22350 VC - Excessive Speed, No Radar

[samsonian]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: California, San Diego 92122

no radar, speed estimate, 55 in 35. I sped up from a light to the next light and no one was on the road. Cop pulled out from darkness and lit me up

He wrote my car down as a 2 door (4 door sedan) and as gray (blue slate).. can I use this against him in court?

this is my first speeding ticket, so should I

A. get the court date moved back, hope cop doesnt show (50% chance) and if he does plead guilty, try to get fine lowered (play sympathy card- student in debt with loans paying for college on own etc etc) and request traffic school

B. pay fine ($300+) and not even try to go to court and attend traffic school since it was under 25mph violation.

I read countless threads and I am under the impression that the speed trap defense is out of the question since no radar was used. I can question his certification but I think the sympathy route may work in my favor to reduce a fine (saw this work once at a previous court case where my officer didnt show up for a lane change violation)

As for the conditions:
it was a cloudy night around 10pm. It was a two lane road with posted 30MPH sign at the beginning (he cited me for 35). I took off from a light and sped up to around 45 at most and he came out of no where. No people or cars were infront of me (couple cars behind me) and the road ended at a light ahead so he got me right before the light as I was slowing down. He estimated my speed as the radar box is empty on my copy of the ticket. Infraction is circled aswell.

I'm not too sure if I can prove that the conditions were not endangering people or property as he will probably lie and say people were out (this is a university town). The road in question was only two lanes and had a line of cars parked in the outer lane next to the side walk. I was in the left most lane so away from the cars, but I am guessing this falls under the 'endangering property' clause.


thank you all for the help. Let me know if you need any more info.

[HonkingAntelope]

Unless you have prior accidents, just one point on your record won't affect insurance too much but I'd check with your insurance agent just in case.

If the officer doesn't show up but the court doesn't automatically dismiss the case for a trivial violation such as lane change or speeding, you should be asking the judge to dismiss ("failure to prosecute" if the judge asks the reason), NOT a mere fine reduction. You need to object then and there to any attempt to reschedule and raise the issue on appeal if the court won't budge. Unless both you and the officer made a prior appearance together and you were granted a continuance for whatever reason or you were given prior notice rescheduling the trial, the judge ordering a continuance when you showed up and the officer didn't would make a decent case for abuse of judicial discretion on appeal, IMO.

As for your case, it would be a tough one to argue if the cop showed up. It wouldn't be easy to explain to the judge why driving 20mph over posted limit of 35 on a road with street parking at night was safe. It's not impossible, but it's an uphill battle.

That being said, the first step would be to go ahead and file the 'i am not guilty' declaration and have a look at the officer statement if he replies.

[samsonian]

Unless you have prior accidents, just one point on your record won't affect insurance too much but I'd check with your insurance agent just in case.

no prior accidents/tickets.. completely clean record. So traffic school is an option right now granted the judge will allow me to go to

If the officer doesn't show up but the court doesn't automatically dismiss the case for a trivial violation such as lane change or speeding, you should be asking the judge to dismiss ("failure to prosecute" if the judge asks the reason), NOT a mere fine reduction. You need to object then and there to any attempt to reschedule and raise the issue on appeal if the court won't budge. Unless both you and the officer made a prior appearance together and you were granted a continuance for whatever reason or you were given prior notice rescheduling the trial, the judge ordering a continuance when you showed up and the officer didn't would make a decent case for abuse of judicial discretion on appeal, IMO.

interesting information. thanks.

As for your case, it would be a tough one to argue if the cop showed up. It wouldn't be easy to explain to the judge why driving 20mph over posted limit of 35 on a road with street parking at night was safe. It's not impossible, but it's an uphill battle.

my intention is not to fight it as I know I will most likely lose. I just am banking off the fact that I have a 50% chance of getting my ticket dismissed if the cop does not show up.

That being said, the first step would be to go ahead and file the 'i am not guilty' declaration and have a look at the officer statement if he replies.

is this where I go to the court in question and pay the bail amount and plead not guilty for a court date? How would I get a copy of the officer's statement?


