CVC 22350 Unsafe Speed when Conditions Were Caused by City's Sprinklers in Median

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: California

Driving home this evening, I was unexpectedly pulled over. Quite honestly when I saw the lights I wasn't sure what it was going to be for as I didn't think I was doing anything to constitute being pulled over at the time.

I was cited by the officer (not a CHP) with CVC 22350 with an approximate speed of 60 in a 50 mile an hour zone. When cited, the weather was clear as it has been for several weeks here and it was 9:30 at night so traffic was minimal on the 6 lane secondary road (which is also a highway overpass). The officer told me he paced me at 60mph on his speedometer as evidence, and did not have radar or laser evidence.

He told me the reason he cited me with 22350 was because sprinklers (that were on the city owned median) were, in part, watering the road causing some wet spots thus making driving conditions unsafe.

Does this make sense?

The section says it applies to weather, visibility, the traffic and the surface and width of, the highway. To me, poorly aimed sprinklers do not qualify under any of those categories and quite honestly sounds like the city is solely liable for causing the unsafe conditions.

Also, the location of the citation is specifically marked Road 1 & Road 2. To me, this means that there were sprinklers in the middle of the intersection. However, after checking on Google maps, the first place after this intersection where there are sprinklers spraying on to the road are just over 500 feet past this intersection. Is the location provided specific enough?

I would gladly accept the fact that I was wrong if I was doing 70 or 80 and was cited with an actual speeding violation and head to traffic school, but being cited with 22350 and with the sprinklers as the reason, things don't seem to add up with this particular citation and what I was charged with.

How should I proceed with this?

EDIT: The officer also wrote in the Comments (Weather, Road, and Traffic Conditions) field the following: C. D. M.

22350 says your speed created a danger to persons or property. However, 22351 basically says that if you were exceeding the posted limit, then you are presumed to have violated 22350 unless you can show your speed did not created a danger for persons or property.

While 22350 is the easiest of all speeding tickets to beat, your situation raises an interesting question that has been hotly debated, yet not resolved. 40802 defines a speed trap to be when the prima facie speed limit is not justified by a speed survey and when the speed is determined by radar or any other electronic device used to measure speed of moving objects. Most people make the knee jerk assumption that a "pace ticket" is excluded from this. However, I have the opinion that the officer's speedometer (assuming he is driving any late model car) IS an electronic device used to measure speed of moving objects. Therefore, the speed trap laws come into play.

So, if you are just looking for the easiest way to dispense with this ticket, please ignore this post. However, if you believe that the government is NOT allowed to twist the law in its favor by disregarding the plain language reading of its own statutes... and you are willing to put up a fight, then this is a very interesting test case.

So, how would you like to proceed?

Thanks for the response. So you mentioned 22351. Even though 22351 was not the violation I was charged with, I am assuming you brought it up because it is something the judge will take into account since the speed on the citation was above the posted limit.

As far as my plan goes, I am open to anything at this point so I am at least interested in hearing your ideas out.

Quote:

---

Quoting ceola1

---

He told me the reason he cited me with 22350 was because sprinklers (that were on the city owned median) were, in part, watering the road causing some wet spots thus making driving conditions unsafe.

---

I'm not sure how much liability you can place on the city for having "poorly aimed sprinklers" when ultimately, it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that he/she is not driving at an unsafe speed for those conditions.

Quote:

---

Quoting ceola1

---

C. D. M.

---

How about "Clear" ~ Weather, "Damp" ~ road and "Medium" ~ Traffic Conditions?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

I'm not sure how much liability you can place on the city for having "poorly aimed sprinklers" when ultimately, it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that he/she is not driving at an unsafe speed for those conditions.

---

I can see where you are coming from there. Would it be worth my time to bring in a NOAA weather report that shows no precipitation in the area for over 24 hours?

That Guy is right that the sprinklers are pretty much irrelevant. Here is 22351:

Quote:

---

22351(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima
facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in
this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by
competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not
constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and
under the conditions then existing.

---

So, since you were driving over the prima facie speed limit (the posted limit), you are presumed to have violated 22350 (the basic speed law) unless you can show that your speed did not create a danger to persons or property. So, abandon that strategy.


Speed trap is defined as:

Quote:

---

40802(2) 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.

---

I can almost guaruntee that the cop will not bring a copy of the speed survey as he will believe it is not needed. (By the way... you could get a copy of the survey by calling Caltrans or your local public works depending on what type of road it is.) So the question will come down to, is 40802 applicable since the cop paced you with his speedometer?

As I stated before, if he was driving any late model car, his speedometer is an electronic device. Therefore, I say speed trap laws apply. Several people here think that speed trap laws only apply if radar is used. However, that is NOT the plain language reading of the code.

Is this clear as mud yet?

I'm following you now. So no matter what, the sprinklers play no part in this.

The next question is which way do I do the trial? Do I appear in person or do trial by declaration (after appearing in person for arraignment)?

At first look it seems I should do trial by declaration since the officer may not even write in anyway but if he does write in and the judge does not decide in my favor, go to the actual trial.

Or should I just appear in person and bank on him not bringing a speed survey?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

How about "Clear" ~ Weather, "Damp" ~ road and "Medium" ~ Traffic Conditions?

---

Hmmmmm. I've never seen "D" mean "Damp" before. In the Seattle area I've only ever seen "D" for "Dry" and "W" for "Wet". Although, Seattle is the only place I've ever lived that distinguishes between "showers" and "rain" in a weather forecast.

Personally, since there is still a chance that the judge might agree with the officer that the sprinklers created an additional concern, I would still take photos of the EXACT intersection specified in your citation -- while the sprinklers are running. If you can show there is very little water on the street -- not enough to affect driving conditions -- that should negate the officer's testimony that those conditions made your speed "unsafe".

In addition, I think Jim's assertion that a car's speedometer is an "electronic" device is, IMHO, correct. A few years ago I worked for a company that created electronic "monitors" for cars. One of the inputs was from the transmission which delivered electronic "pulses".

In older models a cable ran from the transmission to the speedometer/odometer and used an analog dial which relied on "eddy currents" and spring tension to allow the speedometer needle to properly represent the speed of the vehicle. Modern cars simply "count" the pulses during a time interval to "compute" the vehicle's speed. The time interval is usually derived from an inexpensive watch crystal (usually 32 KHz). The resulting speed computation is then displayed on the car's digital readout. It is a fairly simple circuit, however, since there are NO MOVING PARTS, I, too, consider an "electronic" device.

As far as TBWD, I defer to Guy and Jim for advice on those fine points.

Good luck,
Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting ceola1

---

I can see where you are coming from there. Would it be worth my time to bring in a NOAA weather report that shows no precipitation in the area for over 24 hours?

---

Not really... The officer will not argue that the road was damp because of weather conditions; chances are he will state that the road was damp/wet because if sprinklers.

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Personally, since there is still a chance that the judge might agree with the officer that the sprinklers created an additional concern, I would still take photos of the EXACT intersection specified in your citation -- while the sprinklers are running. If you can show there is very little water on the street -- not enough to affect driving conditions -- that should negate the officer's testimony that those conditions made your speed "unsafe".

---

I will take a picture of the exact intersection. Should I also take a picture where the actual sprinklers are because, like I said, they are not AT the exact intersection I was cited at. They are 500-700 feet beyond the intersection on the citation.

The TBWD is a free bite at the apple. In some cases the cop doesn't file a statement and your case is dismissed. However, in most TBWD's I have seen, the judge simply rubber stamps it "guilty". I'm convinced they don't even read them. But, even if there is only a 1% chance of success.... 1% of something is a lot more than 100% of nothing!!!

Also, you do NOT give up your speedy trial rights in a TBWD. They start over when you ask for your trial de novo.

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Hmmmmm. I've never seen "D" mean "Damp" before. In the Seattle area I've only ever seen "D" for "Dry" and "W" for "Wet".

---

Although the "D" could be easily interpreted as "Dry", I only said "Damp" due to the fact that he would be contradicting himself by saying the road was "Dry" only to follow that by saying it was "Wet" because the sprinklers were on at the time...

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Modern cars simply "count" the pulses during a time interval to "compute" the vehicle's speed. The time interval is usually derived from an inexpensive watch crystal (usually 32 KHz). The resulting speed computation is then displayed on the car's digital readout. It is a fairly simple circuit, however, since there are NO MOVING PARTS, I, too, consider an "electronic" device.

