Speeding Ticket in California

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: ca.
I received a speeding ticket last nite, sat., 20th of Feb., from a chp, who states I was doing 101 mph, on I 80 westbound just out of truckee. The traffic was so heavy and slow, I couldn't keep sixth gear in, it begins at 62 mph. The speed limit is 65.
The officer opened with the question, "Do you know you just passed me going 101 mph?" I replied, "you must have the wrong corvette". Now this is what I find real interesting, he said "Oh I know you people in your corvettes who take them out to Nevada to let them out!" And with that he turned around and returned to his car and wrote the ticket. When he came back he asked if I was claiming to be going the speed limit, and ofcourse, I did. When I said I had never taken the car to 100 mph, he replied, "Tell it to the judge."
How many times do you think a speeding tic is given with that kind of mileage? What kind of an idiot says 101, instead of 100? or, 90, or any figure, why did he deliberately state 101? What exactly are the penalties regarding the extra mile? He marked the box for radar/lidar unit. It was 7 at nite, they do radar at nite?
My court date is 4/3/09. Do I immediately take the steps to contest, or wait, or send for the radar reading first? confused:mojo

What section of the vehicle code did he charge you with???

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

What section of the vehicle code did he charge you with???

---

code and section are 22348(b)vc exc. 100 mph

Well... that could actually be a good thing for you. Keep in mind, you were not cited for doing 36mph over the limit... you are cited for doing 1mph over.

First thing you should do is a discovery request. I'd be really interested to see the most recent calibration results and the amount of error that was deemed acceptable. After all, you are talking about less than a 1% error. Get that first... if it doesn't say what you would like for it to say, then you should consider alternatives.

This is truly a stupid ticket. The cop should have written you for 22349. However, this is even more silly than the cop writting you for doing 66 in a 65. Get the discovery request going and come back here when you get the results.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Well... that could actually be a good thing for you. Keep in mind, you were not cited for doing 36mph over the limit... you are cited for doing 1mph over.

First thing you should do is a discovery request. I'd be really interested to see the most recent calibration results and the amount of error that was deemed acceptable. After all, you are talking about less than a 1% error. Get that first... if it doesn't say what you would like for it to say, then you should consider alternatives.

This is truly a stupid ticket. The cop should have written you for 22349. However, this is even more silly than the cop writting you for doing 66 in a 65. Get the discovery request going and come back here when you get the results.

---

Well, since 65 MPH is the statewide MAXIMUM SPEED unless otherwise posted, yes, he was driving +36 over the limit. He was however cited for driving in excess of 100 MPH, which has unique penalties unlike 22349(a) VC.

Sure, he can discover the world, but is the radar certificate shows it is accurate down to the MPH, what are the alternatives you mentioned?

Quote:

---

This is truly a stupid ticket.

---

On who's part? :D

Sniper,

The OP wasn't cited for exceeding 65mph, he was cited for exceeding 100 mph. The cop claims he was doing 101. That would be the eqivilent of writing someone for 66 in a 65. Being the reasonable cop that you are, I would imagine that you would have probably written the guy for 22349 thereby solidifying your chance of a conviction as he would have been charged with 36 over.

As far as alternative defenses, my recommendation is that the OP look for the low hanging fruit first. No need to do anything else if the calibration doesn't support the cop's position.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Well... that could actually be a good thing for you. Keep in mind, you were not cited for doing 36mph over the limit... you are cited for doing 1mph over.

First thing you should do is a discovery request. I'd be really interested to see the most recent calibration results and the amount of error that was deemed acceptable. After all, you are talking about less than a 1% error. Get that first... if it doesn't say what you would like for it to say, then you should consider alternatives.

This is truly a stupid ticket. The cop should have written you for 22349. However, this is even more silly than the cop writting you for doing 66 in a 65. Get the discovery request going and come back here when you get the results.

---

haven't hrard from Truckee as to the discovery I mailed two days ago, didn't expect to, but have more questions. Why can't someone tell me if the use of a radar/lidar unit is common place at nite? Also, where can I go to get a record of traffic conditions on that nite? confusedmojo

This is for Sniper.
You are assuming guilt on the OP's part, not so. I wasn't speeding even a mile over the limit, there is no basis for this tic. I can't figure why he even stopped me, the traffic was simply too heavy for anyone to speed.
confusedmojo

I think the use of radar/lidar is common anytime... why wouldn't it be? I have no idea where you could get a record of traffic conditions on that night. I doubt specific records like that are kept. Why don't you just say what you are trying to accomplish?

