-
Dismissal of a California Speeding Ticket Based on the Officer's No-Show
My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
Hi, I wanted to post on this forum about my experience fighting my ticket - I won, and my story might help some people. I wrote a book (on Amazon) about how I did it but I want to share here too.
I was cited for 22356(b) - allegedly doing 86 mph on the freeway. First thing I did was research how lidar devices work. Check out "The Lowdown On Lidar" by Josh Bloch which is very critical of the technology, particularly with regard to how law enforcement actually use it. I obtained a copy of the CHP's lidar operating training manual and a copy of the manual for a particular model of lidar device, and it was clear that, at least in my situation, the officer who cited me completely ignored CHP procedure.
I extended the deadline to respond. Then I did a trial by written declaration. I wrote up everything I had found out and applied it to my ticket, but I still lost. :-(
Then I did a trial de novo. I requested a new judge as the person they assigned me too initially wasn't actually a judge and happened to be the person who ruled against me in the trial by written declaration. The new judge set a court date.
Then I requested discovery from the DA. They were not very polite. :-( Went to court, explained I requested discovery but didn't get it; the judge denied motion to dismiss but gave me a new date.
Requested discovery from the DA again, they were not polite (again) but noted that they weren't going to be calling the officer as a witness, which I thought was a little odd. Also requested discovery from the CHP. They did provide me with a limited amount of info but they sent it the court instead of my house, presumably by mistake! I didn't know about this until the day before my trial. I immediately called them to get more info but no one called me back.
On trial day, I arrived ready to argue that the speed measurement had been obtained without any regard for CHP procedure. The officer no-showed (not sure if the DA told him not to appear) so I won. :-)
Hope this helps some people! :-)
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Well, you did not really BEAT the ticket with any great strategy - you won because the officer did not show up.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Yes, the 'request discovery' strategy is not novel - but it can work. :-)
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Everyone can request discovery. But, requesting it from the DA does not always work because the DA is out of the loop in traffic matters in CA. Many will do as your DA's office did - they send a request to the agency involved to provide the defendant with discovery. Others just say they are not involved in the process. In those instances, you either have to seek compelled discovery from the court, or, you make the request from the law enforcement agency. Many agencies will comply with these requests without being compelled by the court. The CHP tends to be very cooperative.
But, you did not prevail because of some wise discovery practice, you prevailed because the state's only witness failed to show. You will never know if your strategy and trial prep would have prevailed or not. You will never know whether or not the officer's alleged failure to follow agency procedure in some way would have translated to some sort of legal insufficiency. In most cases, the court is not going to be concerned about a policy violation so much as they are about the legal requirements. But, not knowing what policy issue you intended to raise, it's hard to opine on that aspect of your potential defense.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Yes this is true. It's true that my defense wasn't tested in court. It's also true that everyone can request discovery. BUT most people don't, which I think is a shame.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
That's okay, I'm sure they'll get you next time.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
rtg20
Yes this is true. It's true that my defense wasn't tested in court. It's also true that everyone can request discovery. BUT most people don't, which I think is a shame.
MOST people know they've been caught and they follow the path of least resistance. While everyone has the right to challenge their ticket, not everyone has the option to take time off of work and do the research it might take to roll the dice hoping to come up 7.
That, and risking the insurance premium increase if they are not permitted to take traffic school after they lose.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
Highwayman
That's okay, I'm sure they'll get you next time.
Well they 'got' me this time in that they ticketed me. The officer just didn't bother to follow CHP procedure when measuring my speed; or show up to court. Honestly, if the CHP re-train and the state resolve to start proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt rather than simply asserting it, then I'll be happy.
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
MOST people know they've been caught and they follow the path of least resistance. While everyone has the right to challenge their ticket, not everyone has the option to take time off of work and do the research it might take to roll the dice hoping to come up 7.
That, and risking the insurance premium increase if they are not permitted to take traffic school after they lose.
Again, absolutely true. That's another reason why I wrote my book - to make it easier (less time consuming) for people to fight. In particular, I included all the references I used, which will save people a LOT of time.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
rtg20
I wrote a book (on Amazon) about how I did it but I want to share here too.
How many copies have you sold so far?
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
A couple questions:
1) How do you do trial de novo?
2) What was your defense when you did trial by written declaration?
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
Lizard
A couple questions:
1) How do you do trial de novo?
2) What was your defense when you did trial by written declaration?
1. Having received notification that I lost the trial by written declaration, I filled in a form to request a TDN, and filed it with the court.
2. All in the book; I argued that the speed measurement was wrong because in order for the speed measurement to be accurate, the beams of light emitted by the lidar speed measuring device have to hit exactly the same point on the car. Given that I was driving down a hill at the time, I don't think that the officer was supporting the lidar device (e.g. with a tripod) when he used it, and he was several hundred feet away from me when he caught me, this is actually extremely unlikely. Check out Josh Bloch's 'Lowdown on Lidar' (also cited in my book).
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
I sure hope you aren't selling your book. Your "understanding" of lidar speedn
detectors is poor at best.
You should check out the specs on the lidar used and calculate just how large the "spot" was. The minimal error caused by not hitting the "exact point" (if you calculate the actual size of the spot you will realize how invalid your claims are) will not cause an error large enough to make a difference. You should also realize that there are several hundred, at least, measurements taken during a speed check, all in less than half a second, which allows for a very accurate measurement.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
And, of course, your lidar argument is entirely untested because the officer did not show and the matter was dropped. Not to mention the fact that a tripod is NOT required for the use of a lidar! I have no idea where you got that impression.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
jk
I sure hope you aren't selling your book. Your "understanding" of lidar speedn
detectors is poor at best.
