Traffic Court Motion to Dismiss

[HonkingAntelope]

As to why no one is cited for 5 over, the answer should be obvious but since it isn't, I'll let you in on a simple concept called "margin of error" along with an undeniable fact that minor fluctuations in speed are allowed accordingly... I hope you can take it from there on your own.

Not a justification for breaking the law, either. While speedos do have a margin of error, there are at least three legal alternatives to breaking the law:
1. Drive 5-10mph below the maximum speed if you're unsure about your speedo's accuracy.
2. Install tires one offset smaller. That'll decrease the wheel diameter and cause the speedo to report indicated speed slightly higher than the actual speed.
3. Have a mechanic calibrate your speedo once every so many months just like CHP and other police agencies do.

22351(b) is not poorly written. It is poorly interpreted. It only applies to prima facie limits and by definition, 22349 and 22356 are a different animal. But you're free to argue that they are one and the same!

Agree. If anything, it's VC22349 and 22356 that are very badly written.

Here is an example where officers adopt the liability at their own risk ... an officer receives a call of a fight in progress - no weapons involved, but it is man beating a woman. The officer is a couple of miles away. It does not fit the requirements per agency policy for a code 3 response with lights and sirens. So, the officer can choose to respond at the speed limit and take, perhaps 6 to 8 minutes to get to the scene, Or, he can push the envelope, exceed the limit, and maybe even make a screwy turn or two and get there in half that time.

Considering a LONG fight lasts for four minutes, the odds are better that the officer can get there in time to save a person from greater harm if he or she pushes the envelope. If the officer gets into a collision, he or she will adopt liability for the accident.

Is it worth the risk? Well, if it was you or your loved one on the receiving end of such a beating, would you prefer the cops get there ASAP or would you be happy to know that they get there in time to help load you on the ambulance, confident and proud that they meticulously obeyed all the traffic laws?

In sheriff's jurisdictions - and on the highways and rural roads where the CHP prowl - adhering to all the speed limits could mean extremely lengthy responses. You want to wait an hour for an officer to respond from across the county? When my local Sheriff decided to hold his officers completely accountable for their speed (via GPS devices) response times tripled as officers became meticulous in their driving. It was a P.R. boondoggle for the Sheriff and he rescinded the edict in a couple of months.

The point is that the nature of law enforcement often requires screwy driving which, while not safe, is sometimes necessary. And, the officer assumes that risk and liability when he or she does this.

If simple adherence to the law causes tripled response times and an occasional loss of life due to delays incurred by compliance, that's a problem. On the other hand, it was obviously OK with CA's legislature when they passed those laws. It's a pity that sheriff chose to ignore the law rather than enforce it.

If you're dissatisfied with such an absurd arrangement, why not have the police unions put the screws on the legislature to change the the law? For once, maybe the LE community could be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Ah, the complaints THAT would generate ... from the public, as response times would skyrocket.

and the correct response would be "You may not like it, but that's the law. Take it up with the legislature.

[California student]

Actually, it could be. Slower traffic is supposed to yield right. I recall there being a section that covers this, but I do not recall it off the top of my head as it is one not often used by city and county cops.

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any
vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal
speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be
driven in the right-hand lane for traffic

22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow
speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation,
because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

Emphasis added

And if the officer smacks into someone who says they did not hear a siren, guess where that's going? It will be seen that it was reasonably necessary the officer should have sounded his siren.

Never argued otherwise when it came to a practical application. Similarly, the siren is necessary to place the legal requirement on other vehicles to pull to the right.

Agencies here also have policies for responding code 3 or exceeding speed limits and violating the CVC.

Under what legal authority does a police department have to allow their officers to violate the CVC? What other laws are police officers allowed to violate under department policy?

Note: Emergency vehicles with appropriate warning devices activated engaging in exemptions allowed under the CVC are not violating the law, even if the action is otherwise illegal.

Here is an example where officers adopt the liability at their own risk ... an officer receives a call of a fight in progress - no weapons involved, but it is man beating a woman. The officer is a couple of miles away. It does not fit the requirements per agency policy for a code 3 response with lights and sirens. So, the officer can choose to respond at the speed limit and take, perhaps 6 to 8 minutes to get to the scene, Or, he can push the envelope, exceed the limit, and maybe even make a screwy turn or two and get there in half that time.

