ExpertLaw.com Forums

Dismissal of a California Speeding Ticket Based on the Officer's No-Show

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3
  • 07-04-2017, 02:16 AM
    rtg20
    Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
    Quote:

    Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    You are fortunate that the officer did not show and the court gave you a win by default. Had you proceeded with your argument you likely would have lost. CHP procedure is not law and the failure of the officer to follow CHP procedure is not a violation of your rights nor cause for dismissal of the charges against you. It seems though that your real argument was that the officer’s method of determining your speed was not reliable and you were planning to use the failure to follow CHP procedure as proof that the measurement was not reliable. That would not have succeeded. Just because the CHP procedure was not followed does not logically allow a conclusion that the speed measurement was not reliable. Rather, you would need to provide scientific evidence as to how lidar works, what steps must be done to get an accurate reading, and how what the officer did would result in the reading not being reliable. For that, you cannot simply point to CHP procedures or books on how lidar works. You must instead have an expert witness testify to those things. That is what the rules of evidence require. So even if you might have been right that officer’s reading was not reliable, you likely would have lost because you didn’t know the rules of evidence and didn’t have an expert witness to get the evidence you needed before the court to prove your point.

    OK, but it's the state's job to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. All I needed to do was establish reasonable doubt. It's true that, logically, failure to follow procedure does not necessarily mean that the reading was definitely wrong. But does failure to follow procedure with regard to items specifically identified as being important for accurate measurements not at the very least cast some doubt on the accuracy on the measurement? Guess we'll never know...

    Quote:

    Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post

    This is one of the reasons that pro se litigants tend to fail in court. They screw up on procedure.

    Agreed, but bear in mind that in this case, I nailed the procedures for: trial by written declaration; trial de novo; requesting a new judge; discovery (x3); motions to dismiss (x2). That's one reason why I wrote the book - to share what I learned about procedures.

    Quote:

    Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    So, you obtained his training info and the syllabus used in his training course?

    When I was a training manager, I recall my officers being trained in visual estimation on freeway speeds as well as lower speeds, and there were a significant number of such estimations. And, since we are not talking about even +/- 2 MPH, we are talking about deviations of, perhaps, 5 MPH, I suspect the court would be comfortable with their estimation. I was not radar trained (though I was a collision investigator), so I do not have firsthand radar training experience, but, most of my officers were.

    I only got limited info: a list of the speeds at which the officer's visual estimation abilities were tested (and his estimates, which were pretty good). Not the syllabus that I recall.
  • 07-04-2017, 05:28 AM
    jk
    Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
    Your calculations are incorrect based on your stated situstion. As to the beam being wider "depending on how it is used"; it is an invalid statement. The beam width is a set factor based on the divergence angle built into the equipment. Since federal regulation limits the beam divergence to 5 milliradian, the beam will be no wider than the numbers I provided and most likely less since the 5 milliradian is a maximum allowable divergence. The LTI claim suggests their equipment is limited to nearly half the legally allowed maximum divergence.

    Your argument of it hiitting the mirror, the top of the windshield, etc causing an error shows you, and the sources you are citing, simply do not understand how lidar works. It doesn't matter what the reflective area is. The time required to measure the speed of the vehicle is so short the reading obtained will result from a reflection from the same point. In addition so many measurements are take and utilized in the internal calculations used to derive your speed, any error you suggest being present is compensated for by an overwhelming number of checks and calculations used in the resulting speed displayed by the device.

    Btw: citing a source that is not legally reliable or incorrect does not make your statement dependable or valuable. It simply extends the incorrect statement.


    Re: "Nailing the procedures". Really? Not sure I would call completing the simple tasks listed properly "nailing the procedures". I suppose you could but if you feel so strongly about the actions, I suspect each morning you put on your shoes and tie them properly you sit back, look at your accomplishment and say; NAILED IT. Not impresssive.


    re: your belief of why you won

    so rather than attempt to argue your technical defense has any merit, your entitire book can be summarized in a few simple words;

    I believe delaying any involved trial as long as possible may result in winning your case. I have nothing but my one successful speeding ticket defense to suggest this. I have no researched evidence showing their is any validity to my claim but my suggestion is; drag it out as long as you can and it, in my uneducated opinion, will give you the best opportunity at a win.
  • 07-04-2017, 05:38 AM
    free9man
    Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
    Quote:

    Quoting rtg20
    View Post
    I did get info on this. The officer was tested for visual estimation at speeds significantly lower (40-50 mph, from memory) than the 70 mph limit on the freeway. No evidence at all that his visual estimation ability was tested at higher speeds. Neither was there evidence that visual estimation at lower speeds translates to higher speeds.

    What makes you think the fact he wasn't tested at higher speeds means anything? If he can accurately gauge lower speeds, odds are pretty darn good he can also accurately gauge higher speeds.
  • 07-04-2017, 09:15 AM
    rtg20
    Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
    Quote:

    Quoting free9man
    View Post
    What makes you think the fact he wasn't tested at higher speeds means anything? If he can accurately gauge lower speeds, odds are pretty darn good he can also accurately gauge higher speeds.

    This may be true, they just never sent me any evidence.
  • 07-04-2017, 09:20 AM
    free9man
    Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
    Quote:

    Quoting rtg20
    View Post
    This may be true, they just never sent me any evidence.

    The fact he was able to do it at lower speeds is evidence he can do it period.
  • 07-04-2017, 09:38 AM
    rtg20
    Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
    Quote:

    Quoting free9man
    View Post
    The fact he was able to do it at lower speeds is evidence he can do it period.

