Speeding California 1 CVC 22349(A)

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

I received a citation (VC 22349(a)) last November for 70 in a 55 traveling on CA 1 near Santa Cruz. I was about 60 ft. behind an SUV who had been keeping pace with me at about 62 mph. The SUV started to pull away as the road straightened and a CHP motorcycle heading in the opposite direction came around the next bend and immediately targeted the SUV. The officer turned around and pursued. I pulled over and he went ahead to pull over the SUV. When I got back on the road he waved me down and told me, no questions asked, that he had clocked me at 71.

He wrote the ticket for 70 and checked the box for RADAR.

I've been driving on this highway for 25 years and I know both the Sheriff and CHP patrol it constantly. I set my cruise control to 62 and forget about it. I wasn't driving 71 (or 70) mph. So I pleaded not guilty and set a trial date.

I requested discovery from the DA (no, I never heard from them) and sent copies to the court and the CHP. The CHP did respond with a copy of the ticket and RADAR information (logs, certification of tuning forks in 2000, certification papers up through 2005 and a certification log showing it had been certified again in 2008 but no certification for that year. No operator's manual though - citing copyright laws). I notice that the logs come with all the tests for calibration pre-checked so the officer just writes in the date and time.

The ticket showed a note saying the two vehicles were traveling at the same speed. It said the officer spotted the SUV at 300' and me 75' behind. At our combined speeds that would give the officer 2 seconds before he passed us both. 1/3 - 3/4 of a second to get the other vehicle out of the zone of influence and a shot at my speed alone.
The SUV hit the brakes the moment he saw the motorcycle and when the officer passed me I checked and I was at 55. I think the officer got the lead car, assumed we were together and used the speed he recorded for the SUV.

That said, I suspect I'm not going to have much luck persuading the court that the officer wouldn't have enough time to make an accurate visual assessment of MY speed or that the RADAR results weren't from my vehicle. Should I throw in the towel or is there some hope here?

Thanks for reading through this and any thoughts you can offer.

Is it 22349(a) or 22349(b)?

(b) - thanks.

Quote:

---

Quoting fogdog

---

(b) - thanks.

---

No problem... Not that it would make much of a difference in the way of a defense. I mean assuming that the officer can substantiate his claim of your speed of 70mph, you could be found guilty of either driving in excess of 65mph in violation of 22349(a) OR driving in excess of 55mph in violation of 22349(b).

The question that remains here would be whether the court would accept the officer's method of estimating your speed at 71mph (citing you for 70mph). It is a well known fact that officers who are trained in using Radar/laser are also trained in visual estimation of speed. Usually they make a visual estimate and then they confirm that with a Radar/Laser reading. In this case, and considering that he may testify to the fact that he measured the speed of the SUV ahead of you and shortly thereafter was able to estimate your speed at 71mph, it is likely that his testimony will be sufficient to support the alleged violation. Point is, as long as he can articulate that your alleged speed was in excess of the Statutory Maximum limit then he has substantiated his case to prove guilt on your part. It would depend on the judge and on how well you get make a case of reasonable doubt in your cross examination.

Also, and although I am not an expert on Radar or how it works, (and I realize that the notes on the back of the citation indicate otherwise) it is highly likely that once the SUV was out of his Radar range, it did in fact measure your speed (showed him a 71) independent of that of the SUV... So he chose to pursue the other vehicle and stop it first, hoping you would come up on him later on where he can wave you over to a stop.

Back to your original post:

Quote:

---

Quoting fogdog

---

certification of tuning forks in 2000, certification papers up through 2005

---

I'm gonna skip this part as I am not aware of any case law citations where tuning fork calibrations have been brought in the spotlight. Maybe someone else can chime in on that.

Quote:

---

Quoting fogdog

---

a certification log showing it had been certified again in 2008

---

The legal requirement is that it be calibrated once every 3 years. Although the CHP does in fact calibrate once a year as a matter of department policy.

Quote:

---

Quoting fogdog

---

No operator's manual though - citing copyright laws).

---

You can probably Google that but I am not sure what any of the information in there will prove or disprove.

Quote:

---

Quoting fogdog

---

I notice that the logs come with all the tests for calibration pre-checked so the officer just writes in the date and time.

---

If you're referring to the daily calibration logs, and assuming that he is the one who checked the calibration (which would be expected), I am not sure who else is supposed to complete the log form.

Lastly, I will tell you that a 22349 citation is not an easy one to beat. You do however, have a glimmer of hope as far as his method of measuring your speed (2 vehicles -back to back) but even then, it will all depend on how he testifies. You may want to look into filing a Trial By Written Declaration as your first step, seeing how that goes and if you lose, you still have the option of requesting a new trial. before going to the new trial, you would be able to request a copy of his declaration which will give you more insight (than just his notes from the citation) as to how he will testify at the Trial De Novo.

