Speeding Ticket While Driving Downhill

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: CA
VC 22350

Doing approx 65 in a 50
The CHP got me on a downhill around glenwood and seemed like he was pacing me for a few min, but marked that he got me with a radar.
I saw him the whole time but didn't realize that the speed limit changed from 60 to 50mph

1. So far i have gone to the hearing and asked for traffic school ( i am not illegible)
- i was denied my request, so i pleaded not guilty.
2. Now i am going to try to fight it.
My 1st step, i plan on sending out an IDR - There are couple of forms that i found on line, is there one that works better then the other?
This site: http://www.helpigotaticket.com/proc/discover.html recommends a cover letter. Is this "cover letter" really necessary and will it help my case?

3. As far as i understand i need to send IDR to the district attorney and police dept. Since this was the CHP.. where do i send this to?
It seems like the contact address is 701 ocean st for both or am i confused?

4. After this i will try my hand with TBD. As of now my case is scheduled for end of July.. is a month enough time or would it make sense to get an extension?

Any other pointers on how to go about fighting this?

thanks

State of California Highway Patrol: Ofc
10395 Soquel Dr, Aptos - (831) 662-0511

actually this looks like the santa cruz chp office

Quote:

---

Quoting oraph

---

VC 22350

---

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.

Here's how a 22350 works: The officer will testify as to how, when and where he clocked your speed, he will provide calibration certificates to the Radar unit he used as well a documents showing he was trained in the use of Radar. If and when he does that, then the burden to prove that your speed was reasonable and prudent and/or that it did not endanger the safety of persons or property shifts to you. This is where it gets a bit tougher...

Quote:

---

Quoting oraph

---

I saw him the whole time but didn't realize that the speed limit changed from 60 to 50mph

---

65 in 60 is still “Speeding”!

Quote:

---

Quoting oraph

---

My 1st step, i plan on sending out an IDR - There are couple of forms that i found on line, is there one that works better then the other?

---

As long as you file a copy of it in court, do the proof of service properly, send it to the proper address, request a witness list, calibration certificates, training certificates, then the rest is just gravy...

Quote:

---

Quoting oraph

---

3. As far as i understand i need to send IDR to the district attorney and police dept. Since this was the CHP.. where do i send this to?

---

Go to the CHP website and get the address from there. Once you've done that, you can call them to verify that the citing officer works out of that office.

Quote:

---

Quoting oraph

---

4. After this i will try my hand with TBD.

---

So what are you going to argue in your TBD? Feel free to post it here for comments but keep in mind that “Oops I didn't know the speed limit changed” will not work and neither will “I wasn't eligible for traffic school so I decided to fight it”.

Quote:

---

Quoting oraph

---

As of now my case is scheduled for end of July..

---

So you've plead “not guilty” you have a trial date set, but you're gonna do a TBD? Did you post bail yet?

It doesn't make much of a difference but why did you not request the TBD when you plead at your arraignment?

Quote:

---

Quoting oraph

---

is a month enough time or would it make sense to get an extension?

---

If your case is scheduled for trial then its too late for an extension... However, at the time when you request the TBD then you will be given some additional time before you have to submit the declaration... That should give you some more time as well.

okay so i got my IDR back.... what i got back is linked here. Can i use any of this info to my advantage?

My trial is on next wed and i still havn't done a TBD, does it even make sense to ask for tbd at this point?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ale/img011.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ale/img015.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ale/img017.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...0sale/img1.jpg

Quote:

---

Quoting oraph

---

okay so i got my IDR back.... what i got back is linked here. Can i use any of this info to my advantage?

---

Item 1... Not sure what that has to do with your citation...
Item 2... Tells you to get a copy of the speed survey from the court... But since you haven't done that, there's no way to tell if the 50mph limit is justified.
Item 3... I don't think a speedometer can be any more accurate...
Item 4... I can't read his writing... The only part I can make out is "... paced at 65...".... Seems to match what he cited you for.

Quote:

---

Quoting oraph

---

My trial is on next wed and i still havn't done a TBD, does it even make sense to ask for tbd at this point?

---

Not sure what you could really argue in court or in a TBD for that matter... You stated that you'd seen him but was unaware that the limit had dropped to 50 from 60... And even if it hadn't, you were clearly driving at 65 which is above the limit.

You can try and argue that by driving at 65, you didn't endanger anyone/anything but you have not stated anything so far that supports that argument and honestly, I don't see why or how the judge will buy that.

Others might disagree...

Of course I disagree with That Guy. His thought for a valid defense is way too shallow. I think you have an excellent chance of beating this ticket.