    Yes. But at speeds 20-30 mph higher...? Have you any references showing that ability to accurately estimate speed at 40-50 mph also reflects an ability to estimate much higher speeds with equal accuracy...?

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    Your calculations are incorrect based on your stated situstion. As to the beam being wider "depending on how it is used"; it is an invalid statement. The beam width is a set factor based on the divergence angle built into the equipment. Since federal regulation limits the beam divergence to 5 milliradian, the beam will be no wider than the numbers I provided and most likely less since the 5 milliradian is a maximum allowable divergence. The LTI claim suggests their equipment is limited to nearly half the legally allowed maximum divergence.

    No, it's you who are wrong. Only the diffraction of the light is intrinsic to he device. Device shake depends on the operator. Both errors contribute to the beam width.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    Your argument of it hiitting the mirror, the top of the windshield, etc causing an error shows you, and the sources you are citing, simply do not understand how lidar works. It doesn't matter what the reflective area is. The time required to measure the speed of the vehicle is so short the reading obtained will result from a reflection from the same point. In addition so many measurements are take and utilized in the internal calculations used to derive your speed, any error you suggest being present is compensated for by an overwhelming number of checks and calculations used in the resulting speed displayed by the device.

    A 0.3 sec acquisition time is sufficient for device shake to introduce a significant error. In that time, the device can be inadvertently moved enough to introduce significant error, especially over long distances.

    It's true that the devices take a lot of different measurements and do analysis, but you can't assert that all errors are definitely compensated for without at least a presentation of the raw data and the algorithms used. I'd love to see that information as it's proprietary, but please do share if you can.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    Btw: citing a source that is not legally reliable or incorrect does not make your statement dependable or valuable. It simply extends the incorrect statement.

    Similarly, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    Re: "Nailing the procedures". Really? Not sure I would call completing the simple tasks listed properly "nailing the procedures". I suppose you could but if you feel so strongly about the actions, I suspect each morning you put on your shoes and tie them properly you sit back, look at your accomplishment and say; NAILED IT. Not impresssive.

    Hahaha - check this forum. How many people get 22356(b) tickets? How many beat them? My achievement is not unique by any means, but I feel that to beat a traffic ticket is still an achievement. BTW the more you put me down, the greater the sense of accomplishment I feel. So please keep these posts coming, I will quote you in a second edition. :-)


    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    re: your belief of why you won
    so rather than attempt to argue your technical defense has any merit, your entitire book can be summarized in a few simple words;
    I believe delaying any involved trial as long as possible may result in winning your case. I have nothing but my one successful speeding ticket defense to suggest this. I have no researched evidence showing their is any validity to my claim but my suggestion is; drag it out as long as you can and it, in my uneducated opinion, will give you the best opportunity at a win.

    I tried to avoid giving opinions in my book. I simply stated what I did. Drawing it out can work! And as I note, my strategy of requesting discovery is not novel. Others have been successful with the same strategy.
  • 09-03-2017, 12:55 AM
    david91722
    Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
    Quote:

    Quoting rtg20
    View Post
    My achievement is not unique by any means, but I feel that to beat a traffic ticket is still an achievement. BTW the more you put me down, the greater the sense of accomplishment I feel. So please keep these posts coming, I will quote you in a second edition. :-)

    Drawing it out can work! And as I note, my strategy of requesting discovery is not novel. Others have been successful with the same strategy.

    Heh...Your only "accomplishment" is you were lucky the cop no-showed. Drawing it out doesn't always work. I, unfortunately, have experience with that. Next time, don't win a case by default, and I might consider buying your book.
  • 09-03-2017, 05:54 PM
    Jim Kozlovich
    Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
    Quote:

    Quoting rtg20
    View Post
    Check out "The Lowdown On Lidar" by Josh Bloch which is very critical of the technology...

    I find it interesting that you put so much credence in this document when on page 2 the 1st paragraph states:

    "• Worked my way through Columbia designing firmware for optical measuring instruments
    ─ But that was 25 years ago; I am not a Lidar expert"

    Quote:

    Quoting rtg20
    View Post
    I did look up specs and calculated a beam width of ~10 feet for my situation.

    Your calculations are also way off. The size of the beam width is directly proportional to the distance of the target, it is important to understand the relationship between distance and beam width. The STALKER LIDAR, for example, produces a beam whose width is 0.003 times the range to the target. To have a beam with of 10 ft. you would have to be over 3000 ft. away from the LIDAR unit. The following table shows the Beam Width vs. Range to Target for a number of distances.

    Range to Target Beam Width
    100 feet . . . . . . 0.3 feet (3.6 in.)
    300 feet . . . . . . 0.9 feet (10.8 in.)
    500 feet . . . . . . 1.5 feet
    1000 feet . . . . . 3.0 feet
    1500 feet . . . . . 4.5 feet
    2000 feet . . . . . 6.0 feet
    3000 feet . . . . . 9.0 feet
    5000 feet . . . . .15.0 feet

    As to your sweep effect error most modern LIDAR devices have resolved that problem. For example, the continuous tracking capability of the STALKER LIDAR permits an operator to see that an erroneous speed has briefly occurred and to ignore that speed.

    BTY what is the name of your book on Amazon?
  • 09-03-2017, 07:10 PM
    rtg20
    Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
    Quote:

    Quoting david91722
    View Post
    Heh...Your only "accomplishment" is you were lucky the cop no-showed. Drawing it out doesn't always work. I, unfortunately, have experience with that. Next time, don't win a case by default, and I might consider buying your book.

    It's true, I was lucky...but I feel that, by drawing it out, I made a lot of the luck myself.

    Sorry you lost. :-( What happened?
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved