Ambiguous Location of Offense Noted on a Speeding Ticket

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

I received a CVC22350 violation and the marked speed on the ticket was 53 in a 40. The stretch of road immediately prior to the intersection in which I received my ticket (marked in red on the picture) was 55 mph. The location of the infraction was noted as "Alton & Towne Centre." As you can see from the map, towne centre wraps around and intersects with Alton twice. The first intersection of Alton & Towne Centre is within the 55mph zone, the second is when it is reduced to 40. Considering I was not ticketed for speeding above the posted speed limit, would the fact that the location listed on my ticket refers to two locations (one within the posted speed limit, one outside) be enough to dismiss? How would one recommend I proceed based on the info provided and the location/map details I attached? Appreciate the help!

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s.../MapofArea.jpg
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s.../MapofArea.jpg

Quote:

---

Quoting nick4597

---

Considering I was not ticketed for speeding above the posted speed limit

---

Of course you were... If you weren't ticketed for speeding above the speed limit then where would the officer get the 40 mph he noted on the citation and by what law/ordinance or standard would he be allowed to randomly establish a speed to cite people in violation of? He doesn't have that authority. In fact such an idea would go against all things that California laws prohibit officers from doing when issuing speeding citations in prima facie speed zones..

The 40 mph speed limit that is posted in the 40 mph zone is the safe and prudent speed for that zone. You were clocked driving 13 mph in excess of that safe speed which makes you in violation of CVC 22350 (the code section the officer cited you fort violating).

Quote:

---

Quoting nick4597

---

would the fact that the location listed on my ticket refers to two locations (one within the posted speed limit, one outside) be enough to dismiss?

---

No. You can safely assume that the location the officer is referring to is the location within the 40 mph zone. If you are still confused as to which intersection you were driving through or near when the officer clocked you, you can ask him to explain to you in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting nick4597

---

How would one recommend I proceed based on the info provided and the location/map details I attached? Appreciate the help!

---

One would recommend you proceed without the idea that a dismissal will be handed to you that easily. Once you can be sure that has sunk in, and assuming you'd be willing to do some research for a slight chance you might be able to argue for a dismissal, then one would follow with another recommendation for you to show some initiative by searching the forum for "22350 AND 40802" and reading a few threads on that topic, followed by some research on "California speed traps" and read some about that, and once you get an idea on how that might work, one would suggest that you come back to this thread and post any additional questions you might have come up with.

You're welcome to question the officer when he testifies and try to trip him up as to the location but it's more than likely that he kept notes or recorded the stop and if you can't trip him up and he's sure about where you were speeding, the judge will believe him and it's all over.

These officers are pros and you won't be the first to approach a citation like this.

Appreciate the responses. First step was to determine whether the ambiguous location (thanks for the thread title change) would have made a difference. It's clear that it does not. I will proceed with the speed trap route and chase down a survey from the city. This stretch of road (Alton) is only roughly 8 months old, so the survey will be quite new and/or hard to chase down.

Quote:

---

Quoting nick4597

---

This stretch of road (Alton) is only roughly 8 months old, so the survey will be quite new and/or hard to chase down.

---

I think it would be at the top of the stack. Literally! And I would highly doubt the officer would be out there writing them up without some sort of assurance that it already exists. what may have been the signal that prompted him to that location is the possibility that they were provided with a copy of the new survey thereby authorizing speed enforcement under 40802. Either way, that would be interesting to see if it is that recent. 2012 was the first year for a new rule that is now a part of the CVC and therefore, that particular criteria (an allowance to round down from the 85th percentile at with or without good cause at which point it forbids any further reductions) as described under CVC 21400(d) appears to have become a statutory requirement rather than simply part of the DOT regulation (which was not "mandatory" per se).

21400

(b) The Department of Transportation shall revise the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as it read on January 1, 2012, to require the Department of Transportation or a local authority to round speed limits to the nearest five miles per hour of the 85th percentile of the free-flowing traffic. However, in cases in which the speed limit needs to be rounded up to the nearest five miles per hour increment of the 85th-percentile speed, the Department of Transportation or a local authority may decide to instead round down the speed limit to the lower five miles per hour increment, but then the Department of Transportation or a local authority shall not reduce the speed limit any further for any reason.

Edited to add: Although 52 mph sound too precise to have been a pace, but just in case, and before you get too deep into research and other requests, you never mentioned in your post nor did I ask but it is safe to assume that you are aware that speed trap provisions only apply in cases where the speed was measured by Radar or Laser.