The particular road is Crossroads Parkway South in the City of Industry. It has four lanes, two in each direction. The speed on one segment (where it goes from Peck/Workman Mill to the intersection where it becomes Crossroads Parkway South) is 45 mph. Between Workman Mill Road and the 60 Freeway, it is 35 mph. I was on the portion where the P/F speed limit was 35 mph. The officer who cited me wrote on the Notice to Appear that he used a Laser. My understanding is that the use of a laser is permitted only when a speed survey exists. On the Notice the officer wrote that I was going 58.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

To the party in possession of whatever it maybe that you are asking them to bring along when they appear... But what are you going to subpoena?

---

I'd like to see the back side of the officer's copy of the Notice. The LASD has a traffic detective at the Industry station, which is where the officer who wrote the citation is based, but they also have a custodian of record listed at an address in Commerce.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

There is no legal basis for any such outcome. And you did say you've read enough posts to understand that part...

---

I did not write that; I wrote that I had read several posts which noted a non-response to the informal discovery request. I have a copy of Fight Your Ticket, and it explains that a non-response to the informal discovery request (covering the T&E survey) should be mentioned at trial if the officer attempts to introduce testimony regarding radar/laser speed measurement.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

There is not a single reason why a 22350 case would require that a subpoena be issued and served. I don't know what it is yo are trying to subpoena but regardless, you are either requesting something you do not need, or something they do not have/doesn't exist. So whether you serve one now or the day before the trial there is a great likelihood that you are wasting your time by requesting one and the court's time to issue one.

---

I must have missed something crucial in my reading. Would you please help me to understand?

Bump.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

The particular road is Crossroads Parkway South in the City of Industry. It has four lanes, two in each direction. The speed on one segment (where it goes from Peck/Workman Mill to the intersection where it becomes Crossroads Parkway South) is 45 mph. Between Workman Mill Road and the 60 Freeway, it is 35 mph. I was on the portion where the P/F speed limit was 35 mph. The officer who cited me wrote on the Notice to Appear that he used a Laser.

---

OK, so there is no indication that itr is a local road and it isn't a 25mph school/senior zone indicates that there must be a survey. The engineerring firm is under no obligation to speak to you or porovide you with copies of anything. I realize the DA might not reply to your informal discovery request and the police agency might slack on provding much but an attempt to obtain the survey at minimum has to be made to the DA and the citing agency. It is possible that the survey which you were told "does noit exist", does not exist in that engineering firm's list of the surveys that THEY conducted.

The way I see it is you have several options including the two mentioned above. The city of Industry is granted the authority to establish speed limits by ordinance or by resolution only after coinducting an E&T survey, which means that any speed limit that was set in its jurisdiction must have a copy of the E&T survey in its files. And since those files are public record, you are entitled to a copy. Contact the city, inquire as to who their public records liason/coordinator is and request a copy.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

My understanding is that the use of a laser is permitted only when a speed survey exists.

---

Not true. The use of Laser is permitted anywhere at any time; the prosecution is required to prove that a valid survey justifies the speed limit as described in CVC 40802.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

On the Notice the officer wrote that I was going 58.

---

Once you establish that a survey exists, that reallly signifies the end of any legitimate chance you'll have as far as a defense. You're not going to find a viable way to validate 58 in 35 as being "safe".

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I'd like to see the back side of the officer's copy of the Notice. The LASD has a traffic detective at the Industry station, which is where the officer who wrote the citation is based, but they also have a custodian of record listed at an address in Commerce.

---

I'm not suree qwhat ground breaking information you expect to find there, but make that a part of your informal discovery request.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I did not write that; I wrote that I had read several posts which noted a non-response to the informal discovery request.

---

And did you read the replies that were posted to those particular statements?

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I have a copy of Fight Your Ticket, and it explains that a non-response to the informal discovery request (covering the T&E survey) should be mentioned at trial if the officer attempts to introduce testimony regarding radar/laser speed measurement.

---

Actually, it should be mentioned BEFORE the trial. If you fail to mention it at the outset, then the court has no obligation to even discuss the issue with you as the defendant.