I am just trying to get a reduced fine and traffic school if the cop shows up. Is this feasible given I play the sympathy card with the judge and ask for traffic school so I can learn more about the rules of driving? If I plead guilty, will the judge be likely to dismiss my option to attend traffic school?

One last note. In the OP, I stated that the officer marked my car down as a 2 door (it was a 4 door sedan) and as gray (it was blue slate). The officer is trying to use his training as a "radar". Therefore his testimony is accepted.
But if he can't get the # of doors correct while standing 1 ft away from the car (at a standstill) then how accurate could his estimate be at 50ft and moving? It was dark and cloudy out so I would think that that's another hit on his crediblity? It's alot harder to judge distance when it's dark. Visual landmarks are harder to see, depth perception is lessened. Could I make a case off this?

thank you for your time, it is much appreciated.

[That Guy]

I just am banking off the fact that I have a 50% chance of getting my ticket dismissed if the cop does not show up.

I wouldn't call it a 50% chance... Your mileage may vary...

is this where I go to the court in question and pay the bail amount and plead not guilty for a court date? How would I get a copy of the officer's statement?

No... I think HA was referring to you requesting and filing a "Trial By Written Declaration" and if you lose, you will receive notice of the decision, after which you can request a copy of the officer's declaration (his written "statement") from which you can attempt to plan a better defense as you prepare for the "Trial De Novo" (if you choose to take it that far).

I am just trying to get a reduced fine and traffic school if the cop shows up.

It is my opinion that your best opportunity to request a fine reduction, is presented to you at your arraignment (your first court appearance). And since the officer is not required to be there until the trial (assuming you plead not guilty and request a trial date), waiting to see if he shows up at the trial (your second appearance) and THEN asking for a fine reduction along with traffic school is less probable than you'd think.

Is this feasible given I play the sympathy card with the judge and ask for traffic school so I can learn more about the rules of driving?

As it stands right now (20mph over the limit), I see no reason why you would not be automatically qualified for traffic school... So no sympathy card should be required here. In fact, you may be able to take the traffic school option without appearing in court. However, add in the request for a fine reduction, and yes, your appearing before the judge and pulling the sympathy card is a must.

If I plead guilty, will the judge be likely to dismiss my option to attend traffic school?

You will have to plead "guilty" to afford yourself the traffic school option. Traffic school isn't allowed when you plead "not guilty"... In other words, you plead guilty, elect traffic school (and pay the fine amount + the traffic school administrative fee to the court), the court places your case on hold until a certain date when you have to complete the program. Assuming you submit the completion certificate to the court in a timely manner (most schools will automatically report completion to the court) then your case is dismissed.

One last note. In the OP, I stated that the officer marked my car down as a 2 door (it was a 4 door sedan) and as gray (it was blue slate). The officer is trying to use his training as a "radar". Therefore his testimony is accepted.
But if he can't get the # of doors correct while standing 1 ft away from the car (at a standstill) then how accurate could his estimate be at 50ft and moving?

the color of your vehicle and/or the # of doors are not an element of the offense. Yes, they are included on the citation, and yet they are not required to be on there for the citation to be valid. For all intents and purposes, he could have left those areas blank and it would not effect the validity of the citation nor will it effect your guilt or innocence.

Your "inattentive" argument has been tried and tested many times... And most, if not all the time, it has failed to provide a defendant with a plausible defense.

As long as he has the correct driver's license number on the citation, then identifying you as the driver he pulled over after witnessing the violation would be sufficient

It was dark and cloudy out so I would think that that's another hit on his crediblity? It's alot harder to judge distance when it's dark. Visual landmarks are harder to see, depth perception is lessened. Could I make a case off this?

I'm not sure how "dark and cloudy" could affect his "credibility" or his ability to pace your speed (I'm assuming this was a "pace") all while he is inside his vehicle... The same analogy I offered with regards to his "attentiveness" applies here as well. You will have an extremely difficult time getting him to admit that his speed measurement was "uncertain".

Good luck!

[HonkingAntelope]

my intention is not to fight it as I know I will most likely lose. I just am banking off the fact that I have a 50% chance of getting my ticket dismissed if the cop does not show up.

Actually, you get two chances. One chance is that the officer won't file the TBD papers. To my own discredit, this has happened with 5 out of the six of my own tickets I've beaten so far. In contrast, only three of my TBDs came back with a guilty decision.

is this where I go to the court in question and pay the bail amount and plead not guilty for a court date? How would I get a copy of the officer's statement?

Read TG's reply and my numerous replies to other threads dealing with the same.

I am just trying to get a reduced fine and traffic school if the cop shows up. Is this feasible given I play the sympathy card with the judge and ask for traffic school so I can learn more about the rules of driving? If I plead guilty, will the judge be likely to dismiss my option to attend traffic school?

Depends on the judge, really. For what it's worth, I've seen many judges proactively ask eligible defendants if they would like to attend traffic school but it depends on the court and the judge. If you have the time, just go down to the court where your case is assigned to and watch a few traffic court sessions to see how how different judges act.

One last note. In the OP, I stated that the officer marked my car down as a 2 door (it was a 4 door sedan) and as gray (it was blue slate). The officer is trying to use his training as a "radar". Therefore his testimony is accepted.
But if he can't get the # of doors correct while standing 1 ft away from the car (at a standstill) then how accurate could his estimate be at 50ft and moving? It was dark and cloudy out so I would think that that's another hit on his crediblity? It's alot harder to judge distance when it's dark. Visual landmarks are harder to see, depth perception is lessened. Could I make a case off this?

Officers have specific training in visual estimation of the speed of a moving vehicle. You won't get far with that line of defense, but if things get that far, feel free to bring it up just to fluster the officer a little bit. Colors can be easy to misjudge in the dark, but let him get a little ready in front of all the cops watching from the back and look like an idiot that can't count the number of the doors on the car.

[adam_]

Officers have specific training in visual estimation of the speed of a moving vehicle. You won't get far with that line of defense, but if things get that far, feel free to bring it up just to fluster the officer a little bit. Colors can be easy to misjudge in the dark, but let him get a little ready in front of all the cops watching from the back and look like an idiot that can't count the number of the doors on the car.

How much of their visual speed estimate testing is done in the dark at 10PM at night?

[That Guy]

How much of their visual speed estimate testing is done in the dark at 10PM at night?

Not sure how relevant that is... Keep in mind that at 10pm at night, vehicles (speeding or not) must have their headlights on which makes them fairly simple to track and visually estimate their speed.

[adam_]

Not sure how relevant that is... Keep in mind that at 10pm at night, vehicles (speeding or not) must have their headlights on which makes them fairly simple to track and visually estimate their speed.

"fairly simple"?

Any shred of data to support your statement that visually estimating headlight speeds in total darkness is 'fairly simple'?

If I was interested, I bet I could find publications on this issue. But I'm not the one that got the ticket.

[That Guy]

Any shred of data to support your statement that visually estimating headlight speeds in total darkness is 'fairly simple'?

If I was interested, I bet I could find publications on this issue. But I'm not the one that got the ticket.

Your suggestion implies that "visual estimates" which would have occurred at 10pm, or there about, are "questionable"... Can you post a case law citation, a code section/statute (not just any "publication") supporting that claim???

If you think you can, find it, post it, and advise the OP to use it in court and hopefully he/she will come back and report how well it worked out for him/her. Until then, my opinion as to the validity of such an argument will remain the same:

The legal requirement AND the burden that the officer must meet is that he/she is P.O.S.T certified. A certification that includes, but is not limited to, the ability to visually estimate a vehicle's speed to within a +/-5mph margin of error.

Whether that particular aspect of training/testing/certification is conducted at 10pm, at 3am or at high noon, is hardly a point of contention UNLESS such certification includes a restriction stating that it is ONLY valid and applicable during daylight hours. As far as I know, it DOESN'T!!!

[sniper]

"fairly simple"?

Any shred of data to support your statement that visually estimating headlight speeds in total darkness is 'fairly simple'?

If I was interested, I bet I could find publications on this issue. But I'm not the one that got the ticket.

Can I say it's fairly simple? Is that credible enough? Or are the millions of previously issued night time radar citations, which require visual estimation good enough?