My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: California
Sorry for the long post, I couldn't find anything similar in searches and am really concerned about this situation.
I was driving home from the Bay Area to Los Angeles late last night for Mother's Day weekend. I admit that that on long, flat stretches of road, I tended to drift up to 85-95 mph. At one point just past Coalinga in Kings County, I was driving along in the left lane (bunch of semi trucks in the right lane). I don't recall how fast I was going, but it could not have been more than 90 because I drive a small car, and sustaining 90+ miles per hour doesn't feel very stable.
Since this was around 1:00 a.m., there were very few cars on the left lane and mostly trucks on the right. I noticed a car pull up behind me, to the point that all I could see were its headlights in my rear-view mirror. I was pretty concerned since he was following so closely, but couldn't slow down to fit into the small gaps between the trucks. I sped up to increase the distance between us for safety, but don't know to what speed since I was too busy keeping my eyes on the road and the rear-view mirror. But the car kept on my tail for a good half minute, during which I never got the chance to look down at my speedometer.
At the earliest opportunity I signaled and changed into the right lane, and only at that moment did the CHP officer flash on his patrol lights. I slowed down immediately and pulled to the shoulder.
The conversation went like this:
CHP: Did you know that you were speeding?
Me: I'm sorry, I thought you were a tailgater and I was just trying to get out of your way.
CHP: I clocked you @ 97 before I even started following you.
He then asked for my license, registration and insurance which I provided. He came back with the citation, asking me to sign.
Me: I'm really really sorry, but I really thought I was being tailgated and just wanted to move aside, but there were all these trucks and I couldn't do it immediately.
CHP: I paced you at 103 and you hit 105. I would have pulled you over earlier but there were all these big rigs in the way. Now, I could take you to jail right now, but I have better things to do. So just make sure you show up to court in July.
Me: Here? Because I'm a student up in the Bay Area and that's really far from here.
CHP: It's mandatory. I advise you to bring a friend because your license will probably be revoked. If you have any questions, call the number at the bottom of the ticket. [which was not a valid phone #]
I'm a 25-year-old graduate student, and had a long week of school... just wanted to get home to LA to surprise my mother for Mother's Day. I will make the mandatory trip down to Kings County in July, and I won't make any excuses about speeding, since I know that I was doing it. But I'm wondering how to approach my court appearance given my circumstance. I would never have gone up to 105 if I didn't feel threatened by the car behind me.
I read previous posts and know the severity of the infarction, both fiscal and official (points on record). Like so many on this forum, I am a poor college student, and I have a clean 8-year record. Should I try pleading my case with the judge? I obviously can't claim "not guilty" since I ethically will not allow myself to claim that I wasn't going above 70. I just really had no idea that I had gotten up to 105, which is in a whole new bucket of severity when compared to a lower bracket (which I believe could qualify me for traffic school to prevent the points on my record?)
Again, sorry for the long post, but I'd appreciate any and all advice. Thanks in advance.
California 22348(B), 105 in 70 Zone
Printable View
-
05-09-2009, 11:59 PMjklCalifornia 22348(B), 105 in 70 Zone
-
05-10-2009, 07:51 AMThat GuyRe: California 22348(B), 105 in 70 ZoneJust don't use that in court!Quote:
Quoting jkl
... or that!Quote:
Quoting jkl
Assuming the the limit is 70mph out there, you'd have to be at 94mph or under to automatically qualify for Traffic school, you were at 11 miles above that. But even if you were at 6mph over that, just being over 100mph takes Traffic School off the table.Quote:
Quoting jkl
On the upside, the Judges in that courtroom have seen speeds in excess of 100mph quite often I assume... So you wont be the outcast that day.
Don't let it ruin Mothers Day for Mom... Point is, you made it to L A safe and sound. -
05-10-2009, 02:07 PMEWYLTJRe: California 22348(B), 105 in 70 Zone
That's commendabe that you could not ethically claim that you were not driving over 70. But, you were not charged with driving over 70. You were charged with driving over 100!!
So, you weren't charged with 35 over... you were charged with 5 over.Quote:
22348(b) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed
greater than 100 miles per hour is guilty of an infraction
punishable, as follows:
(1) Upon a first conviction of a violation of this subdivision, by
a fine of not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500). The court may
also suspend the privilege of the person to operate a motor vehicle
for a period not to exceed 30 days pursuant to Section 13200.5.
Do you think you could ethically defend against that?? -
05-10-2009, 04:33 PMjklRe: California 22348(B), 105 in 70 Zone
Given that I honestly have no idea how fast I was going when he was tailgating/pacing me, I'm not sure what "defense" I have.
All I know is that on those drives, I never consciously go above 95 mph. Seeing that on my speedometer is always the trigger to take my foot off the pedal and slow down to 85, at most 90, depending on road and traffic conditions. Going that fast with a small car in "gusty wind" areas just doesn't work. -
05-11-2009, 08:57 AMEWYLTJRe: California 22348(B), 105 in 70 Zone
You seem troubled about this issue. There are all kinds of defenses, but you first must commit yourself to the fact that you are going to mount a zealous defense. Keep in mind that a defense isn't simply arguing that "you didn't do it". A defense is primarily a demand that the State meets its burdens associated with prosecution. You could have been driving 175 miles per hour, but if the State does not meet the requirements for prosecution, you do not deserve to have a conviction. The State is held accountable before you are... unless you relieve them of that responsibility. Question is... do you want to relieve them?
