Unsafe Speed Ticket for Use of an iPod, VC 22350

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

I received a 22350 ticket for holding my iPod (not a cell phone). I did say I was changing the song, but the officer would have had no way to see that I was looking down. I was driving 25-30mph in a 30mph zone, but the ticket was written as follows:
Speed: 25mph
P.F./Max - 1mph

Clearly the speed limit in this area is not 1mph. Is this ticket worth contesting? He said that "safe speed while distracted is 0."

I would prefer to do a TBD if possible, but am curious if I should just pay it and take traffic school. I just think that the 25 in a 1 argument is odd, and the fact that it was written for 24 miles per hour above the speed limit is a bit punitive.

The CHP has been successfully using VC 22350 as a defacto distracted driving statute for many years in southern California. There are those that will argue that this is not an appropriate use of the section and you might well make the same argument. How likely your local traffic court judge or commissioner might be to accepting that claim from the officer is something we cannot guess. You can try to make the argument in a TBWD and then a trial de novo if you lose. But, keep in mind that if you lose at trial the court is not required to permit you to take traffic school, so you might want to weigh that in your evaluation as well.

Two questions I suppose -

First - does it matter that it was LAPD and not CHP?

Does the ticket qualify as 24 miles per hour over the speed limit in terms of the bail amount? Or is there just a flat amount for a 22350 ticket?

Quote:

---

Quoting jsp196

---

Two questions I suppose -

First - does it matter that it was LAPD and not CHP?

Does the ticket qualify as 24 miles per hour over the speed limit in terms of the bail amount? Or is there just a flat amount for a 22350 ticket?

---

Since this interpretation has its origins in southern California, I suspect it is now relatively common place in the courts there.

And, to be honest, I am not sure whether the court will presume that it's 24 over based on the officer's assumption of a safe speed or not. VC 22350 has scaled penalties with the lowest being 1-15 MPH, then 16-25, then 26+. It will likely be in the ballpark of $238 or $367 depending on which level the court sees it as. I would hope the court would go with the lower amount, but, I cannot venture to guess on their practice.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Since this interpretation has its origins in southern California, I suspect it is now relatively common place in the courts there.

And, to be honest, I am not sure whether the court will presume that it's 24 over based on the officer's assumption of a safe speed or not. VC 22350 has scaled penalties with the lowest being 1-15 MPH, then 16-25, then 26+. It will likely be in the ballpark of $238 or $367 depending on which level the court sees it as. I would hope the court would go with the lower amount, but, I cannot venture to guess on their practice.

---

Why would the court go with the lower amount? People like this need to be taught a lesson! I don't want them driving anywhere near me while playing around with an ipod or gps or whatever else. I don't care if the legal language need to be massaged a little to fix things like this. Who know when or if the lawmakers will find time between donuts to fix the law in this sorry state.

Maybe the driver can just go without a few lattes and that will make up the 367 bucks in six months or so!

Quote:

---

Quoting jeff1970

---

I don't want them driving anywhere near me while playing around with an ipod or gps or whatever else.

---

Have you ever adjusted the radio, turned on the A/C, looked at a girl or guy walking on the sidewalk, had a conversation with or even glanced at the person sitting next to you? All of those have been proven to be equally distracting, but have just come to be accepted and not ticketed.

And you do realize that your statement about lattes is quite judgmental, considering there are homeless people with cell phones. Would you like to go without hot water for a month?

This website is for useful information - it's good form to make sure a post is actually adding to the conversation.

Wow… talk about abuse!! I don’t doubt that Carl is right when he says that CHP (and SoCal cops) have been using 22350 as a “defacto distracted driving” cite… but that doesn’t make it right. California cops, courts and DA’s violate California law all the time, ironically, while enforcing the law. This seems like another one of those cases.

Let’s take a look at what the law actually says… not what some cop or agency thought that the law SHOULD have said:

22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed
greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather,
visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the
highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of
persons or property.

There are two sections to this statute related to speed. The first considers weather, visibility, traffic, and road surface/width. Obviously, this section is not applicable. The second section is concerned with “…a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property”. But what does that mean? If the LEO is relying on this part, then the argument becomes far more esoteric.