OK... time for a rant... This is exactly what I am talking about when I say that sending a IDR to the police is bad strategy. By law, the DA is REQUIRED to provide you with discovery as he is the prosecuting attorney. The cop who shows up is merely a witness. There is no statutory, regulatory or any other requirement for them to provide you with anything. That's why they can get away with just saying "go find the speed survey on your own"!! There is no legal recourse for the cop not providing you complete discovery as he is not required to provide it in the first place!! So, as far as you know, you could go get the survey, build a defense and the cop shows up with a more recent survey. Also, he doesn't have to tell the truth in his response to the IDR as it is not really discovery.... it is just some information he sent you. There is no legal requirement for him to be factual. As you see, he marked the ticket saying he got you on radar. However, the discovery response says he paced you. So, you need to establish he was using radar. Does the ticket have the radar unit number?? Keep in mind that even if he did pace you, as soon as he turned on the radar, all of the speed trap laws came into play. Read Earnest. I'm going to continue this post assuming that radar was actually used. If you have doubts, we can discuss that seperately.

First thing you should do is get the survey if you can. You need to understand what it is you are looking for. You are looking for the 85th percentile speed, or the critical speed at the point where the ticket says you were speeding (not where you got pulled over). If the that speed is more than 5mph above 50mph, you should be a winner! Now, as you described a speed limit changing from 60 to 50, I'd bet you a soda that the speed limit is NOT justified.

When the trial starts, your first motion is that the judge dismiss the case. You can show your letter and say that the prosecution did not provide you with the survey as requested, so it must be excluded from evidence. And, without the survey, the prosecution cannot make a prima facie case as per 40803(b). He will likely say that since he

If that fails, see if he brought his survey into court. The cop has to bring in a survey. If he does not, you should move for dismissal based on 40803(b). He cannot simply say that it is on file. Read Difiore. If he does have the survey and he says it justifies the limit, challenge him (especially if you know it doesn't). Make him point out exactly what the critical speed is at the location of the violation. Make sure he is doing it correctly because many of these guys have no clue what they are talking about. Read this thread.

If the speed trap defense doesn't work, you can try the 30 question defense.


Make sure you understand your defense before going to court. Don't think you will just be able to suggest something and the court will understand what you are talking about. You may have to educate the court AND the cop.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

I'm going to continue this post assuming that radar was actually used.

---

The letter from the CHP as well as the officer's notes on the back of the citation ~as far as I can see~ refer to a "pace"... So if the officer is testifying about a "PACE", there goes your Radar defense.

he did pace me.. does that change my defense strategy?

What did he write on the ticket about radar? You said he marked it on the ticket. It doesn't matter if he visually estimated your speed or if he paced you... if he verified the speed with radar, that clearly brings in the speed trap laws. If the ticket is vague, I think your questioning could go something like: "I see you marked radar on the front, but on the back you talked about pacing me... should I assume that you only used the radar to verify my speed but the main source you used to determine my speed was pacing?" If he says "yes", it's a done deal. If he says, "no", then you can question him about marking radar on the front. You can use it to detract from his credibility.

Even if he is convincing that he did not use radar, you still have a speed trap defense (it's NOT a radar defense). VC 40802 describes a speed trap as:

Quote:

---

A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed
limit... if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering
and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of
the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves
the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the
speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local
street, road, or school zone.

---

Since he PACED you and he didn't just visually estimate your speed, he relied on his speedometer... which IS an electronic device used to measure speed of moving objects!!! Therefore, you can argue that the speed trap defense still applies.

The more I think of this, the more I am starting to believe that he is likely relying on the pace because he may know that there is an unjustified limit. You should really hound him about the radar thing.


Here is an additional strategy:

If he appears to be convincing about the non-use of radar, you should object to the cop's testimony. The ticket is the basis for the complaint and it is the basis you used to prepare your defense. Since the ticket had radar marked, you prepared your case based on the fact that he did use radar. If the cop wanted to ammend the ticket and say radar was not used, he could have done so and properly notified you... but since he didn't then the discovery provided and his testimony are evidence that the ticket is defective on its face.

We have never seen the front part of the citation. The radar box also includes lidar and patrol vehicle. The officer could have written the patrol vehicle # in the box and not the radar ID #.

Also, exceeding the speed limit in a construction zone is going to go over like a lead baloon in court.

IMO, Hwy 17 needs to be retired, or at least, improved considerably. What a horrible roadway.

Quote:

---

Quoting sniper

---

We have never seen the front part of the citation. The radar box also includes lidar and patrol vehicle. The officer could have written the patrol vehicle # in the box and not the radar ID #.

Also, exceeding the speed limit in a construction zone is going to go over like a lead baloon in court.

IMO, Hwy 17 needs to be retired, or at least, improved considerably. What a horrible roadway.

---

I agree... the front of the citation needs to be seen to determine to determine the direction of your defense.

Was she in a construction zone??? I didn't see that part. She wasn't charged with a construction zone violation.... was she?