Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    13

    Default VC 22350 and Senior Center

    Hi all, thanks in advance for your help.

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

    I received a ticket under CV22350 speeding near a senior center. The officer's radar clocked me at 46, with an approx speed of 45 and a max speed of 25 on that strip of road. The conditions are marked on the ticket as clear and dry, with medium traffic. There are no errors or "fatal flaws" on the ticket.

    The 25 zone is a stretch of road that is approximately 50 feet long on a hill, the speed on the rest of the road is 35. The motorcycle cop was parked in the driveway of a house at the foot of the hill.

    I've been doing a lot of research here and on helpIgotaticket and was thinking about using the speed trap defense, but I'm not sure if that would work in light of the senior center. Does the senior center invalidate my defense? Is there another defense I should be using here? OR should I suck it up and plead guilty? I am unemployed so the $400 fine is a hefty one.

    I have requested the engineering traffic survey and my arraignment is not due until the 5th of January. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: VC 22350 and Senior Center

    Was the senior center posted as described in the following statute?
    Quote Quoting California VC 22352.
    (a) The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice thereof:
    (1) Fifteen miles per hour:
    (A) When traversing a railway grade crossing, if during the last 100 feet of the approach to the crossing the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the crossing and of any traffic on the railway for a distance of 400 feet in both directions along the railway. This subdivision does not apply in the case of any railway grade crossing where a human flagman is on duty or a clearly visible electrical or mechanical railway crossing signal device is installed but does not then indicate the immediate approach of a railway train or car.

    (B) When traversing any intersection of highways if during the last 100 feet of the driver's approach to the intersection the driver does not have a clear and unobstructed view of the intersection and of any traffic upon all of the highways entering the intersection for a distance of 100 feet along all those highways, except at an intersection protected by stop signs or yield right-of-way signs or controlled by official traffic control signals.

    (C) On any alley.
    (2) Twenty-five miles per hour:
    (A) On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or residence district unless a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code.

    (B) When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing any school grounds which are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign. For purposes of this subparagraph, standard "SCHOOL" warning signs may be placed at any distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds.

    (C) When passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard "SENIOR" warning sign. A local authority is not required to erect any sign pursuant to this paragraph until donations from private sources covering those costs are received and the local agency makes a determination that the proposed signing should be implemented. A local authority may, however, utilize any other funds available to it to pay for the erection of those signs.
    (b) This section shall become operative on March 1, 2001.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: VC 22350 and Senior Center

    Yes, it says Senior Center above the 25mph marker.

    Thanks for your reply!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: VC 22350 and Senior Center

    Anyone happen to know the answer to this one?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: VC 22350 and Senior Center

    Quote Quoting tehericka
    View Post
    Anyone happen to know the answer to this one?
    Read People v. Goodrich, 33 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 except replace "school" with "SENIOR"...

    Speed trap laws (in terms of what the officer is required to present into evidence (E&T Survey, his training/certification & Radar calibration as prescribed in VC 40802)) would still apply... However, and when it comes to evaluating whether the 25mph speed limit is justified or not, the presence of the senior citizen center and it being marked with a "SENIOR" sign automatically allows for setting the limit at 25mph. So regardless of what the 85th percentile speed is, the 25mph limit would be justified.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    625

    Default Re: VC 22350 and Senior Center

    The 30 questions defense would still apply, and if the speed survey shows speeds well above 25mph without excessive accident history, that would help your case.