Analogy: if a bull runs through an empty, open pasture, did he endanger anyone? The obvious answer is “no”, but I guess one could argue that a person could jump down out of a tree or even parachute into the pasture at any time and that person would be endangered if the bull chased them. So clearly, the bull is ALWAYS “dangerous”. But reasonable people applying the true meaning of words understand that in order to “endanger” there are two things required: proximity and specificity. The bull is not a danger because there is no one in close proximity. Additionally, there is no specificity. The only person who could be endangered by the bull is the hypothetical person. So, while the bull may be “dangerous”, he has not “endangered” anyone until a specific person comes into close proximity.

To further illustrate, let’s look at the definitions of “dangerous” and “endanger”:
Dangerous - able or likely to cause harm or injury.
Endanger - to bring into danger or peril

So, dangerous is the “ABILITY” to bring into peril, endanger is “ACTUALLY” bringing into peril. By a reasonable person’s standards, most things are “dangerous”. A knife is dangerous. A person can slash and thrust the knife in open air and he is dangerous. But, until there is a SPECIFIC person in close PROXIMITY to the guy with the knife, he has not ENDANGERED anyone. The belabored point here is that a car is dangerous. Any speed driven is dangerous. But there must be proximity and specificity to “endanger”. The legislature did NOT use the word “dangerous” in 22350. Obviously if they did, then EVERYONE would be in violation. They used the word “endanger”. So, in order to be in violation of 22350’s second section a person’s speed must have put a specific person or property in some close proximity into peril.

This long diatribe is not to suggest that using 22350 in a situation like this is never reasonable. A motorist looking down at their iPod on an open desert highway with no other traffic, people or property is a very different scenario than the same act occurring on a busy city street while approaching an occupied crosswalk. In the desert scenario, clearly no one is endangered. In the city scenario, there is proximity and specificity… actual people are emperilled, not a “hypothetical” person.

Obviously, as Carl suggests, the CHP and other LEAs are frustrated because the California legislature has not written a “distracted driving” statute. As a result of this frustration, they have obviously begun blending the definitions of “dangerous” with “endangered”. But the cops’ frustration should be vented on the legislature. It should NOT be taken out on the public by making up new meanings of words and laws. This is NOT law enforcement. This is law creation. Everyone hates the concept of legislation from the bench. Legislation from the badge is worse.

OK… back on topic. Take a look at 22351(a):

“(a) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of
the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized
in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of
the basic speed law.”

In other words, the cop will have to CLEARLY PROVE that your speed ENDANGERED (i.e. brought into peril) specific persons or property. Notice that the legislature opted to enhance the burden on the state by use of the adverb “clearly”. It is the obvious intent that a very high standard is to be placed on the prosecution for a conviction of 22350 when a person is driving under the speed limit. Unless you had to swerve to miss a parked car or pedestrians were diving out of your path, this will be an extremely difficult burden to meet (that is, if the judge has any respect for the law).

But wait, there’s more!

40503. Every notice to appear or notice of violation and every
complaint or information charging a violation of any provision of
this code regulating the speed of vehicles upon a highway SHALL
specify the approximate speed at which the defendant is alleged to
have driven and EXACTLY THE PRIMA FACIA OR MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT
APPLICABLE to the highway at the time and place of the alleged
offense and shall state any other speed limit alleged to have been
exceeded if applicable to the particular type of vehicle or
combination of vehicles operated by the defendant.

While I have seen some crazy speed limits in my days, I’m sure that the actual PF speed limit in your case was NOT 1mph. Therefore, this ticket (i.e. the charging document) is defective on its face. While this is a bit of a technicality, it is the law. It’s not made up or hypothetical law (like the hypothetical person that could possibly have been endangered by your speed), it is actual law.

As you might be able to tell, I’m very interested in this case. As such, I’ll make you a commitment. If you argue all the points that I have made here and you do so in a manner that ensures preservation for appeal, I will commit to assisting you in writing your appeal should you lose in court. This is an obscene and ridiculous application of one law to make up for the legislature’s failure to write an appropriate law.

I am curious, what is a reasonable speed you can operate a vehicle while texting, or in your instance while searching for a song on your Ipod?

That's an interesting question. Does it have anything to do with the statute?

Quote:

---

Quoting Mephis

---

I am curious, what is a reasonable speed you can operate a vehicle while texting, or in your instance while searching for a song on your Ipod?

---

Your question is irrelevant to this thread. If you want to start a new thread, I'll be happy to comment