A non-response does not obligate the court to dismiss but it does allow for exclusion of certain evidence that was not provided under discovery if it is available for productrion.

Now, If you've mentioned it and it is available, then the court will almost invariably order the officer to disclose it before the start of trial. If you haven't mentioned it, or if it is nonexistant/not in the officer's possession, or if he does not intend on using it then you need not worry about it as it is not being used against you. This is excluding exculpatory evidence, but lets stop kidding ourselves about anything of the sort existing for a traffic violation.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I must have missed something crucial in my reading. Would you please help me to understand?

---

I'm not sure what you missed... And it would take hours for me to sit here attempting to find out so I can further clarify it. If you have any questions please post them; and someone will likely answer... Without bumping... We are all volunteers and whether you receive your answers or not, bumping is not going to force us to reply.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

The particular road is Crossroads Parkway South in the City of Industry. It has four lanes, two in each direction. The speed on one segment (where it goes from Peck/Workman Mill to the intersection where it becomes Crossroads Parkway South) is 45 mph. Between Workman Mill Road and the 60 Freeway, it is 35 mph. I was on the portion where the P/F speed limit was 35 mph. The officer who cited me wrote on the Notice to Appear that he used a Laser.

---

OK, so there is no indication that itr is a local road and it isn't a 25mph school/senior zone indicates that there must be a survey. The engineerring firm is under no obligation to speak to you or porovide you with copies of anything. I realize the DA might not reply to your informal discovery request and the police agency might slack on provding much but an attempt to obtain the survey at minimum has to be made to the DA and the citing agency. It is possible that the survey which you were told "does noit exist", does not exist in that engineering firm's list of the surveys that THEY conducted.

The way I see it is you have several options including the two mentioned above. The city of Industry is granted the authority to establish speed limits by ordinance or by resolution only after coinducting an E&T survey, which means that any speed limit that was set in its jurisdiction must have a copy of the E&T survey in its files. And since those files are public record, you are entitled to a copy. Contact the city, inquire as to who their public records liason/coordinator is and request a copy.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

My understanding is that the use of a laser is permitted only when a speed survey exists.

---

Not true. The use of Laser is permitted anywhere at any time; the prosecution is required to prove that a valid survey justifies the speed limit as described in CVC 40802.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

On the Notice the officer wrote that I was going 58.

---

Once you establish that a survey exists, that reallly signifies the end of any legitimate chance you'll have as far as a defense. You're not going to find a viable way to validate 58 in 35 as being "safe".

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I'd like to see the back side of the officer's copy of the Notice. The LASD has a traffic detective at the Industry station, which is where the officer who wrote the citation is based, but they also have a custodian of record listed at an address in Commerce.

---

I'm not suree qwhat ground breaking information you expect to find there, but make that a part of your informal discovery request.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I did not write that; I wrote that I had read several posts which noted a non-response to the informal discovery request.

---

And did you read the replies that were posted to those particular statements?

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I have a copy of Fight Your Ticket, and it explains that a non-response to the informal discovery request (covering the T&E survey) should be mentioned at trial if the officer attempts to introduce testimony regarding radar/laser speed measurement.

---

Actually, it should be mentioned BEFORE the trial. If you fail to mention it at the outset, then the court has no obligation to even discuss the issue with you as the defendant.

A non-response does not obligate the court to dismiss but it does allow for exclusion of certain evidence that was not provided under discovery if it is available for productrion.

Now, If you've mentioned it and it is available, then the court will almost invariably order the officer to disclose it before the start of trial. If you haven't mentioned it, or if it is nonexistant/not in the officer's possession, or if he does not intend on using it then you need not worry about it as it is not being used against you. This is excluding exculpatory evidence, but lets stop kidding ourselves about anything of the sort existing for a traffic violation.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I must have missed something crucial in my reading. Would you please help me to understand?

---

I'm not sure what you missed... And it would take hours for me to sit here attempting to find out so I can further clarify it. If you have any questions please post them; and someone will likely answer... Without bumping... We are all volunteers and whether you receive your answers or not, bumping is not going to force us to reply.

I really appreciate the detailed response.

May I ask, is it consistent with your understanding that the officer is supposed to have individual recall of the incident when testifying in court?

