I would agree with cdwjava that there was no impeding or obstruction... I disagree with your assumption that a clear path in your lane is a defense to an exhibition charge or that it would justify your actions as you were still limited by the 25 mph statutory speed limit in a business district. Furthermore, and though I wasn't there but I can tell you that from your brief description, an exhibition of speed charge appears to be warranted.
Here is the code section in question:
23109 (c) A person shall not engage in a motor vehicle exhibition of speed on a highway, and a person shall not aid or abet in a motor vehicle exhibition of speed on any highway.
To prove your guilt, the prosecution must prove all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. From a reading of the code section, those elements are:
1) That you drove a motor vehicle;
2) And you drove it on a highway;
3) and in doing so you accelerated or drove at a rate that was unsafe and dangerous and is indicative of a willful attempt to show off or impress someone.
But wait, there are other qualifiers. The prosecution must prove that this was a "willful" attempt not necessarily to break the law, to hurt or injure anybody but only a willful attempt to show off. There is no requirement to prove that you attempted to show off to any one person in particular only that you intended to show off.
The legal authority for that analogy is based on case law dating back to 1964, where in
People v. Grier, 226 Cal. App. 2d 360 - Cal: Court of Appeal 1964 the 2nd district appellate held as follows:
"Exhibition" is defined as: "An act or instance of showing, evincing, or showing off; ..." (Webster's New Internal. Dict. (3d ed. 1961) p. 796.) Coupled as the word is in this statute with a prohibition against speed "contests," it may be argued that the statute requires not only an observer, but an observer known to defendant to be present and observing and an intent on the part of the defendant to impress that observer with the speed obtained--whether the impression be one of admiration, envy, disgust, fear or resentment. While the record here is totally void of any showing that defendant knew he was under observation, much less that he intended in any way to impress any possible observer, it was for the trier of fact to determine from the evidence adduced whether such intent might properly be inferred. Had this display of acceleration and peeling and screaming of tires taken place on a lonely strip of road in the Mojave desert with no one visible or within earshot, the point might have some merit. Here, the evidence showed this display took place in a highly developed and populated area. The officer testified several cars passed "behind the defendant" while the officer was leaving his observation post to pursue defendant. Not only is there evidence from which it may be inferred many persons were within earshot, but there was direct testimony that observers were present. There is no merit in the contention that the observer must be one known to the exhibitor.
In your case, and while it
may be missing the element of "
peeling and screaming of tires", the acceleration (not strictly "
speed" but the rate at which your speed increased) was there (you say you went 25 to 40, the officer says 25 to 60, lets split the difference and assume 50) essentially doubling the speed limit, and as if that is not enough, and to add more fuel to the fire, comes unquestionable proof of the "exhibition" requirement, in the name of a Tubi Exhaust.
And did you have an audience? Even if we toss aside the Toyota driver as well as the other car that was in the vicinity, all those homeless people who voted you should be taken to jail were watching and listening.
This information is simply to put things in proper perspective not only with what seems to be a synopsis of how things might transpire in court, but this can also be used as the basis to deny your request for early release of your vehicle.
Good luck to you on both fronts though. And please, do keep us updated.