Considering a LONG fight lasts for four minutes, the odds are better that the officer can get there in time to save a person from greater harm if he or she pushes the envelope. If the officer gets into a collision, he or she will adopt liability for the accident.
Is it worth the risk? Well, if it was you or your loved one on the receiving end of such a beating, would you prefer the cops get there ASAP or would you be happy to know that they get there in time to help load you on the ambulance, confident and proud that they meticulously obeyed all the traffic laws?

I would want them to get there ASAP, but not in a manner that puts the public at risk. If the officer gets into an accident, s/he is no longer of any use for the original incident, in addition to taking up additional resources to respond to his/her accident. Additionally, more than the original parties are injured as a result of the original incident. No amount of time saved will make up for the time lost if the officer doesn't actually reach the incident.

You did rail against it in such a way that it implied that was a reason that the statute was bad.

The statute being bad, and being able to use that argument in a court of law are two different arguments. The cell phone ban is bad because it doesn't accomplish what it sets out to do (number of hands on the wheel isn't as important as the conversation with someone who has no idea when to let the driver drive), but I wouldn't use that argument in a court of law.

Yes. Safety. Uniformity, reasonable speeds, and enforceable regulations contribute to overall traffic safety.

Didn't we just establish that safety had little to do with it, given the 55 mph speed limit and the demise a number of years ago of "reasonable and prudent" in Montana? Additionally, if the issue is safety, why not simply stick with the basic speed law?

[cdwjava]

It is as it is. I can try to provide some justification, but the practical reality is that cops are sometimes expected and permitted to violate traffic infractions to enforce the law. PC 4 states that the laws are not expected to be enforced to their strict interpretation, but to the fair import of the law.

And, you are right, not getting to the scene does no one any good and this is emphasized in the academy and in field training. However, the difference between doing 35 and 25, or making a quick but generally safe lane change between cars is sometimes the risk that officers adopt.

The Sheriff caved to pressure because response times skyrocketed. People got hospitalized, thieves got away, and injured parties went without aid for lengthy periods of time due to the response times. Reality is what it is, and the Sheriff is an elected official. He could have held firm and continued to review the GPS readings for excessive speed, but he would likely lose the next election as a result.

Yes, speed limits are established for safety and uniformity. What that speed limit is or should be is a matter for the politicians to decide. If the state wants to go to a subjective max. speed like 22350, so be it. As it is, that does not exist here.

[quirkyquark]

I'm late to this party, but two quick notes:

M.Q.: Carl said "do not have to play" which quite clearly implies that you were NOT actively seeking to play the game. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

As for the cops-going-fast discussion, I will back up Carl in that I have seen a LOT of CA civil cases where the agency has had to pay through the nose (and the officer often disciplined) when their driving has caused human/property damage. In some the officer was fully compliant with CVC (lights/siren) and was still found negligent. To paraphrase the courts, "nothing excludes officers from the duty of driving safely".

I, for one, am glad that the culture in most CA LE agencies is to take these risks if the officer deems it necessary.

[HonkingAntelope]

As for the cops-going-fast discussion, I will back up Carl in that I have seen a LOT of CA civil cases where the agency has had to pay through the nose (and the officer often disciplined) when their driving has caused human/property damage. In some the officer was fully compliant with CVC (lights/siren) and was still found negligent. To paraphrase the courts, "nothing excludes officers from the duty of driving safely".

I, for one, am glad that the culture in most CA LE agencies is to take these risks if the officer deems it necessary.

Would it be too much to ask for for us peons to be extended the same benefit of a doubt? As in, the folks who T/C get billed for the police time + cleanup costs, while those of us who can handle driving above the statutory maximum speed without crashing into stuff be able to do so without the risk of a citation?

[quirkyquark]

Would it be too much to ask for for us peons to be extended the same benefit of a doubt? As in, the folks who T/C get billed for the police time + cleanup costs, while those of us who can handle driving above the statutory maximum speed without crashing into stuff be able to do so without the risk of a citation?

No, but your scheme would have to be "official", involving the legislature, new laws, etc. The way it works for LE agencies in the scenario we described (or even otherwise) is that, as professional courtesy, they won't apprehend "violators" from other agencies. Think of the CHP who sees a city cop in a marked car doing 85 in a 65 with no lights...he's going to ignore it. Why would they extend the same benefit of the doubt to you or me?

The only way to achieve what you suggest is to eliminate speed limits in favor of an Old-school-Montana type "reasonable and prudent at all times" standard.

[HonkingAntelope]

No, but your scheme would have to be "official", involving the legislature, new laws, etc. The way it works for LE agencies in the scenario we described (or even otherwise) is that, as professional courtesy, they won't apprehend "violators" from other agencies. Think of the CHP who sees a city cop in a marked car doing 85 in a 65 with no lights...he's going to ignore it. Why would they extend the same benefit of the doubt to you or me?