-
10-18-2009, 02:51 AMjklRe: California 22348(B), 105 in 70 Zone
OK it's been 5 months and I'm still fighting this ticket. FYI I did a TBWD and lost (not surprised), and just got a copy of the officer's statement from the court. The gist is that he visually estimated my speed "well in excess of the 70 mph," then set his patrol vehicle to 90 while following me. When I "continued to pull away," he visually estimated my speed to be 95 and accelerated up to 115, activated his radar in slow/same mode and got a reading of 103-105. He then paced me at 105 for 3/4 mile at 200' before pulling me over.
Like I said earlier, I agree that I was over the 70 speed limit, but certainly never intentionally going 105. The only times I noticed myself anywhere even near that was during those long stretches on I-5, when your speed occasionally drifts up after you go downhill... but when I saw that I was going to 95, I would immediately slow down.
Moreover, the officer was definitely NOT 200' behind when he was following me. I used to live in Miami, so I know tailgating when I see it. Or at least, when someone is following you a lot closer than they should be. And he mentions that he was in uniform and driving a black and white--but it's not like I could see that in the dark.
I can't emphasize enough that I'm not trying to "get away" with anything. If the officer had written me for CVC 22349, I would've accepted the consequences responsibly, because I was speeding. But I cannot accept that I am being punished for going over 100+ when, all I did wrong was to try to get out of the way of a tailgater while driving by myself in the middle of the night.
I requested a Trial de Novo and will try to fight this in court. I guess I'm now wondering if I stand a chance of beating this on my own, or if I should seek legal help. Thanks in advance for any advice. -
10-18-2009, 12:17 PMThat GuyRe: California 22348(B), 105 in 70 ZoneSo was that the gist of your argument that you presented in you TBD?Quote:
Quoting jkl
First, you don't have to have “intent” to be found in violation of traffic laws.
Second, what argument did you present that suggested that his pace or radar reading was inaccurate?
Third, he mentioned that he was in uniform and driving a black and white (and assuming this was a ChiPper meaning he was assigned to traffic enforcement duty) to satisfy the requirement that is set by CVC 40800; not to say that you should have seen him and slowed down... Generally, by the time you see the officer, the deed was done...
Forth, you're on a multi lane highway, tailgater behind you, did you not have the option of changing lanes and getting out of his way?
Point is, and again, if these were the arguments that you presented in court, then you offered nothing to refute his testimony that he paced you and clocked you on Radar. But that's OK. You're back to square one... And you'll get your opportunity to mount a defense yet again all while knowing how he will testify.
Question is, did you do a discovery request? If so, did you get calibration certificates for his Radar and/or his speedometer? If so, post that info and we'll see... If not, get working on that immediately... although depending on how much time you have before your TDN, I'm not sure whether you'll have sufficient time to get those documents.
Lastly, and as a side note, driving in excess of 70mph is in violation of 22356 NOT 22349(a). -
10-18-2009, 12:50 PMjklRe: California 22348(B), 105 in 70 Zone
Hey That Guy,
Thanks for responding so quickly.
Yes that was the gist of my TBD argument. I didn't actually present an argument that his reading was incorrect, because as I mentioned, I probably did go 105 but ONLY because I thought that I was being tailgated. I couldn't change lanes because there was a long row of trucks in the right lane--but the moment there was sufficient space before a truck, I DID change lanes, which was when he "turned in the center divide and initiated an enforcement stop." He did that AFTER I initiated the lane change to get out of his way. I know that I should have slowed down when I thought I was being tailgated, but it was the middle of the night and the car was following me so closely that doing that wasn't the first thing that came to mind. I know that all the prosecution has to do is prove that I went 105, but I can't believe that the reason that I only went THAT fast was because I was afraid will have no bearing on the verdict. To me, being guilty of this is like putting me with people who purposely go that fast without qualms.
I did do a discovery request, but all I got was a copy of the front and back of my ticket. I'm requesting a new TDN date because they scheduled one for me smack in the middle of classes. I'm going to school 3+ hours from the courthouse, and they are mandatory attendance classes. Hopefully they will schedule one during either my Thanksgiving break (not during a court holiday) or Christmas break. So I think I have some time to request these certificates--do I just send a written request to the CHP office or is there a more formal process?
And thanks for your sidenote reference. That CVC # popped in my mind while I was writing the post but I should've checked that it's the one I was thinking about before posting it. -
10-18-2009, 01:50 PMThat GuyRe: California 22348(B), 105 in 70 ZoneYou should file a motion to compel... Whether you have the time for that or not, I'm not sure.Quote:
Quoting jkl
My understanding is, and this is from personal experience, is that a TDN date, and once it is set, cannot be changed. If they do allow you to change it you may have to waive time, as in agree that your trial may not be held within the statutory 45 day period from your request date. Give it a try though...Quote:
Quoting jkl
Well, did you request the calibration certificates in your original request? If so then your next step is, like I previously mentioned, would be a "motion to compel". If you did not request those as part of your original request then I would use another informal discovery request and would send that to both, the DA & the CHP, in addition to filing a copy of it with the court.Quote:
Quoting jkl
-
10-18-2009, 05:48 PMjklRe: California 22348(B), 105 in 70 Zone
Thanks again for the reply.
I called the clerk on the phone and she said that it's possible, but that I would need to put the request in writing.Quote:
Quoting That Guy
No I did not, but will, if I think I stand any chance of winning this. If all the court cares about is that I went 105, absolutely regardless of the circumstance, then I'm at a loss as to how I can win. Unless my only option now is to mount the argument that the officer's equipment wasn't calibrated correctly, etc.--trying to get away on a technicality.Quote:
Quoting That Guy