Wow, you've figured out all those acronyms that I hadn't given importance until now..
Thanks a lot, quirky! You've been such a big help...
Me: Hello, good afternoon! My name is Tomas (I gave a fictitious name). I attended an arraignment hearing few
weeks ago. I like to ask a question about the traffic docket I received from the court. What does the "TW"
Clerk: May I have your docket number?
Me: I'm sorry I could hardly read it. The ink was not so good.
Clerk: Can I have your license number instead?
Me: I'm sorry, but I only need to know what TW means?
Clerk: I can't give you what you're asking for unless you give me your license number!
Me: I'm sorry ma'm, but I can't give you that. Anyway, thank you for your time.
This conversation clearly indicates that I won't get the information I wanted so easily. But I was afraid to give her my details lest she might discover the mistake the court has made and reschedule my trial at a new, earlier date. That of course would cause me to lose my privilege to move for dismissal due to lack of a speedy trial.
I think I'll just go to the court after the 45-day cut-off and ask what to do, citing the lack of a speedy trial.
Regarding my request for discovery, I have yet to receive any reply from the city attorney and the CHP after a full week.
Good news for me! My case was dismissed!
Thank you for those who gave good pieces of advice in this forum especially quirkyquark.
Here's what happened. Shortly after the court proceeding started and the first litigant came forward to defend himself, the court's clerk quietly called some of the defendants including myself, led us out of the courtroom, and delivered the news that our cases were being dismissed. He then handed each one of us a paper entitled "Minute Order" that formalised the dismissals. I have such a big sigh of relief!
I don't understand though the ground(s) for the dismissal. Under the subheading "Results of the Proceedings", the following numbered items were written in the paper:
1. Defendant was present.
2. Citing Officer ___________ was present.
3. Count 1 CVC 22349(a) I dismissed on reason No Recall by Officer.
What does item 3 mean, specifically the phrase No Recall by Officer?
Cool! I love mass dismissals. Thanks for reporting back. It helps people to know what does or does not work.
Thanks for the response, Speedy Gonzalez!
While I am definitely overjoyed for the dismissal, I am still interested to know or understand why my case was dismissed. Can you please enlighten me about the meaning of "No Recall by Officer"?
Specifically that should mean that the officer had no independent recall of the violation. In reality that could mean a number of things. It could mean that the officer called off and said he would not be able to attend and the court just uses that as the generic dismissal reason. Or, the officer reported to the court that he had no independent recollection of the violations. Or, something similar.
If these were for different officers and all of you received the same generic "no recall ..." reason, I'd say that is the court's default dismissal when the officer is not present or calls off. Or, that is the generic reason that is given by the officer/agency to the court when an officer cannot attend. Either way, it means the same thing a dismissal.
Hopefully you have since learned to moderate your speed so you do not have to play CHP roulette again.
Thank you cdwjava for your explanation. I sincerely appreciate it.
What I do not appreciate though is your snide and preachy remark at the end of your note. Your conclusion that I was playing CHP roulette was clearly uncalled for, if not insulting. It is so insensitive especially coming from a Bible-quoting police officer. Your unwarranted, self-righteous judgment doesn't at all reflect the quote that follows your title. You don't know all the facts of my case and I hope you would be more discreet before passing judgment on others whom you barely know.
As for the quote I choose, I suppose we could get into a philosophical discussion of faith, Christ, and issues of chastisement or admonitions against "sin" (or unsafe behavior as it might apply in the case of speed), but that is not something for this board.
The majority of posters here know they committed an offense, and will even acknowledge that they did, but they come here seeking some miracle cure or technical out. Lucky for them the CVC is written in such a way that there are often multiple avenues for a talented individual to game their way out of the penalty for their action. And, for that, shame on the state for allowing so many loopholes ... or, kudos to them for giving so many opportunities to the devious ... depending on one's point of view. The point being that most posters know they committed the violation and are here seeking an easy "out."
You are correct - I do not know the facts of your case. Though, I am hard pressed to conceive of a lawful reason you might need to do 85 MPH. If you truly are a person who follows the rules of the road, obeys the speed limits to the best of his ability, and for whatever reason was busted on one of the very rare occasions he has ever exceeded the speed limit by 20+ MPH, then I do apologize. However, as you have offered up no explanation here as to what grievous error was committed by the police, or how you had no choice but to speed to save life and limb, we are left with the most common presumption that you sped, you got caught, and you came here looking for a way out. That's fine. But, no matter the reason, you should always be mindful of your speed and the rules of the road.