---

While the time cycle can and is derived as you described, the "pulses" that are counted are in fact generated based upon how many times the drive shaft or the wheel spins during that specific time cycle. Isn't it? That, by definition, adds a mechanical aspect to the entire operation because if the drive shaft does not "mechanically" spin, then the device will show a zero reading.

So while the rest of that particular speed measuring device is in fact "electronic"; there is an important "mechanical" component in it which causes it to eventually come up with a reading. Compare that to the electronic measuring device that are mentioned in the statute (i.e. Radar, LASER), you will see that those "speed measuring devices" employ a strictly "electronic" methodology to calculate an object's speed. Yes the officer has to "mechanically activate the device" (by pushing a button), but that does not have any bearing or effect upon the resultant speed reading in any way.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

The TBWD is a free bite at the apple. In some cases the cop doesn't file a statement and your case is dismissed.

---

My thoughts exactly.

Is there any advantage to extending my appearance date so that by the time the officer has to write a statement or appear, its been almost a year since he wrote the citation?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Although the "D" could be easily interpreted as "Dry", I only said "Damp" due to the fact that he would be contradicting himself by saying the road was "Dry" only to follow that by saying it was "Wet" because the sprinklers were on at the time...

---

In my TBWD is there any way to call out the C. D. M. and speculate D means dry because that was my thought as well. If the road was dry, how was my driving unsafe for the conditions? Never mind it was 60 in a 50, my measured speed wasn't what I was cited for, the conditions were. Or can I request from the officer/anyone (during discovery) to clearly define what he meant in the comments?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Although the "D" could be easily interpreted as "Dry", I only said "Damp" due to the fact that he would be contradicting himself by saying the road was "Dry" only to follow that by saying it was "Wet" because the sprinklers were on at the time...


While the time cycle can and is derived as you described, the "pulses" that are counted are in fact generated based upon how many times the drive shaft or the wheel spins during that specific time cycle. Isn't it? That, by definition, adds a mechanical aspect to the entire operation because if the drive shaft does not "mechanically" spin, then the device will show a zero reading.

So while the rest of that particular speed measuring device is in fact "electronic"; there is an important "mechanical" component in it which causes it to eventually come up with a reading. Compare that to the electronic measuring device that are mentioned in the statute (i.e. Radar, LASER), you will see that those "speed measuring devices" employ a strictly "electronic" methodology to calculate an object's speed. Yes the officer has to "mechanically activate the device" (by pushing a button), but that does not have any bearing or effect upon the resultant speed reading in any way.

---

Geez... you do this all of the time. What you are talking about is a HUGE stretch. It almost seems like you were on the Clinton advisory team when they decided to put out the defense, "it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is".

So, you slather on this nonsense and it just seems to ramble. What IS your point??? Are you suggesting that an electronic speedometer does not meet the legal definition of electronic? If so, just say it!! We have enough "devil's advocates" around here!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting ceola1

---

My thoughts exactly.

Is there any advantage to extending my appearance date so that by the time the officer has to write a statement or appear, its been almost a year since he wrote the citation?



In my TBWD is there any way to call out the C. D. M. and speculate D means dry because that was my thought as well. If the road was dry, how was my driving unsafe for the conditions? Never mind it was 60 in a 50, my measured speed wasn't what I was cited for, the conditions were. Or can I request from the officer/anyone (during discovery) to clearly define what he meant in the comments?

---

I would call the court and get the first freebee extension. Then, I'd call back and tell them I wanted to do a TBWD and have them send out the forms. Finally, I'd do the TBWD as close to the due date as reasonable. After that, you have to play it by ear.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

I would call the court and get the first freebee extension. Then, I'd call back and tell them I wanted to do a TBWD and have them send out the forms. Finally, I'd do the TBWD as close to the due date as reasonable. After that, you have to play it by ear.

---

That is what I will do.

I called the police station and asked what was meant by C.D.M. and they told me it meant Clear, Dry, Moderate meaning his verbal reasoning for pulling me over because the road was wet (sprinklers) is already contradicted because on the citation it says the road was dry. Granted it was only a dispatcher I spoke to. Is there anyone more official I can talk to to get the meaning of CDM? Or will I have to request a copy of the officers citation to see what he wrote specifically?