If the back of the ticket has no notes, and the incident was several months ago, would you attempt (in court) to highlight the fact that the officer may not recall the specifics?

- - - Updated - - -

Your detailed response deserves a detailed response.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

OK, so there is no indication that it is a local road and it isn't a 25mph school/senior zone indicates that there must be a survey. The engineerring firm is under no obligation to speak to you or porovide you with copies of anything. I realize the DA might not reply to your informal discovery request and the police agency might slack on provding much but an attempt to obtain the survey at minimum has to be made to the DA and the citing agency. It is possible that the survey which you were told "does noit exist", does not exist in that engineering firm's list of the surveys that THEY conducted.

The way I see it is you have several options including the two mentioned above. The city of Industry is granted the authority to establish speed limits by ordinance or by resolution only after coinducting an E&T survey, which means that any speed limit that was set in its jurisdiction must have a copy of the E&T survey in its files. And since those files are public record, you are entitled to a copy. Contact the city, inquire as to who their public records liason/coordinator is and request a copy.

---

I ended up sending informal discovery requests to the LA DA's office, the traffic officer at the citing law enforcement agency, and the City Attorney.

I did get a response to the informal discovery request from the citing agency. The officer returned my discovery letter with some highlighting and annotations. To my request for the survey, the annotation written in the margin of the discovery request was "None." They also sent a copy of the Notice to Appear, front and back.

I also got a telephone response from the City Attorney which I will be following up with.

In addition I got a letter from the LA DA's office stating "The District Attorney does not prosecute the type of traffic offense you are charged with. Therefore, we are unable to provide you with any of the items you requested. You will need to request the items that you seek from the law enforcement agency that issued you the citation."

[...]

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

I'm not sure what ground breaking information you expect to find there, but make that a part of your informal discovery request.

---

It was explained to me by a retired LEO that a significant proportion of officers seldom make notes on the back of a citation, but that the standard which is supposed to be upheld by the court is individual recall of the circumstances pertaining to the citation. Material from Nolo supports the LEO's account; it was suggested to me that if the back of the notice is blank (which it is), it may be feasible to object to the officer's testimony on the grounds that he can no longer recall the incident, which was several months ago.

[...]

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

If you have any questions please post them; and someone will likely answer... Without bumping... We are all volunteers and whether you receive your answers or not, bumping is not going to force us to reply.

---

Thanks again for your detailed response, and I apologize for bumping.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

May I ask, is it consistent with your understanding that the officer is supposed to have individual recall of the incident when testifying in court?

---

My understanding really doesn't matter (or maybe be you can deduce it from my reply). Question is, what do you think? And do you seriously expect ANY human being to have the ability to recall "specifics" that occurred several months prior especially when he or she is employed in the line of work where a variety of such details are likely to occur day aftrer day after day?

The answer is clearly no, there is no way he is going to remember sepecific details but what is an even more important question is, what specific details are you asking about? Are you asking about what color shirt you were wearing that day? Or what song was playing in the background when he was asking you for your license? The answer to that is how do those relate to your guilt or innocence and why would you expcet him to remember them; better yet, why do you think a judge will allow that line of questioning or that s/he would rule in your favor simply because the officer couldn't remember if your car has 2 doors or four doors!

The details that he is required to remember is what speed he measured you at, what the speed limit is, the location of the violation, the approximate time on such and such a date... Other minor details are alos noted on the citation and need not be supported by additional notes.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

If the back of the ticket has no notes, and the incident was several months ago, would you attempt (in court) to highlight the fact that the officer may not recall the specifics?

---

It depends on what specifics you are talking about. If this was a murder trial, and the officer happened to be one of the investigating officers, then I can see how there would be a requirement for him to recall the details of how he was able to locate each and every hair he secured into evidence. A month later or several months later, that can turn out ot be a turning point in the trial of such a serious offense.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I ended up sending informal discovery requests to the LA DA's office, the traffic officer at the citing law enforcement agency, and the City Attorney.

I did get a response to the informal discovery request from the citing agency. The officer returned my discovery letter with some highlighting and annotations. To my request for the survey, the annotation written in the margin of the discovery request was "None." They also sent a copy of the Notice to Appear, front and back.