You should check out the specs on the lidar used and calculate just how large the "spot" was. The minimal error caused by not hitting the "exact point" (if you calculate the actual size of the spot you will realize how invalid your claims are) will not cause an error large enough to make a difference. You should also realize that there are several hundred, at least, measurements taken during a speed check, all in less than half a second, which allows for a very accurate measurement.
I did look up specs and calculated a beam width of ~10 feet for my situation.
Lidar *can* be accurate, but the devices have to be used properly. The CHP publish an operating manual and the lidar device manufacturers publish operating instructions, too. I obtained copies and the officer did NOT follow the instructions. Accordingly, the measurement can't be expected to be accurate.
cdwjava you are correct, argument is untested. But I still won. :-)
It's true that motorists can be cited by officers who don't use tripods. However, that fact alone has no bearing on the accuracy of the measurement. And the documentation I read recommends that supports are used.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
So a beam width of 10 feet? Your statement of the light "must hit
the exact same point on the car" fails if the beam width is 10 feet. A car is about 6' wide.
I don't know the distance involved for you but to have a beam width of 10 feet you would have to be at least 700 yards (at the max allowable divergence of 5 milliradian (per federal rule) . 1 milliraidian @ 100 yards results in approx 3.6" ). You said you you were several hundred feet away. At 600 feet (200 yards) the beam would be about 36". (3.6 x 5 x 2) at the max allowable divergence. Your argument of hitting the exact same spot fails at that distance as well.
And realize that is at the max divergence as allowed by law. The actual beam width is likely smaller.
LTI (a lidar smd manufacturer) states their beam width is about 3 feet at 1000 feet.
If your book is as imprecise as your calculations, well, let's just say it wouldn't be worth the sales price if it were free.
As to you winning. You got lucky. The cop didn't show. If
the cop showed, using the arguments you've provided so far, there is no reason to believe you would have won.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
jk
So a beam width of 10 feet? Your statement of the light "must hit
the exact same point on the car" fails if the beam width is 10 feet. A car is about 6' wide.
10 feet wide is almost as wide as the lanes on the freeway - and I was ticketed at a relatively busy time. The measured speed might be for another car completely.
10 feet really is very wide...the light could have bounced off any combination of the wing mirrors; top of the windshield; base of windshield; radiator; license plate. It's a huge source of error. If you don't want to buy my book, Google "Lowdown on Lidar" by Josh Bloch.
Quote:
Quoting
jk
I don't know the distance involved for you but to have a beam width of 10 feet you would have to be at least 700 yards (at the max allowable divergence of 5 milliradian (per federal rule) . 1 milliraidian @ 100 yards results in approx 3.6" ). You said you you were several hundred feet away. At 600 feet (200 yards) the beam would be about 36". (3.6 x 5 x 2) at the max allowable divergence. Your argument of hitting the exact same spot fails at that distance as well.
That's the whole point, the beam is so wide that's it's unrealistic to expect it to hit the same spot on the car, especially one being driven down a hill.
I don't know the exact distance either, because neither the DA nor the CHP fully responded to my request for discovery. However, I estimate ~1000 ft or so.
Quote:
Quoting
jk
And realize that is at the max divergence as allowed by law. The actual beam width is likely smaller.
LTI (a lidar smd manufacturer) states their beam width is about 3 feet at 1000 feet.
That will depend on how it's used.
Quote:
Quoting
jk
If your book is as imprecise as your calculations, well, let's just say it wouldn't be worth the sales price if it were free.
There's nothing wrong with my calculations, and they are all referenced. The problem is with the way the officers use the lidar devices.
Quote:
Quoting
jk
As to you winning. You got lucky. The cop didn't show. If
the cop showed, using the arguments you've provided so far, there is no reason to believe you would have won.
It's true that my arguments are untested. It's also true that I was lucky that the cop didn't show.
But the most important thing is that I won, and I feel one reason that I did was because I dragged the process out over nine months. All in the book. :-)
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Fascinating that the professional defense bar has not uncovered this glaring flaw in the use of lidar that you claim to have discovered.
I think you overestimate the strength of the claim you make. You also forget that radar trained officers are also trained in visual estimation, so regardless of the lidar they will also testify that they made a visual estimation of the speed of your vehicle (which was confirmed by their use of radar/lidar). So, I wouldn't count those chickens so fast.
But, if all a person has is a Hail Mary and they do not need a guarantee of traffic school, why not go for the end zone in an all-or-nothing pass?
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
rtg20
On trial day, I arrived ready to argue that the speed measurement had been obtained without any regard for CHP procedure. The officer no-showed (not sure if the DA told him not to appear) so I won. :-)
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. This is one of the reasons that pro se litigants tend to fail in court. They screw up on procedure.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
Fascinating that the professional defense bar has not uncovered this glaring flaw in the use of lidar that you claim to have discovered.
I don't claim to have discovered anything. My book is abundantly referenced. Even the lidar manufacturer documentation alludes to the aforementioned shortcomings that daily use of their equipment entails. And the professional defense bar know all about this stuff. It's even referred to in attorney David Brown's book, for example. (Published by Nolo.)
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
I think you overestimate the strength of the claim you make.
OK. It was untested.
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
You also forget that radar trained officers are also trained in visual estimation, so regardless of the lidar they will also testify that they made a visual estimation of the speed of your vehicle (which was confirmed by their use of radar/lidar). So, I wouldn't count those chickens so fast.
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.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
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.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
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
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
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.
-
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.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
rtg20
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.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
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.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
rtg20
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.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
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
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
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
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
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
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.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
rtg20
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.
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
rtg20
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
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?
-
Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
david91722
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?