My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: California
My approximate speed indicated on the ticket was 70mph and it was with radar. The posted limit was 55mph, the conditions were clear and dry. Traffic was light since it was at 1am(No cars around except for 1 or 2 that passed while being pulled onto the shoulder). I was cited for CVC 22349(a):
"22349. (a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour."
I was on the SR-76 a four lane highway divided with a median, however there are occasional street lights. Is it odd I was cited for the 22349(a) rather then the 22350? I believe I was traveling at 65mph according to my speedometer, which is what I told the officer. How would I go about finding the Speed Zone Survey for the road? I also know the previously was a 65mph zone but was changed approximately 5 years ago.
Would it be worth contesting? If so, should I argue that I wasn't exceeding the speed of 65mph of the citation or 55mph of the posted?
CVC 22349(a)
Printable View
-
12-15-2009, 03:44 AMdbuchCVC 22349(a)
-
12-15-2009, 04:03 AMThat GuyRe: Cvc 22349(a)
Unless you can prove that the officer's Radar measurement of 70mph was incorrect or innaccurate, then simply suggesting that you "believe you were traveling at 65mph according to your speedometer" will not be sufficient.
Also, road conditions are irrelevant when it comes to a 22349 charge. Lastly, I'm not sure how a speed survey (assuming one does exist) will help you in any way. You were charged with exceeding a statutory speed limit and therefore, it is unlikely that the officer will present a survey as part of his case against you.
Just my 2 cent's worth... -
12-15-2009, 05:25 PMEWYLTJRe: CVC 22349(a)
I don't agree with That Guy. You don't have to PROVE anything. You only need to raise reasonable doubt.
1. You only have to show that you were not exceeding the statutory 65mph limit... not the 55. So, you were only 5mph over.
2. The cop likely won't bring a speed survey, so you can say he failed to meet the requirements of 40803(b). Case law is conflicted. You can quote people v. studley.
3. Be aware that when they send you your courtesy notice, it is likely your fine will be based on 55mph vice 65mph. If that happens, then you can argue that the state relied on the posted limit and therefore the speed trap laws apply. -
12-15-2009, 05:43 PMThat GuyRe: CVC 22349(a)And, under the circumstances, the officer will more than likely testify that he clocked the OP at 70 mph, and further present calibration certificates, training certificates... etc... establishing that his speed measurement was sufficiently accurate... Care to elaborate as to how the defendant should attempt to raise reasonable doubt as to the 5 mph?Quote:
Quoting EWYLTJ
Are you suggesting that the defendant's statement that "I believe I was traveling at 65mph according to my speedometer" should be sufficient to do that? -
12-15-2009, 08:24 PMEWYLTJRe: CVC 22349(a)Don't be bitter just because you forgot that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty and not vice versa.Quote:
Quoting That Guy
I think the OP should request discovery so as to obtain the calibration records. He can likely raise reasonable doubt to a a few mph and at that point, he could ask for a dismissal in the interest of justice rather than render a conviction for 2mph.
Also, in addition to the four defense suggestions I have provided, I would advise the OP to inspect all documents introduced into court. If any of the documents are not originals or certified true copies, he should object to their admission into evidence (also, object to the cop's testimony). If he can bounce the calibration reports that way, he should be able to raise reasonable doubt about the 5mph.
Now, that's five suggested defenses I have offered. I think the OP should try them all. What have you offered other than a snarky poke at me? -
12-16-2009, 10:34 AMThat GuyRe: CVC 22349(a)First, I am not bitter... Only you would know what being bitter is like.Quote:
Quoting EWYLTJ
Second, the only thing that I forgot is that you continue to think you are right ALL the time... So if it makes you happy, you are right... Even when you're wrong, you right! But that's your issue, not mine!
Third... fine, I slipped and used the word "prove" when instead, and since I have to spell everything out for some people, I will restate what I had initially posted:
"Unless you can somehow establish that the officer's Radar measurement of 70mph was incorrect or inaccurate, then simply suggesting that you "believe you were traveling at 65mph according to your speedometer" will not be sufficient."
With that being said, and if someone were to argue that any inaccuracy (+/- 1 to 2 mph) in a calibrated Radar reading could persumably result in a "measured speed minus the error rate", then they must EQUALLY consider that the result might also mean "measured speed PLUS the error rate"... Average both out and you're back at what the officer testified to as being the MEASURED SPEED. So much for "reasonable doubt".
Ever consider that analogy as being the reason why courts will usually accept a radar reading for what it is, rather than what YOU want it to be?
dbuch, good luck in court... And please update us on how it all works out! -
12-16-2009, 05:39 PMEWYLTJRe: CVC 22349(a)Did you REALLY just tell me, "I know you are... but what am I?" Great job, Peewee Herman!!:D:D:DQuote:
Quoting That Guy