I also got a telephone response from the City Attorney which I will be following up with.

In addition I got a letter from the LA DA's office stating "The District Attorney does not prosecute the type of traffic offense you are charged with. Therefore, we are unable to provide you with any of the items you requested. You will need to request the items that you seek from the law enforcement agency that issued you the citation."

---

You know even with as inconceivable a report of a nonexisting survey is, it is even more incredible to read someone reporting all three entities having replied to your request in under 9 days.

As far as what counts though, if they have no survey then they should not even be conducting any speed enforcement. Makes your case an easy win, so why are you wondering about indepenedant recall or any other immaterial detail I am not sure.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

It was explained to me by a retired LEO that a significant proportion of officers seldom make notes on the back of a citation, but that the standard which is supposed to be upheld by the court is individual recall of the circumstances pertaining to the citation. Material from Nolo supports the LEO's account; it was suggested to me that if the back of the notice is blank (which it is), it may be feasible to object to the officer's testimony on the grounds that he can no longer recall the incident, which was several months ago.

---

OK, so you really have tossed aside the most critical and material issue in this case, in lieu of this meaningless issue about independant recall. Explain to me what is it you are expecting the officer not to recall, that you find so critical to make such a huge issue of it? Maybe I am misunderstanding somerthing.... What is it you plan on asking him?

Did you discuss with this retired LEO what his agency would have done if a survey did or did not exist? Did you ask him about the specifics of your case and what he thought your best defense might be?

You can object to the officer's mere spelling of his name if you choose. Rest assured that if you are questioning him about irrelevant and or immaterial issues, is the quick sure way to piss of a judge, have him shut you out and shut you down where not only are you no longer able to cross examine the officer, you are done with presentation of your case to the court even if you have not finished as of yet!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

[...]
The details that he is required to remember is what speed he measured you at, what the speed limit is, the location of the violation, the approximate time on such and such a date... Other minor details are also noted on the citation and need not be supported by additional notes.

It depends on what specifics you are talking about.[...]

---

Actually, what the retired LEO told me is as follows:

Check for the existence of a current T&E survey. He said when he was on the job he would not be wasting time writing radar/laser citations on a stretch of road where there was no current survey (within five years). Additionally, he said to request a copy of the back side of the ticket. According to his training and experience, the legal standard he's required to meet in court is independent recollection of the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation. His advice was that if the back of the ticket is blank, it is worth to pursue dragging the matter out to undermine the officer's recollection of the event, and in court a possible strategy would be to attack the officer's inability to recall the circumstances. His advice is backed up by two sources that I was reading:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...apter12-2.html

Quote:

---

Quoting Nolo Press

---

Most objections to testimony are made on one of the following four grounds.
The Witness Has Not Provided Enough Detail to Show Why He or She Has Personal Knowledge of His or Her Testimony
This is called failing to provide a "foundation" or "legal basis" for the testimony. For example, if a police officer refers to a diagram, the officer must first say how he or she knows the diagram is an accurate reflection of the place you were stopped and ticketed. Usually this is done when the officer testifies that he or she drew the diagram after writing the ticket while still looking at the scene.
If the officer fails to do this, you could say, "Objection, Your Honor. The officer has not provided a proper foundation for using the diagram. He apparently has no independent recollection of the incident and should not be allowed to refresh his memory with the diagram which may not even be of the proper area."
This objection can be useful if you believe the officer really isn't prepared to lay the proper foundation, in which case the diagram could not be used against you. But, if you are pretty sure the officer will simply explain facts and convince the judge the diagram accurately reflects the area where the ticket was given, it's a mistake to waste the judge's time with what the judge will likely consider to be a frivolous objection.
Object to the officer's use of notes. Watch the officer carefully to see if the officer is using notes while giving testimony. As discussed in What Happens in Traffic Ticket Trial by Judge?, officers commonly testify by using notes scribbled on the back of their copy of the ticket. If the officer refreshes his or her memory in this way, you have a right to object on the basis the officer hasn't "laid the foundation" necessary to use the notes. This may discombobulate the officer, who may then have to admit that he or she can't remember much without the notes. On cross-examination, you may then want to press this point home by asking the officer about details of what happened. Assuming the officer can't remember, you'll have a better shot at testifying to facts that raise a reasonable doubt as to whether you are really guilty. And then in your final argument, tell the judge that, based on the officer's poor recollection and your testimony, there is a reasonable doubt as to your guilt.