My thoughts are that if I can show the court that the conditions were so unfavorable to speeding, it would further weaken the officers story.
I know the stats on his radar/lidar unit won't indicate the speed he claims I was doing, but aren't there reasons he could give to excuse that? He must have something, how could he hope to win?
confusedmojo

Its simple... he plans on winning by assuming that you won't contest the ticket. The vast majority of tickets written do NOT get contested in court. If more tickets were contested, there would be less tickets written.

The more I look at this ticket, the dumber it seems to get. Not only did the officer write the wrong code, 22348 b, now I notice his location at the time he zapped me, or is that where he ticketed me? Anyway, there is no spot or on ramp going the direction I was. He asked me more than once, "Didn't you see me on the on ramp, when you passed me doing 101?"There isn't any 'on ramp' going that direction. I googled it in 3d, no on ramp.
Then they're saying it's a mandatory court appearance, even though it's
simply an arraignment. Won't give me price tag either. The discovery has not come yet.

Don't hold your breath until discovery comes. It likely won't. CA prosecutors simply ignore discovery requests routinely... as they ignore your rights. They do this because they know that traffic judges routinely ignore the law. You need to prepare your defense and prepare yourself for the possibility of an appeal afterwards.

From what you say, will the judge listen to any arguement I present? Why even bother preparing a case, if the facts never penetrate the feathers?
So, if , at any time, I'm driving, and some "not so detail conscious cop", can just write up a storm, and I'll just pay?
Yeah, just feeling a little bit sorry for myself.

Well, your arguments can come from different perspectives.

1. Technical merrit - this is where you can show the radar/lidar's calibration allows for at least a 1mph tollerance which would create a reasonable doubt. And, you can introduce Maestro's point about slip error. This too can produce reasonable doubt of 1mph.

2. Points of law - you can dispute the legality of documents presented. For example, if his documents presented (i.e. the calibration/maintenance records for his unit) are not certified true copies, then they are not admissable as evidence. Without evidence, the prosecution cannot establish a prima facie case.

3. Dispute the officer's testimony - While possible, this is the toughest row to hoe. The officer will say you were driving 101, you will say you were not. The tendency will be to believe the officer. However, you can start your cross examination by asking him if you were weaving in and out of traffic. If not, then ask him what the traffic was like (he likely has this documented on the back of his copy of the ticket - you can ask to see it). Then you can ask what the speed of the normal flow of traffic was. I'm sure he will say around 70. At that time, you can make your point that there is no way you could have been driving 31mph faster than moderate to heavy traffic without weaving. You CANNOT simply make it a "he said, she said". You have to provide something that tilts the credibility scale your way.

The bottom line is... you can't allow yourself to get sucked into the issue that you may or may not have been driving way over the limit. You MUST stay focused on the fact that the only thing you must accomplish in court is show reasonable doubt that you were not going 101. Even if the court is convinced that you were doing 100, then you are not guilty as charged. You can make the point that had the officer charged you with 22349, your arguments and plea may have been different, but you are in court to answer the charge of violating 22348.

What year is your vette? The reason I ask is that newer vehicles have a "black box" that data can be downloaded from. This data may include top speeds, etc. You say you've never had the car at that speed, this may be able to prove it. This data has been used in prosecutions before.

Quote:

---

Quoting bobj123

---

What year is your vette? The reason I ask is that newer vehicles have a "black box" that data can be downloaded from. This data may include top speeds, etc. You say you've never had the car at that speed, this may be able to prove it. This data has been used in prosecutions before.

---

Wow... that is a really good idea!!

I have an 85 vette, it's been totally re-constituted, I know of the computers, but never heard of a black box, would've come accross during the re-build.
Since I'm posting, what do you think about my going to court for arraignment earlier than the due date?If the prosecutor wants to up the charge, this would give me a one up on him, no?

