Ticket in California 22349b, Fine

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

I was traveling on a two lane undivided highway with a posted limit of 45. I was given a ticket for 62.

My first question is about the fine. According to the schedule I believe this ticket should be $266. My notice says I owe $408 if I don't go to traffic school and $460 if I do. Can this be correct for 17 mph over? Who do I contact if it's wrong?

Secondly and probably hopelessly..I didn't ask for how he got me or to see any kind of device. Any chance of beating this? In the past I've showed up and politely asked for reduced sentences.

Any advice?

My wife just got a ticket for going 67 in a 55MPH posted speed limit on a two lane undivided as well. I know when its 1-15 MPH over the posted speed limit, its around $146. I really don't know what you can do other than just raise the question. Hopefully someone else with more experience can give you some advice.

That fine does seem way too steep. What does your DMV prior record look like? I suggest you call the court and ask how it was calculated, because it should not be any more than $330 or so for the violation itself.

As an aside, is there any case law that allows the courts to use the lower P/F limit for calculating the fine amount in cases where the defendant is charged with violating a high state maximum speed limit to make it easier to convict the defendant? Since the OP is charged with driving above 55mph rather than 45mph, he's only 7mph over, not 17, and the fine should be lower IMO.

I've had nothing for 18 months, before that maybe 2 speeding tickets in the last 5 years. Seatbelt violation last year, no points for that one. Does this factor into my fine?

This is San Diego county.

You need to determine how speed was measured. If he did it by radar or lidar, you do have a case for a speed trap... but you will have to argue well.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

You need to determine how speed was measured. If he did it by radar or lidar, you do have a case for a speed trap... but you will have to argue well.

---

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Check the statute he's charged with. Plz check before u post.

Quote:

---

Quoting lastchance

---

According to the schedule I believe this ticket should be $266.

---

You need to add the $30 + $35 on the bottom of each page of the schedule... So for 17mph over the limit, HonkingAntelope's ~$331 is correct.

Also, just an FYI... There is a provision in the vehicle code (CVC 40508.6(a)) that adds an administrative assessment of $10 for every prior conviction (irrespective of violation points) on your record... But even then, the $408 does seem excessive.

40508.6. The superior court in any county may establish administrative assessments, not to exceed ten dollars ($10), for clerical and administrative costs incurred for the following activities:

(a) An assessment for the cost of recording and maintaining a record of the defendant's prior convictions for violations of this code. The assessment shall be payable at the time of payment of a fine or when bail is forfeited for any subsequent violations of this code other than parking, pedestrian, or bicycle violations.
(b) An assessment for all defendants whose driver's license or automobile registration is attached or restricted pursuant to Section 40509 or 40509.5, to cover the cost of notifying the Department of Motor Vehicles of the attachment or restriction.

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Check the statute he's charged with. Plz check before u post.

---

Right, right, right. Check People v. Studley which states:

Quote:

---

This case presents the following question: where a motorist is cited, by the use of radar, for speed in excess of the state maximum speed limit on a nonlocal road with a prima facie speed limit of 50 miles per hour, and where a traffic and engineering survey is not proved at trial, do California's speed trap laws apply to compel exclusion of all evidence of speed? We hold the answer is "yes."

---

So, according to Studley, if a road is posted with a Prima Facie speed limit, speed trap laws do apply even if charged with exceeding the max speed limit. Now, there is case law that contradicts Studley, but it is reserved for cases where the officer (state) did not rely on the posted speed limit, rather it relied only on the max speed limit. In this case, the OP is being fined as per the posted speed limit, therefore the State is relying on the posted limit, therefore speed trap laws should apply.

This is clearly not a slam dunk defense, but it is not bad. So, the choice is either work hard on a marginal defense or don't work at all on no defense.

Good catch, EW. I looked into the issue a bit more and learned something new.

DiFiore holds that when the defendant is charged with VC 22350, the fact that the measured speed exceeds the state maxumum does not relieve the prosecution from proving that the situation was not a speed trap.

However, the OP is charged with VC 22349(b), which is exceeding the state maximum of 55mph on an undivided highway with one lane in each direction. Studley is rather ambiguous on this matter, but the issue is mostly resolved in People v. Singh (2001)92 Cal.App.4th Supp. 13 with a couple of interesting gotchas:

Quote:

---

Appellant relies upon the persuasive effect of People v. Studley (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, a case with the same significant facts as this matter on appeal and in square agreement in its decision. In Studley, the court relied upon the legislative intent found in the entire [92 Cal.App.4th Supp. 16] legislative scheme regarding radar and found the radar evidence inadmissible: "[A]fter a close reading of the statutes in question, we find the Legislature's antipathy toward any radar-based prosecution of any speed law violation in any posted zone, where the prima facie speed limit is not justified by proof of a timely engineering survey, is absolute and unequivocal." (Id. at p. Supp 3, italics omitted.)

On the other hand, the People rely on the persuasive effect of the precisely contrary interpretation of the speed trap laws as set forth in People v. DiFiore (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d Supp. 26. DiFiore reasoned: "A person who drives in excess of the maximum lawful speed has not been subjected to a 'speed trap' even if his speed has been detected by radar on a posted road unless the officer relies on the posted or prima facie speed limit." (Id. at p. Supp. 29.)

/* SNIP SNIP SNIP */

The literal meaning being clear, although the analysis arcane, no reference to a general purpose of the Legislature is required. "In summary: If an officer testifies only that he clocked a defendant on radar at a specified speed in excess of [the maximum speed limit], no 'speed trap' is involved, and the anti-speed-trap laws do not apply. If, however, that officer relies on a prima facie or posted speed limit, that officer is incompetent as a witness and any evidence concerning the vehicle's speed is inadmissible unless an adequate survey is introduced. [Fn. omitted.] (People v. DiFiore, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at pp. Supp. 29-30.)

The judgment is affirmed.

---

I do agree with one thing - the OP could bring up the fact that the bail is calculated according to the posted P/F limit constitutes improper reliance on the posted speed limit by the officer (who wrote it down on the ticket rather than 55mph). It's a tenuous argument, but it might win at least a fine reduction.

A good trick question would be to ask the officer why he decided to stop your vehicle, which is when he'll probably say the OP was driving 17mph over and was a menace to society). If he doesn't mention the exact excess speed, ask how many mph above the limit the suspect vehicle was going. If he says 17 rather than 7mph, feel free to ask the officer for the survey. If he or the judge object, that's when you could introduce the holding of People v. Singh and move to dismiss.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

In this case, the OP is being fined as per the posted speed limit, therefore the State is relying on the posted limit, therefore speed trap laws should apply.

---

Just to point out a minor technicality, the fine is imposed during sentencing. The amount demanded from OP is bail. Whether the state's reliance on the P/F limit to calculate bail invokes speed trap laws is a good question for appeals courts (IMO, the answer should be a resounding YES).