---

http://www.worldlawdirect.com/articl...ng-ticket.html

Quote:

---

Quoting World Law Direct

---

Typical Objections

The purpose of objections is to limit the evidence or testimony to that which is specifically relevant and admissible to the case. The judge has sole authority over what is admitted and what is not admitted to the trial; however, the judge can only invoke this authority if the evidence or testimony is challenged by objection. In other words, if you don’t raise a flag the judge will not salute you. When in doubt, object and let the judge rule as to whether the evidence or testimony is admissible. You need to walk a fine line with the objection tactic. Too many invalid objections are only going to anger the judge and put you in a position of a possible contempt of court charge. Too few objections and the prosecution will roll right over you. Here are the typical objections used in a traffic ticket trial, in the order you will likely have cause to invoke them:

OBJECTION, Independent Recollection As soon as the officer begins to testify, he will likely read from his copy of the citation. You need to immediately object to this since the officer is required to testify from “independent recollection.” You also need to ask to see what it is the officer is reading even if you received the officer’s copy of the citation through subpoena. The judge will likely allow the officer to use his notes to refresh his memory if the officer tells the court that he will require the notes to testify. This will now start the wheels in motion for a dismissal since the 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees you the right to be confronted with the witnesses against you. The officer and his testimony, not the citation, are the witnesses against you. If the officer has no independent recollection he is considered incompetent to testify. You need to establish that the officer is unable to testify without his notes to paint him as an incompetent witness. One other important point concerning the use of the officer’s notes. If his citation reads: “NBI45” then all he can testify to is NBI45 not North Bound on Interstate Highway 45. As you can see, the citation notes in this case will hurt the officer’s testimony and help your case.

---

Neither of these passages cite a particular section of the code, which is why I was asking about independent recollection.

I figure I have one bite at the apple once I get in front of the judge, and I don't think it is foolish to be well-prepared. I'm not a lawyer and I've never fought a traffic ticket before.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

You know even with as inconceivable a report of a nonexisting survey is, it is even more incredible to read someone reporting all three entities having replied to your request in under 9 days.

As far as what counts though, if they have no survey then they should not even be conducting any speed enforcement. Makes your case an easy win, so why are you wondering about indepenedant recall or any other immaterial detail I am not sure.

---

I agree, it looks like there is no survey, which means I'm probably in the clear, but I'm still not 100% certain of that, so while I am working on getting certain I am just making sure to tie up any loose ends, and the individual recollection issue is just one of them.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

[...]Explain to me what is it you are expecting the officer not to recall, that you find so critical to make such a huge issue of it? Maybe I am misunderstanding somerthing.... What is it you plan on asking him?

Did you discuss with this retired LEO what his agency would have done if a survey did or did not exist? Did you ask him about the specifics of your case and what he thought your best defense might be?

You can object to the officer's mere spelling of his name if you choose. Rest assured that if you are questioning him about irrelevant and or immaterial issues, is the quick sure way to piss of a judge, have him shut you out and shut you down where not only are you no longer able to cross examine the officer, you are done with presentation of your case to the court even if you have not finished as of yet!

---

I was hoping to read some advice on how to best highlight the fact that the officer is unable to recall the circumstances. Reading some generic advice on a Web site is one thing, but standing in front of a judge who has probably seen their share of jailhouse lawyer tactics-- "Your honor, the 6th Amendment guarantees me the right to be confronted by the witnesses against me, and this officer is the witness, not the notes on the back of the citation" seems a little Perry Mason-esque, and perhaps there is a wiser, smoother way to say that-- and I just want to be well-prepared and avoid doing something dumb.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

Actually, what the retired LEO told me is as follows:

Check for the existence of a current T&E survey. He said when he was on the job he would not be wasting time writing radar/laser citations on a stretch of road where there was no current survey (within five years). Additionally, he said to request a copy of the back side of the ticket. According to his training and experience, the legal standard he's required to meet in court is independent recollection of the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation. His advice was that if the back of the ticket is blank, it is worth to pursue dragging the matter out to undermine the officer's recollection of the event, and in court a possible strategy would be to attack the officer's inability to recall the circumstances.

