Arguing Radar Margin of Error in Defense of a 102 MPH Speeding Ticket

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

Kern County Court have sent me a letter with $859 fine and 2 points.
I've spoken to court who said I can file a Trial by Written Declaration.

Whilst I was well over the 70 limit I slowed down every time i was nearing 100 and do not believe i exceeded 100 mph and the radar gun was not completely accurate.
I plan to argue there was a 2-3 mph margin or error (which radar guns can have) in my statement on the TR 205 creating reasonable doubt and lower the conviction.

Does anyone know where I can find any boilerplate legal language that I can use in my TR 205 statement using this argument?

a claim is meaningless without proof of the claim. To make a valid claim you would have to have the spec manual for the SMD and be able to cite the claims made in the spec's.



it is also more likely your speedometer has a greater margin of error than the radar unit.

Quote:

---

do not believe i exceeded 100 mph

---

you don't believe you did? If you cannot even say with certainty you did not exceed 100 mph, even if it is based only on your speedometer, your argument is meaningless. I know if I never look at my speedometer I can make the same argument since I was never aware I was going above any particular speed. That does not a defense make.

Thanks jk.

The burden of proof for being guilty for this charge is on the the court/police to show there that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the radar gun reading (not my reading of my speedometer) which there is as there is a 2-3mph margin of error.

The purpose of my post was to find any good templates or legal language that I could use for this argument. Please let me know if you know of any good resources where I can find this.

You have no basis to argue margin of error, absent the radar info on that gun.

Quote:

---

Quoting bradnico

---

Thanks jk.

The burden of proof for being guilty for this charge is on the the court/police to show there that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the radar gun reading (not my reading of my speedometer) which there is as there is a 2-3mph margin of error.

---

The court does not carry any burden as far as having to prove anything for this charge.

Your margin of error argument has been tried and tested and it fails every time simply because margin of error works to increase your speed as well as reduce it. So you were clocked at 102 means the range is anywhere between 102 + 2 and 102 -2, resulting in a probable speed of 100 to 104... There is a 75 % chance you were in excess of 100. And a declaration or a trip to the courthouse with such an argument is not worth the postage stamp you put on it.

To build on jk's point, the officer will present factual evidence of your speed being in violation of 22348(b) using a device that has been accepted by the court as being sufficiently accurate to convict thousands of people, all up against you saying (1) "I don't think I was speeding" and while presenting a mathematical theory that shows the likelihood that you are guilty by 3 times to one being not guilty.

Quote:

---

Quoting bradnico

---

The purpose of my post was to find any good templates or legal language that I could use for this argument. Please let me know if you know of any good resources where I can find this.

---

There are no templates to present legal arguments simply because arguing legal matters depends on the circumstances of each case. But you're free to continue looking.

Quote:

---

Quoting bradnico

---

T
The burden of proof for being guilty for this charge is on the the court/police to show there that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the radar gun reading (not my reading of my speedometer) which there is as there is a 2-3mph margin of error.

---

You have to understand what reasonable doubt is. That Guy explained the situation quite well with the + OR - issue of accuracy. Due to that, it is just as reasonable to believe you were going faster than 102 as it is under 102. That means there is no reasonable doubt created in arguing the accuracy as you are considering.

but beyond that, you continue to make the claim there is a 2-3 mph margin of error but as I said before, making the statement is not evidence. It is you making a statement. If that was all it took, then I would fight every speeding ticket due to I am claiming all SMD's display a speed 150% higher than the true speed.

See how that doesn't work?

then, you are also arguing that your speedometer accuracy is irrelevant. Wrong., You want to make the argument you do not believe you exceeded 100 mph. How did you determine that? Do you have radar eyeballs? Of course not. You are depending on your speedometer to make that statement. So, if your speedo is 10% off, then at 100mph reading, you could actually have been going 110 mph. The inaccurate speedo is not a defense.

Their burden of proof is met once it is attested to that you were speeding. The radar is merely proof of that claim. Everything else is simply evidence and support for the statement you were speeding.


So, now how do you defend it?

Thanks That Guy.

If there is any reasonable doubt at all can a conviction be reduced? In this case while I understand my chances are low there is still a 25% chance i was not speeding over 100 mph. Is this degree of reasonable doubt not considered by the court at all as I thought any degree of reasonable doubt could help lower my case. He cant' show beyond a reasonable doubt i was going over 100mph nor can they show i was going 102, 103, 104.

Are there any templates or websites containing examples which cover various circumstances?

Your reasonable doubt is not the reasonable doubt required in a court to get you off.

Even if you could enforce your reasonable doubt as that required in court, you are 25% sure you did not go over 100mph which means you are 75% sure you were going over 100mph. So, is there reasonable doubt you were not exceeding 100mph? nope.

Quote:

---

He cant' show beyond a reasonable doubt i was going over 100mph nor can they show i was going 102, 103, 104.

---

actually, he can. He has his testimony of his determination of your speed and the radar supporting that determination.

You obviously do not understand what reasonable doubt is.

If the officer measured your speed at 102 MPH and the margin of error on the radar unit is +/- 2.5 MPH, you would have a plausible argument that your speed could have been 99.5 and that the prosecutor cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were driving in excess of 100 MPH. If you were driving 105 MPH, and the officer made a note of that on your ticket while citing you for 102 MPH, that's your margin of error, right there.

Beyond that, guessing at the margin of error won't help you - as others have indicated, you need to find out the actual margin of error for the actual device used. I expect you'll find that the margin of error (in a properly maintained unit) is more like +/- 1 MPH.

I'm not sure where you're getting this 2-3 MPH margin of error. I am personally familiar with about a dozen different makes and models of RADAR. MOST of the handheld and mounted units in "stationary" mode are +/- 1 MPH. MOST of the mounted units in "moving" mode are +/- 2 MPH. SOME are +2/-1 MPH. I don't know of ANY with a wider range than +/- 2 MPH.

Now, all that aside, even if you were clocked with a mobile unit, reading 102, that means you were travelling 100, 101, 102, 103, or 104. Yes, there is an 80% chance that you were above the 100 MPH limit. But, I'd like to know how a 20% chance could not be considered "reasonable" doubt. What if you only had a 70% chance of being guilty? Should you be found guilty? How about 60%? or 51%? How much doubt is "reasonable"? Keep in mind, I'm not in CA -- in WA the standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence", in which case 51% IS good enough.

Certainly, you don't have to be found 100% guilty, but, really, isn't a 20% chance "reasonable"?

Barry