I don't believe the prosecutor/cop can change the charge after arraingment. Personally, I'd rather defend a 22348 at 101mph than a 22349. A quick arraignment might be prudent.

Just completed a round trip to court for nothing. They only hold court for two days a month, this was not one.They only have one judge, one room, and probably one cop. The clerk I spoke to neglected to mention this, but at least I didn't land another tic today. I go back this Fri. 8:15 am, that's arraignment, then to trial in the afternoon. I hope that's rushing the prosecutor, it's rushing me, but I'm hoping this works to my advantage.
By the way- the police are as thick as I've everseen, no exaggeration, they are everwhere, the freeways are a mess, no one is speeding!
You see them coming at you across the merdian, going the opposite way, and they all seem to be holding a "gun", radar or lidar whatever- This was freeway driving, mostly I 80, and I 5.

Quote:

---

Quoting onerita

---

no one is speeding!

---

This is a bad thing?

Quote:

---

Quoting sniper

---

This is a bad thing?

---

Did not mean to offend you, I simply wanted you to see the picture as I did. The freeways were literally "running at maximum, no overage." Don't expect to see it that often.
Do I sound like a trucker?

Quote:

---

Quoting onerita

---

Did not mean to offend you, I simply wanted you to see the picture as I did. The freeways were literally "running at maximum, no overage." Don't expect to see it that often.
Do I sound like a trucker?

---

I didn't completely answer the question, YES, traffic was a mess. The cars in the left lane are barely doing the max, forcing the second left to pass on the right, which, in turn, (if there is a third lane without being the right,) screws up the right lane, who have been trying to avoid the merging, on-coming traffic.
It never ceases to amaze me how OPs act when a cop enters the freeway. The max can be 70, but they'll slow on down to a bare 60, all the while watching to see the reaction of the police person. As if they are so frightened or coerced (did I spell that right?) they forget to just drive. So, feeling the way I do, aren't you about to tell me ,"now we know why you have that speeding ticket problem!"

Quote:

---

Quoting sniper

---

This is a bad thing?

---

It depends. If the "extra enforcement" is due to purely safety reasons, then no it is not a bad thing. However, if it is due to budget reasons, then yes it is a bad thing. I think the surge of enforcement that just happens to coincide with the CA budget crisis smells kinda funny.

There was enhanced enforcement in the Sacramento region over the days leading up to and after St. Patrick's Day. It happens every year up here.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

There was enhanced enforcement in the Sacramento region over the days leading up to and after St. Patrick's Day. It happens every year up here.

- Carl

---

More money making opportunities near holidays....

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

More money making opportunities near holidays....

---

Of course .. I'm sure that is all that is going through the region's law enforcers minds every year. :rolleyes:

- Carl

It may not be the officer's thinking, but I betcha it's the courts!
When I was waiting for the arraignment to begin, the other op's with tickets started to compare, found out how much we all had in common. The same officerwrote them all, (although I still hold the speed record) the closest to me was 90 mph in 65. He too was in traffic, impossible to do. It would appear that our good officer is the star of that court.
I am scheduled for trial on april 17.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

More money making opportunities near holidays....

---

This is so true. From the crowd of people waiting to pay their fines in the court, (this is a small court, this amount of passed out tickets is obviously new to them) there was a happy, jolly attitude. Must be the new chp officer bringing all the joy!
The judge warned me of the loss of license, suspension, and the hefty fines, upon conviction. Should I bring a licensed driver ? Should he be my witness? Would his testimony mean anything? Is there case law involving this particular vc code? (22348 b)

The typical first offense can include fines and fees up to $760 (per the 2009 Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule).

And there is case law on most everything, it depends on what you are hoping to use it for.

Why do you ask about bringing a licensed driver? Don't you have a license? And unless his other driver was present with you at the time, he is not a witness and should not be permitted to testify.

And, yes, the court MAY (but does not appear to be required to) suspend your license for up to 30 days. I have never known a court to do this as a regular practice, but then it is not a common violation so it's not possible to predict what the local court might choose to do.

- Carl

[QUOTE=cdwjava;299859]The typical first offense can include fines and fees up to $760 (per the 2009 Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule).

And there is case law on most everything, it depends on what you are hoping to use it for. I want to show the correct interpetation .