---

I don't need you to repeat your conversation with the retired officer. After all, laws change, police procedures change and what he was trained for years ago would likely seem primitive in today's world. My point was to infer that instead of wasting your time and his talking about independant recollection, you should be doing more research about the existance or lackthereof a survey in this case. In other words, you should leave the independant recollection issue aside becuase it is a moot point, it will not get you anywhere and it will not win you the case, with or without the survey.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

According to his training and experience, the legal standard he's required to meet in court is independent recollection of the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation.

---

Well, it is either one of two things... He either did not issue many citations or the citations he issued were never prosecuted.

As for the links you posted, Nolo is in the business of selling books, are they not? Do you think they would include a page or two in each chapter to entice someone to seek more details? I know they do.. Still, I do believe they have a forum of there own,. Maybe you can ask them about relevant material that they are publishing!

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I was hoping to read some advice on how to best highlight the fact that the officer is unable to recall the circumstances. Reading some generic advice on a Web site is one thing, but standing in front of a judge who has probably seen their share of jailhouse lawyer tactics-- "Your honor, the 6th Amendment guarantees me the right to be confronted by the witnesses against me, and this officer is the witness, not the notes on the back of the citation" seems a little Perry Mason-esque, and perhaps there is a wiser, smoother way to say that-- and I just want to be well-prepared and avoid doing something dumb.

---

And yet you are still unprepared (if you aren't 100% sure there isn't a survey) and are doing everything you can to doing something dumb (discussing issues that are irrelevant).

And I am sorry I will not waste my time discussing matters that I know the court will allow you zero leeway on. As I posted above, the issues here are your speed, the speed limit, road conditions and whether a survey exists or not. And again, this case is not going to be won or lost on independant recollection. The issue herre is whether a valid survey exists or not. If a current and valid survey exists, then you aren't likely to win the case. If a current and valid survey does not exist, then you motion the court for a dismissal and hope the judge agrees.

To prepare and pretend that you are going to go to court to beat the officer by questioning his ability to remember facts that are irrelevant to the charged offense, you'd be fooling yourself and you're free to continue on that road on your own.

Good luck!

I received an email from the city clerk stating that a traffic and engineering survey does not exist for this particular road.

Fight Your Ticket does not explicitly address these circumstances, though it does offer several sample motions for dismissal.

My take is nothing ventured, nothing gained, but regarding a motion for dismissal, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be easier to simply appear. On the LA County Superior Court Web site it mentions that a consolidation is taking place in the court system right now, and I gather things have become very chaotic in the courts to which things have been transferred/consolidated.

In my case, the written motion to dismiss wasn't actually heard until the trial started. At that point, it essentially became a Pen C 1118 motion. That's actually fortuitous, because a dismissal under Pen C 1385 isn't a bar to further prosecution for misdemeanors or infractions if the case is dismissed before jeopardy attaches. By ensuring that the trial had commenced, and then dismissing the case under PC 1385, the judge ensured that the state couldn't re-file the ticket later.

If you do go to court, it would still make sense to write your argument down so you can hand a copy to the judge. If you get nervous, you'll at least have something written for the judge to read. Make sure you object if the officer testifies about your speed without introducing a survey into evidence. Re-read the sections in Fight Your Ticket about the PC 1118 motion, as well as the E&TS.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

Fight Your Ticket does not explicitly address these circumstances

---

Fight your ticket has a complete Chapter dedicated to DUIs...

How about a few pointers on how to deal with officer's requests for a breath test?

Portable and roadside versus, stationary at the station? Pros and cons!!!


You go first!

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

regarding a motion for dismissal, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be easier to simply appear.

---

How else would you present and argue your motion?

