Pulled Over for Speeding While in a Gas Station, VC 22349(A)

My question involves traffic court in the State of: California

Cited for 22349(a) for doing 75 in a 55 (no radar; only visual estimation)

Driving along a highway (speed limit 55) with two other motorcycles in front of me. Sheriff is driving behind me. All three of us pull into a gas station. I pull up to a pump and get off my bike to fill up gas. This is when I notice the cop has flipped on his lights and has followed the 2 other motorcyclists to a parking spot. At this point, I start gassing up, and a border patrol officer walks up to me and tells me to go talk to the officer after I finish filling up. I'm an upstanding citizen (obviously), so I don't just drive away. Pull into a spot next to the sheriff's patrol car, and he asks me for my license / registration. Talks to us for ~30 min. about how he's seen so many motorcyclists crash and die on this road due to trying to keep up with other motorcyclists, makes a comment about how he "thinks he saw us out here yesterday, tried to pull us over then, but couldn't catch us" and proceeds to write us all tickets.

I'm considering requesting a trial by written declaration due to this bizarre nature of events. Is there a limit from the time you're on your vehicle to when a cop pulls you over for driving at an excess speed?

Interested in thoughts and comments. Thanks in advance.

Quote:

---

Quoting w0lf3h

---

Is there a limit from the time you're on your vehicle to when a cop pulls you over for driving at an excess speed?

---

No. He may stop you at most any convenient time.

I believe visual estimate alone can be used to support a speeding violation. You don't deny speeding in your post so I'm guessing you were.

If you're just trying to avoid a conviction here, TBD is a good first step, followed by Trial de Novo. You essentially require the officer to prove the case twice. If they either don't respond at TBD or don't show up at TDN, you win, assuming you don't make any stupid admissions (like accepting responsibility for your illegal driving habit). You can go even further by disqualifying any and all temporary judges and then disqualifying the first real judge or commissioner you appear before using a PC 170.6 challenge, assuming the officer shows up. Anytime you do, it's possible that you'll delay the trial until another day or to a time when the officer can't be there. This tactic is particularly useful late in the court day as it's less likely that the case can be moved to another court that same day.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

I believe visual estimate alone can be used to support a speeding violation. You don't deny speeding in your post so I'm guessing you were.

If you're just trying to avoid a conviction here, TBD is a good first step, followed by Trial de Novo. You essentially require the officer to prove the case twice. If they either don't respond at TBD or don't show up at TDN, you win, assuming you don't make any stupid admissions (like accepting responsibility for your illegal driving habit). You can go even further by disqualifying any and all temporary judges and then disqualifying the first real judge or commissioner you appear before using a PC 170.6 challenge, assuming the officer shows up. Anytime you do, it's possible that you'll delay the trial until another day or to a time when the officer can't be there. This tactic is particularly useful late in the court day as it's less likely that the case can be moved to another court that same day.

---

I don't actually recall speeding, but I suppose there's always that possibility. I mean... it basically comes down to my word vs. the officer's, so I'm not really too keen to fight the ticket on that fact alone. Even if I wasn't speeding, there's not really much I can do about it.

Just wanted to see if I could use the circumstance as some benefit to myself. I'll most likely try trial by written declaration and then go and request traffic school if it fails.

You don't recall but it's possible? In other words, you may or may not have been but don't know? Maybe that cop's action will someday save your life if you slow down!

Quote:

---

Quoting jeff1970

---

You don't recall but it's possible? In other words, you may or may not have been but don't know? Maybe that cop's action will someday save your life if you slow down!

---

Lol. It's also a good idea to keep your eyes on the road and not glued to the speedometer while you drive. There's always the possibility I was 1 mph over the speed limit, and that's considered speeding.

Also, I wouldn't be too concerned about someone's life if they were purposely speeding. That's their decision. I'd be more concerned about the lives of other drivers.

I’m confused. Did he write you for speeding just before you pulled into the gas station, or did he write you for speeding as he observed the day prior? If it were the day prior, I can imagine how he would have a very difficult time proving that it was you he saw.

Quote:

---

Quoting w0lf3h

---

I don't actually recall speeding,

---

I wish I had a buck for every time I've read that. LOL.

Quote:

---

Quoting w0lf3h

---

it basically comes down to my word vs. the officer's,

---

And the judge will believe the officer instead of one of thousands who parade through the court claiming they didn't do it.

Quote:

---

Quoting w0lf3h

---

Just wanted to see if I could use the circumstance as some benefit to myself.

---

You can try donzoh1's tactics. They seem to have a reasonable chance of working.

But even if you manage to beat the ticket you'd still need to pay more attention to your speed. Glancing at the speedometer occasionally isn't going to put you in any danger and you don't even have to look at it to know you are doing 20 miles over the limit when you are passing every other driver on the road. So give us a break with that innocence baloney.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

I wish I had a buck for every time I've read that. LOL.

You can try donzoh1's tactics. They seem to have a reasonable chance of working.

---

Why try that? He's been banned and that's probably because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Quote:

---

Quoting jeff1970

---

Why try that? He's been banned and that's probably because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

---

While he may have been incorrect at times and a general PITA at times, his advice as given above is legal. It is simply playing games with the system to try and get off. CA set their system up in a manner that such games are possible, although not necessarily effective, so people are free to play them if they wish.

Quote:

---

Quoting jeff1970

---

Why try that? He's been banned and that's probably because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

---

Your use of the word "probably" indicates that you don't know what you are talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

While he may have been incorrect at times and a general PITA at times, his advice as given above is legal. It is simply playing games with the system to try and get off. CA set their system up in a manner that such games are possible, although not necessarily effective, so people are free to play them if they wish.

---

You are correct. California laws are very conducive to a person who wishes to enjoy all the benefits they offer. People who do not take advantage of the well established laws in CA may as well not be taking legal deductions on their income tax.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting jeff1970

---

Why try that? He's been banned and that's probably because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

---

It seems odd that you are disparaging a member who only advocates using the law for a defense to its fullest extent and at the same time, you seek similar help from members on the same site: http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183059&p=865570#post865570

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

I wish I had a buck for every time I've read that. LOL.



And the judge will believe the officer instead of one of thousands who parade through the court claiming they didn't do it.



You can try donzoh1's tactics. They seem to have a reasonable chance of working.

But even if you manage to beat the ticket you'd still need to pay more attention to your speed. Glancing at the speedometer occasionally isn't going to put you in any danger and you don't even have to look at it to know you are doing 20 miles over the limit when you are passing every other driver on the road. So give us a break with that innocence baloney.

---

First off, it's a one lane road going in each direction. :) Secondly, throttles are tricky things. I can accelerate 20mph in the flick of a wrist if I wanted to. I don't know exactly where the deputy "thinks" he saw me since I wasn't even aware of him till the border patrol officer approached me at the gas station and pointed him out to me. Therefore I don't know what point in time he thinks I could have been speeding. There are times where I do have to accelerate to get out of tight situations (for example, other drivers crossing the double yellow on the opposite side). I can guarantee I wasn't driving above the speed limit for any extended period of time (and esp. at the speed that the deputy thinks I was driving) because that is a curvy road, and I literally cannot take corners at those speeds.

Yet you admit you don't even look at your speedo as it is unsafe to do so so you can not argue you were not speeding since you simply couldn't know for certain since you don't look at your speedo.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Yet you admit you don't even look at your speedo as it is unsafe to do so so you can not argue you were not speeding since you simply couldn't know for certain since you don't look at your speedo.

---

I said I don't stare at my speedometer. Unless you stare at your speedometer (or have a camera pointed at your speedometer), there is always a possibility you are speeding at any given time. If you are not looking at your exact speed, you COULD (possibly) be speeding.

Quote:

---

Quoting w0lf3h

---

I said I don't stare at my speedometer. Unless you stare at your speedometer (or have a camera pointed at your speedometer), there is always a possibility you are speeding at any given time. If you are not looking at your exact speed, you COULD (possibly) be speeding.

---

You said it is unsafe to take your eyes off the road to look at your speedo so either you admit you knowingly drive in an unsafe manner or you don't look at your speedo.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You said it is unsafe to take your eyes off the road to look at your speedo so either you admit you knowingly drive in an unsafe manner or you don't look at your speedo.

---

No, I actually implied it was unsafe to have your eyes glued to the speedometer while you drive. ;)

Unless you were looking at the officer clocking you and your speedometer at the same time, the appropriate answer is I don't know for sure. I would be guessing if I tried to reply.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

Unless you were looking at the officer clocking you and your speedometer at the same time, the appropriate answer is I don't know for sure. I would be guessing if I tried to reply.

---

I agree. And that is why I said something along the lines of "I could possibly have been speeding." To my knowledge, I was not. However, I do not know when the cop attempted to pace my speed, and therefore I cannot say with certainty that I was AT or BELOW the speed limit. I can only say that I do not recall speeding.

Quote:

---

Quoting w0lf3h

---

I agree. And that is why I said something along the lines of "I could possibly have been speeding." To my knowledge, I was not. However, I do not know when the cop attempted to pace my speed, and therefore I cannot say with certainty that I was AT or BELOW the speed limit. I can only say that I do not recall speeding.

---

and since the cop does recall you speeding, care to guess what the court will decide here?

but anyway, have you figured out if the ticket was for that day or the previous day? As another poster said previously, if the day before, if you wear a helmet anyway, might provide some basis for a defense.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and since the cop does recall you speeding, care to guess what the court will decide here?

but anyway, have you figured out if the ticket was for that day or the previous day? As another poster said previously, if the day before, if you wear a helmet anyway, might provide some basis for a defense.

---

Speeding tickets are only ever about the cop's word against yours. It's playing the game of whether or not you can get the cop to admit he doesn't know or doesn't remember.

If the cop really wants to give you a ticket for the day before on the day after, you can't do anything about it. He said "I saw you here yesterday, and I couldn't catch you." I do think it'd be very cool to be able to ride the speed that he said I was going though. :P

Quote:

---

Quoting w0lf3h

---

Speeding tickets are only ever about the cop's word against yours. It's playing the game of whether or not you can get the cop to admit he doesn't know or doesn't remember.

If the cop really wants to give you a ticket for the day before on the day after, you can't do anything about it. He said "I saw you here yesterday, and I couldn't catch you." I do think it'd be very cool to be able to ride the speed that he said I was going though. :P

---

Technicalities appear to be the best case to defend against a speeding ticket. That means what the cop says is irrelevant if there is a technicality that allows you to have the ticket dismissed.

As jk pointed out previously and as was pointed out before that, if the citation was not issued in real time, and it apparently was not, there could be an issue of rider identity. If the state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, like with admissions against interest on your part or by the officer saying he saw your face, a reasonable doubt exists. If you wear a full-face helmet routinely, it's going to be hard for the cop to prove the case without admissions.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

...like with admissions against interest on your part...

---

You keep referring to "admissions against interest", so it bears pointing out to you that you are confusing the hearsay exclusion for party admissions with the hearsay exception for statements against interest. Two different things.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

...or by the officer saying he saw your face, a reasonable doubt exists.

---

You believe that if an officer can't see a motorcyclist's face when he sees a speeding motorcycle, but subsequently follows the motorcycle into a gas station and observes the motorcyclist dismount, he can't prove that the motorcyclist who got off of the motorcycle was the same driver who rode it into the gas station? That's a truly fascinating theory... the sort with which the officer, judge, and observers in court would likely enjoy regaling others, "You wouldn't believe the argument I actually heard somebody try to make in court today...."

Sorry, no. The officer's observations would be ample to support conviction. Your incorrect belief that the officer has to see the operator's face while a vehicle is moving having been duly noted, it's actually sufficient to observe the operator dismount or get out of the vehicle, or at the time the vehicle is pulled over.

Why is my last post gone?

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't Mr. K just say that California Traffic Infractions were civil matters? Where did that go? And why doesn't his post indicate it was updated like mine do when I edit them?

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

You keep referring to "admissions against interest", so it bears pointing out to you that you are confusing the hearsay exclusion for party admissions with the hearsay exception for statements against interest. Two different things.

You believe that if an officer can't see a motorcyclist's face when he sees a speeding motorcycle, but subsequently follows the motorcycle into a gas station and observes the motorcyclist dismount, he can't prove that the motorcyclist who got off of the motorcycle was the same driver who rode it into the gas station? That's a truly fascinating theory... the sort with which the officer, judge, and observers in court would likely enjoy regaling others, "You wouldn't believe the argument I actually heard somebody try to make in court today...."

Sorry, no. The officer's observations would be ample to support conviction. Your incorrect belief that the officer has to see the operator's face while a vehicle is moving having been duly noted, it's actually sufficient to observe the operator dismount or get out of the vehicle, or at the time the vehicle is pulled over.

---

Didn't you read the OP's first post? He clearly indicated the alleged offense was on a day prior to the day he received a citation. Obviously, when an officer pulls over a rider with a helmet on, the rider can't argue I'm not the rider you saw. Wow! Again, the OP never said the cop followed him into the station immediately after the alleged violation.

In addition to the part of your original post that was erroneous (remember, the part you deleted?) your contention about admissions is similarly erroneous. Check the definition on the Cornell Law Website and compare it to my original post on admissions. It fits perfectly.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

Why is my last post gone?

---

Apparently someone on the admin team felt it should not be there.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

Didn't Mr. K just say that California Traffic Infractions were civil matters? Where did that go?

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

And why doesn't his post indicate it was updated like mine do when I edit them?

---

Because you can edit out the updated line and he did?

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Apparently someone on the admin team felt it should not be there.



See above.



Because you can edit out the updated line and he did?

---

I read in his profile that he sometimes makes mistakes and admits when he's wrong. That must be what he meant. Edit the mistake and then delete the post following that pointed out the mistake. Anyone around here work for the government?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, I can't "edit out" the updated line...at least not after an hour or so. His was edited after it had been up overnight. But, I understand, he's one of the biggies around here and it's best he not look like he screwed up.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

Nope, I can't "edit out" the updated line...at least not after an hour or so. His was edited after it had been up overnight. But, I understand, he's one of the biggies around here and it's best he not look like he screwed up.

---

Users cannot edit posts after 1 hour so that means the edit was performed by someone on the admin side. As for the rest, tread carefully. You've already been given one vacation, earned or not.

As I indicated previously, I have come to understand exactly how things work around here. Apparently you too understand that when certain people are challenged, they throw tantrums or whatever. Obviously, I'm not in the protected group. In this exchange, for example, I can see myself banned yet again for current comments. You, on the other hand, have been supportive of the cabal and won't be affected.

I'm done with vacations. Next is retirement.