Why do you ask about bringing a licensed driver? Don't you have a license? And unless his other driver was present with you at the time, he is not a witness and should not be permitted to testify .Yes, he was with me.

And, yes, the court MAY (but does not appear to be required to) suspend your license for up to 30 days. I have never known a court to do this as a regular practice, but then it is not a common violation so it's not possible to predict what the local court might choose to do.
If the worse happens, would I dare drive home? He said, "Your license will be subject to 30 days suspension upon conviction." The way and the fact that he looked up at me as he was citing the penalties hit home.

Quote:

---

Quoting onerita

---

I want to show the correct interpetation

---

How many ways exist to interpret this?

(b) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed
greater than 100 miles per hour is guilty of an infraction ...

Case law may show a number of different things, but if the court finds you to be in violation of the section, well, there it is.

Quote:

---

Yes, he was with me.

---

Then you may bring him with you. I presume the court will allow your witness to testify on your behalf. How much weight the testimony of your friend will hold, I cannot say.

Quote:

---

If the worse happens, would I dare drive home? He said, "Your license will be subject to 30 days suspension upon conviction." The way and the fact that he looked up at me as he was citing the penalties hit home.

---

Then maybe a licensed driver would be a good idea.

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting onerita

---

Should I bring a licensed driver ?

---

I have seen judges request that the defendant surrender his license right there on the spot after a finding of guilt.

However, the most recent case I attended, the judge requested the license to be surrendered but the bailiff reminded the judge that "we no longer do that your honor"...

Might be a good idea to have a licensed driver go with you! :p

onerita,

Are you getting cold feet? Part of the little extortion game is to try to scare a person into a guilty plea. For lesser offenses, the game involves a bribe (i.e. traffic school) in which you pay your honorarium to the CA Don, waste a Saturday and then we'll just keep this little indescretion to ourselves.

I don't care what Carl says... the whole system (not just the zealous cops writing the tickets) is geared towards money making. When you decide to defend yourself in court, you drastically cut into the profits. So, the goal of the extortion game is to keep you out of court if at all possibe. That's why the vast majority of tickets do not end up in court. I read another thread where a person was talking about a particular cop who wrote 76 tickets and only one of them was challenged. I'm not sure if that is typical, but I suspect it is.

Also, I have read on here and other places about the costs of tickets. I was reading an article about red light camera tickets and how they cost about $75 in other states!! I believe here they are around $400!!!

There are some State Officials who post here regularly who argue dilligently the virtues of California and how there is no profit motive going on. However, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

So, your cheerful cop accuses you of doing 101 and he charges you with 22348. First of all, he must be pretty confident that you won't contest the ticket. He is probably right to feel so cocky given the statistics. But, with a charge of 22348, he must prove his accuracy with less than 1% error!! He could have written you for 22349 and all but ensured a conviction. However, he chose 22348. Why? Well, either he is an absolute moron to pick a citation that requires a less than 1% tolerance or maybe he recognizes that a 22348 will cost you about double what a 22349 will.

So, the facts are clear. Either there is profit motive or the cop is just incredibly stupid/arrogant. I could believe either one. While both are probaby true, I would think the more likely is the former.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

I have seen judges request that the defendant surrender his license right there on the spot after a finding of guilt.

However, the most recent case I attended, the judge requested the license to be surrendered but the bailiff reminded the judge that "we no longer do that your honor"...

Might be a good idea to have a licensed driver go with you! :p

---

That's because the court does not control driver's licenses, the DMV does. The court can order the suspension, but it doesn't take place until the abstract reaches the DMV. There was a pissing match on this a few years ago as I understand, and it was settled that the court cannot suspend the license, only the DMV can. That is not to say that the court cannot make such an order, but that the order does not really take effect until the DMV takes the action.

- Carl

NO COLD FEET ALLOWED! Just need to know what can happen, I don't like surprises. I'm getting nervous, but it's not changing my resolve.

Outstanding!!! I really believe there is no way you can loose assuming you have a reasonable judge that actually follows the law. Now, that being said, there are plenty of traffic judges that think the law is merely a suggestion. You should be prepared to loose. However, if you do, you should immediately be looking at an appeal. Those are not taken nearly as lightly as traffic court judges would like!