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

On the LA County Superior Court Web site it mentions that a consolidation is taking place in the court system right now, and I gather things have become very chaotic in the courts to which things have been transferred/consolidated.

---

Consolidation, layoffs of hundreds of people, ousted commissioners offered severance pay that amounts to millions of dollars in total... ALL of that started in 2008. So to describe current conditions as being chaotic... Not the term I would use. Most people would not know the difference. that does not change the fact that even before 2008, traffic court motions were never scheduled for separate hearings!

You're a paralegal, no?

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

You're a paralegal, no?

---

What difference would it make?

Just curious.

No, I'm not!

I recently went to trial for the aforementioned ticket. As part of my preparation I visited the traffic court on a different day than my trial and watched for a while to see how things go. There were two separate cases where the commissioner/judge asked if the officer was present, to which a different officer (presumably from the same department) responded, in effect, "I was not the citing officer, so I have no individual recall of the circumstances surrounding the citation." Those cases were dismissed.

Regarding my own case, the officer was not present, so the case was dismissed. But even if he had appeared, there was no T&E survey, so I expected to win regardless.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

I recently went to trial for the aforementioned ticket. As part of my preparation I visited the traffic court on a different day than my trial and watched for a while to see how things go. There were two separate cases where the commissioner/judge asked if the officer was present, to which a different officer (presumably from the same department) responded, in effect, "I was not the citing officer, so I have no individual recall of the circumstances surrounding the citation." Those cases were dismissed.

---

I am not sure what your point is behind posting ^this part^ but for one, the issue is not "individual recall", instead, it is "independent recollection"... More sadly for you, and although you've made statements and asked questions throughout this thread that made it clear that you are naive and uninformed about the legal process and what it entails. This, however, takes it a few steps further to show that you are dumb and thick headed. If we were to only consider one single reason as to why what you're claiming to have witnessed isn't likely to happen, I would consider that it would be a waste of that police agency's payroll hours/dollars to have one officer appear on behalf of another simply to stand up and say what you described. Little do you know that a simple phone call to the judge's clerk (yes, officers have direct numbers to the court whereas you don't) or even the mere fact that the officer isn't there would suffice. You've made it more than obvious that you lack any knowledge about how an officer is ordered to appear by way of a subpoena; the evidence code requirements that must be met, or the simple fact that what you're claiming makes no rhyme or reason.

So in your attempt to try and press on a point I already told you is of no relevance or importance, you attempted to lie. And do you know what is worse than a liar? A liar who gets it all wrong, i.e. a "stupid liar"...

Oh, but wait... You were not done yet; you weren't happy with it only happening once, you had to claim it happened twice. In one day. Which would then require that we double up ion you being a stupid liar... Which is equal to you qualifying for "one glaring idiot"!

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

Regarding my own case, the officer was not present, so the case was dismissed. But even if he had appeared, there was no T&E survey, so I expected to win regardless.

---

Yeah... I'm sorry, but you screwed the other one up so badly that there is sufficient basis to presume that you are lying about this one as well. For all we know you were probably convicted and misunderstood that to mean a dismissal.

On its face, none of the above is important, as those are your issues to deal with. The point at which this becomes an issue that is disconcerting to me, is knowing that someone with your lack of common sense is actually allowed to drive! Add the part where you mentioning L A county in all of this, and all of a sudden, it becomes personal! :hopelessness: :nightmare:

Edited To Add: Sorry... I forgot to say thanks for the update.

If you believe that your opinion matters to me, you should reconsider. Your post says far more about yourself than it does about me.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

If you believe that your opinion matters to me, you should reconsider.

---

And there it is folks... Yet another slimy leech who was acting all nice, apologetic, thankful and appreciative throughout the entire time he needed something and has turned into his normally nasty disrespecting liar self now that he thinks he's accomplished such a great feat. If it hadn't been for my opinion, you'd still be sitting there with an old, retired LEO waiting for him to provide you with anything of value.

Quote:

---

Quoting renny0021

---

Your post says far more about yourself than it does about me.

---

Why am I not surprised that you'd misunderstand what I posted? Only the last paragraph (before the ETA) was about me. But don't let that throw you off... The rest of that post.... Was all about you!