Uh, because the police are required to obey the law just like you or me? If a certain law creates violators our of 90%+ of the motoring public and would triple response times to non-code3 calls, the law should be changed instead of relying on the hopelessly broken selective enforcement system currently in place.

[davidmcbeth3]

I generally don't care if police speed .. I just follow them (not tailgating but close behind) ~ never had one slow to pull me over. "Give yourself a ticket Barn"

But just because police speed does not excuse others ...

There are states that passing a cop is an automatic pullover, even if not speeding...seen it in Indiana, Penn, NY, GA, etc. I rarely pass a cop in the right lane....

[That Guy]

Agree. If anything, it's VC22349 and 22356 that are very badly written.

How, in your opinion should both maximum speed laws be written? Keep in mind that abolishing the maximum speed laws is out of the question.

Would it be too much to ask for for us peons to be extended the same benefit of a doubt? As in, the folks who T/C get billed for the police time + cleanup costs, while those of us who can handle driving above the statutory maximum speed without crashing into stuff be able to do so without the risk of a citation?

How would you even begin to classify a peon who will be extended the same benefit of doubt (i.e. one who presumably can handle driving above the statutory maximum speed without crashing into stuff) from the peons who do not deserve it? I mean both groups have already passed the same standardised test to obtain their license. Would another test suffice? And what would you test them on?

In all honesty, I would rather pay a citation or two every once in a while, than agree to a new law giving everybody the benefit of doubt as I am usually less concerned about my driving skill; my main concern is everybody else's!

And the other issue is that the costs are not limited to police time and clean up cost... The other issue would be liability... Will you insurer offer the same liability coverage that city/county is willing to hand left and right. Or will such rates be so cost prohibitive -simply because the insured is no longer bound by "ANY legal limits"- that you may end up being unable to drive at all?

If a certain law creates violators our of 90%+ of the motoring public...

What law is that?

If you're referring to maximum speed laws, then the law does not make violators of 90% of the motoring public... I would say that the buffer that is often given when conducting speed enforcement of those limits is the reason why the majority of drivers exceed the 65mph or 70mph limits. My guess is if strict enforcement of those speed limits were to ever happen, given the normal 30 day "warning period" often given with new laws/restrictions, and you'll find that your 90% is on the flip and is indicative of the number of compliant drivers.

If on the other hand you're speaking of limits set by speed study, then those limits are set where only 15% of drivers are violators, and even when that prevailing limit (85th %ile) is reduced by 5mph (there's a "minus 5"), you still get an average of 10mph buffer (there's a "plus 10") and you're still nowhere near 90% violation rate ("minus 5 & plus 10 equals plus 5" and you'e still 5mph ahead of the game regardless).

[California student]

How, in your opinion should both maximum speed laws be written? Keep in mind that abolishing the maximum speed laws is out of the question.

Heck, I'll even admit that 22351 should be written in a manner that specifically excludes 22349 and 22356. The problem with 22351 is that it uses the term "this code" instead of limiting it to just non-maximum speed limits.

If you're referring to maximum speed laws, then the law does not make violators of 90% of the motoring public... I would say that the buffer that is often given when conducting speed enforcement of those limits is the reason why the majority of drivers exceed the 65mph or 70mph limits. My guess is if strict enforcement of those speed limits were to ever happen, given the normal 30 day "warning period" often given with new laws/restrictions, and you'll find that your 90% is on the flip and is indicative of the number of compliant drivers.

If on the other hand you're speaking of limits set by speed study, then those limits are set where only 15% of drivers are violators, and even when that prevailing limit (85th %ile) is reduced by 5mph (there's a "minus 5"), you still get an average of 10mph buffer (there's a "plus 10") and you're still nowhere near 90% violation rate ("minus 5 & plus 10 equals plus 5" and you'e still 5mph ahead of the game regardless).

I think the buffer is irrelevant. If all of a sudden the average citizen was allowed the buffer of, say, petty theft below $5, the average citizen wouldn't go out and steal $5 worth of junk. If all of a sudden the average citizen was allowed one murder, the average citizen wouldn't commit murder. However the fact that the average speed, at least in So Cal outside of rush hour, is 15-20 over the limit is a good indication that the issue isn't enforcement, but that the law doesn't reflect the values of society. If a law doesn't reflect the values of society, then there will always be compliance and enforcement issues.