It does prolong the process and therefore it depends on how much time and effort you would like to put into it.

Good luck!

Thanks very much for your thoughts, That Guy.

Unfortunately I didn't pursue TBWD - chalk it up to inexperience. I suppose that's a good sign.
Understood that officers are well trained in both visual and use of RADAR. I'm sure, in spite of a relatively brief opportunity, the officer could give a reasonably good approximation of the SUV's speed even without RADAR. I KNOW I wasn't traveling more than a few mph over 60 - but that's the problem - knowing it doesn't give it much substance against the word of the officer. If his display showed him 71 as he approached, why would he question which car produced it? More importantly, it took place over 2 seconds time - I'd like to think there's sufficient doubt about which car it was reading and when over that period but the officer could make the same argument.

The manual was for specs on the unit - I'm not sure what it would tell me but it provides details on beam width, zone of influence, minimum sampling time and so on. No way that information is made available to the public. I even spoke to the manufacturer and they told me to go back and ask the CHP. The request to the DA would have been helpful here.

My point on the logs was that the check list came pre-checked - it assumes the unit always works so it's marked OK before it's even checked. The officer only has to enter the time and date that he was writing in the log. I wonder what he does when it doesn't check . . . cross out the check?

It's likely that the officer was using a Stalker Dual radar in moving/opposite lane mode using Fastest Speed. (Even if he was using a Kustom Signals Eagle, the second-most popular unit used by the CHP, the principle is identical.)

I recently served as an expert witness in a similar case, also for a CVC 22349 citation. In that case, the officer clocked a nearby sedan at 91 mph and mistakenly assigned the speed to a distant Porsche Cayenne. This was due to his inexperience and lack of knowledge of radar operation. And he lied in his written declaration.

In your case, the larger SUV was the dominant target and would have remained so until the officer had passed that vehicle. He may well have been operating the radar in Fastest mode, where it would display both the strongest target (the SUV in this case) and fastest target (also the SUV). If yours had been the faster vehicle, it'd have displayed your speed in the center, Fatest Speed window, and the SUV's in the Target (left-hand) speed window.

But he couldn't have locked a Fastest speed unless it was also the strongest (closest) target. And judging from your description, there wouldn't have been time to lock the 71 mph strongest target's speed (SUV), visually estimate your speed, activate the radar's XMT switch, clear the locked speed, obtain a proper tracking history, and then lock your speed.

The way the CHP Academy trains cadets to use radar in moving/opposite lane mode, as was used here, is to first visually estimate target speed, activate the radar, confirm that the target speed approximates the visual estimate, check Patrol speed to confirm that the two are identical--guarding against cosine, shadowing and other common moving-mode errors; continue to monitor target speed for a few seconds while listening to the Audio Doppler that corresponds to the target speed, then lock the speed. The process generally takes 4 to 7 seconds.

Also, you note that the officer was rounding a bend when he encountered your vehicle and the SUV. If he began transmitting before the motorcycle was again perfectly upright and aimed directly down the road, his antenna was canted at an abnormal angle in relation to the pavement. This generates moving cosine error and assigns an improper speed to the target.

Regardless, I suspect that the officer saw the faster SUV, came off RF Hold, transmitted and locked its 71 mph speed and then met you, very possibly without clearing the locked speed and repeating the process--simply because he had no time. This lack of a tracking history would invalidate any radar speed obtained; he simply wasn't following procedure.

The officer in the aforementioned case was similarly sloppy; then he lied in his written declaration, claiming that he observed the Cayenne moving at 91 mph and then locked its speed. What the rookie failed to understand is that his radar won't permit locking a Fastest speed unless it's also the strongest target. Which in that case, never happened.

If the motor officer had been using Fastest Speed, there'd have been no need to pass the SUV to get your speed. But from your description, he was rushing things a bit and simply assumed that both vehicles were traveling at the same speed. That's sloppy work and violates procedure.

Thanks!

Yes, Stalker Dual SL.
I appreciate the education on cadet training. I looked at the NHTSA basic training manual and it matches most of your description.
Since I won't have the benefit of an expert witness, I take it that it's up to me to draw out these details from the officer in cross examination.

I agree with your assessment of the events and your insights provide a lot of potential arguing points. I'll hope to be able to make those arguments.

Your last paragraph lost me a little - if my speed had been greater, I understand why the officer's display would show my speed as fastest. But since I was traveling slower, it wouldn't have.
If I understand correctly, if the officer didn't lock in the speed of the first vehicle for some reason, he'd have to check the radar display to get the speed of that car before looking back up to try to track my speed - then confirm by RADAR and confirm the PV display speed with his speedometer.


Thanks again for your detailed response.