    Quote Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    Read People v. Goodrich, 33 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1 except replace "school" with "SENIOR"...
    The one issue I would take with the holding of Goodrich is that vc 22352(a)(2)(B/C) establish prima facie speed limits rather than maximum speed limits, both of which have a well-defined meaning under CA law. If an area is marked merely with the sign *school* without any numerical value, the 25mph would be enforceable due to it being the default speed limit, IMO. But once a numerical sign goes up, it has to be supported by a speed survey to be enforceable. It may be the case that the court misinterpreted the meaning of VC22352, since it wasn't the legislature's apparent intent to set a maximum speed limit of 25mph for school zones similar to the way it was to set the maximum speed of 65mph for most divided freeways in CA.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: VC 22350 and Senior Center

    Quote Quoting HonkingAntelope
    View Post
    The one issue I would take with the holding of Goodrich is that vc 22352(a)(2)(B/C) establish prima facie speed limits rather than maximum speed limits, both of which have a well-defined meaning under CA law.
    Well, the 25 mph limit is THE MAXIMUM speed limit in a school/senior citizen zone! From Goodrich:

    Also, there can be no "artificially low" posted speeds when the Legislature has fixed the maximum at 25 miles per hour.

    The only reason that it is treated as a "prima facie" speed limit is that it does not conform to the "well defined" ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM 55mph (2 lane undivided), 65mph (multi lane divided highway and/or anywhere) and 70mph (rural hwy) zones that the legislature enacted.

    Quote Quoting HonkingAntelope
    View Post
    If an area is marked merely with the sign *school* without any numerical value, the 25mph would be enforceable due to it being the default speed limit, IMO. But once a numerical sign goes up, it has to be supported by a speed survey to be enforceable. It may be the case that the court misinterpreted the meaning of VC22352, since it wasn't the legislature's apparent intent to set a maximum speed limit of 25mph for school zones similar to the way it was to set the maximum speed of 65mph for most divided freeways in CA.
    The point I was making is this... When planning a defense for any citation issued in violation of VC 22350, the defendant would have to obtain a copy of the E&T Survey to ascertain what reasons were cited by the engineer for posting the 25mph limit and whether the survey does in fact justify such limit either by use of the prevailing speeds (85th percentile) or by citing which reasons were utilized to justify any further reduction from the critical speed.

    In this case, the engineer need not cite VC 627 or any of the underlying conditions set therein as reason for justifying the posted 25mph limit. Instead, a citation of VC 22352(a)(2)(C) with a reference to the presence of a "SENIOR citizen center" and a recommendation that the 25mph limit be posted along with a sign stating "SENIOR" is sufficient to justify such a limit.

    This is regardless of the prevailing speeds, accident records, Highway, traffic, and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver, residential density and/or pedestrian/bicyclist safety (all from VC 627)...

    Here is the specific citation I was referring to from Goodrich:

    The defendant contends that this inconsistent survey result means (1) the survey did not justify the posted speed limit and did not demonstrate the nonexistence of a speed trap, and (2) the officer was incompetent as a witness and cannot express his opinion because his testimony is based on or obtained from the maintenance or use of a speed trap (Veh. Code, §§ 40801, 40802, subd. (b), 40803, subd. (b) & 40804).[5]

    In most cases, the defendant would be correct. He is not correct in this case.

    We hold that the rules and procedures governing speed traps and the use of radar are inapplicable to those cases where the state Legislature has mandated a maximum speed of a vehicle — in this case, 25 miles per hour at a school when children are present. (Veh. Code, § 22352, subd. (b)(2).)


    In that last (underlined) paragraph, and by virtue of the fact that "the state legislature [has also] mandated a maximum speed of a vehicle -- in this case, 25 miles per hour in a senior citizen zone", one can conclude that "the rules and procedures governing speed traps and the use of Radar are inapplicable"...

    (Note that although I did state earlier that "speed trap laws would still apply" I did elaborate that such application is limited to the fact that the survey must be presented only to prove that this was a senior citizen zone BUT NOT to justify the posted 25mph limit!)

    Furthermore, the court (in Goodrich) went on to say:

    But where, as in this case the Legislature has intervened and set the 25-mile-per-hour school-zone speed limit, the local authorities are prohibited from raising the limit even if a higher speed would be equally safe and/or justified by a traffic and engineering survey. (Veh. Code, § 22347.) Also, there can be no "artificially low" posted speeds when the Legislature has fixed the maximum at 25 miles per hour.

    And here is how that would apply in a senior zone (versus a school zone):
    But where, as in this case the legislature has inverted and set the 25-mile-per-hour senior-zone speed limit, the local authorities are prohibited from raising the limit even if a higher speed would be equally safe and/or justified by a traffic and engineering survey.... Also, there can be no "artificially low" posted speeds when the Legislature has fixed the maximum at 25 miles per hour.


    That being said, and if the analysis I provided above is accurate, then I disagree with:
    Quote Quoting HonkingAntelope
    View Post
    The 30 questions defense would still apply, and if the speed survey shows speeds well above 25mph without excessive accident history, that would help your case.
    Under the circumstances where this is a citation issued in a "senior citizen zone", a rebuttal by the defendant that his/her speed was not unsafe based upon "prevailing speeds and/or accident records... etc", is not a plausible defense nor would it be considered "competent evidence" to raise sufficient reasonable doubt as to whether his/her speed was unsafe.... Why? Neither of those conditions went into determining what the safe limit should be for such a zone! So how could they be used as a defense?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    625

    Default Re: VC 22350 and Senior Center

    VC22351(b) specifically applies to the all prima facie limits established per VC22352, including school zone/senior center ones. Just read the subsection of the statute:
    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.
    I took a closer read of VC40802, and while it specifically excludes school zones from the speed trap definition, i don't see similar verbiage in regard to senior centers.

    one more thing: Goodrich cites CVC22347, and for the love of me I can't find the text of that statute anywhere. Any idea if it was repealed or renumbered after the case was published?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: VC 22350 and Senior Center

    Quote Quoting HonkingAntelope
    View Post
    I took a closer read of VC40802, and while it specifically excludes school zones from the speed trap definition, i don't see similar verbiage in regard to senior centers.
    While a "senior zone" is not specifically excluded from 40802, if you look at the definition of a "speed trap" under 40802(a)(2) it states:
    A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, 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. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.


    A 25mph "senior zone" speed limit is set under 22352(a)(2)(C)... And my point is if they really wanted to have speed trap laws (particularly, the requirement to "justify the limit) apply to a "senior zone", then rather than being specific to 22352(a)(2)(A), they would have included all three paragraphs (A, B AND C) in 40802(a)(2)....

    Quote Quoting HonkingAntelope
    View Post
    one more thing: Goodrich cites CVC22347, and for the love of me I can't find the text of that statute anywhere. Any idea if it was repealed or renumbered after the case was published?
    Good question... I couldn't find it either; I even went to LexisNexis to check the case there and sure enough, it is the only VC section that is not hotlinked to the language of the code! Another search of any VC 22347 citations came up with nothing...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    625

    Default Re: VC 22350 and Senior Center

    The underlined portion seems to merely govern any local statutes that reduce the local limits below the P/F as provided by VC 22358.4, not any other P/F limits outlined in 22352. The bottom line is, there are a couple of legal inconsistencies in the sections governing speed limits around senior centers and whether 25mph around schools is still a maximum limit or a P/F limit in light of the fact that VC22347 appears to have been repealed and VC22352(a)(2)(B) was rewritted a few years after Goodrich was published. I'd have to hit a law library and find an old copy of VC to find out for sure, though.

    Since I did hijack the thread, my advice to the OP is to file the usual "i'm not guilty" trial by declaration. If the officer files one, pick up a copy of the officer's reply and post it here for us to take a look at.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Parking Violations: Senior Volunteer Patrol
    By akihabro in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 11:31 AM
  2. Defamation by Former Senior VP
    By kyoung in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-30-2008, 06:45 AM
  3. Grades and Credits: Senior Project Problems
    By TMedia in forum Education Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-04-2008, 11:20 AM
  4. Emancipation: Does an 18-Year-Old Senior Need To Be Emancipated?
    By kcjme in forum Juvenile Law
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-31-2007, 11:03 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources