Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South-Central Cali
    Posts
    1,274

    Default Re: How to Best Fight 22350vc in a School Zone

    Quote Quoting EWYLTJ
    View Post
    25mph speed limit is statutory, therefore not a prima facie speed limit...
    Huh? Let me quote the title and first sentence (bolded) of the statute which you quote from:

    Quote Quoting V C Section 22352 Prima Facie Speed Limits
    Prima Facie Speed Limits

    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:
    ...
    (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.
    All (legal) speed limits are "statutory" (i.e., set by legislation -- can be from the state, county, city or other body). The difference is between "maximum" (70/60/55) speed limits, prima facie limits and prima facie limits NOT subject to speed trap laws. The basic speed law (VC 22350) applies to ALL prima facie limits.

    much like a 55mph speed limit on a 2 lane highway.
    That is not a prima facie (i.e. "on is face") limit. It is a maximum which is illegal to exceed no matter what. Here's that statute:

    Quote Quoting V C Section 22349 Maximum Speed Limit

    22349. (a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.

    (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless that highway...
    You see the words "prima facie" anywhere in there?

    The highlighted section is what 40802 is speaking of.
    Quote Quoting VC 40802
    Speed Traps

    40802. (a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
    ...
    (2) 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.
    Notice it says subparagraph (A), not "highlighted section" or "portion following unless" or "notwithstanding EWLTYJ's interpretation." Is it a particular section of a highway? Does it have a prima facie speed limit? Was that limit established by subparagraph (A), etc.? Was radar, etc. used? Then the speed trap law applies and a survey is required. The only exceptions are local streets, roads and school zones -- all of which we have established the section of highway in question is NOT.

    If there was a speed survey required, why would the statute state specifically 25mph??
    Remember that the speed traps laws apply only when radar/lidar are used. The 25 mph default may be enforced by pacing, visual estimation or otherwise (no signs required either!!). As for the philosophical portion of your question, the courts do not consider legislative intent (or any other kind of intent) when the words of the statute are crystal clear, as they are here.

    Just for kicks, here's one of my own: subparagraphs (B) and (C) refer to school zones and senior zones, respectively. Why did the legislature feel the need to explicitly include (A) and not (B) or (C)?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,622

    Default Re: How to Best Fight 22350vc in a School Zone

    Ok.... you got me on my use of statutory and prima facie. Good for you. But my point still remains. Why would the statute call out a 25mph speed limit if it had to be supported by a speed survey.

    Look, I am the one who always advocates the most conservative interpretation of the law in favor of the motorist. I honestly believe that the state enforces its traffic laws primarily for the purpose of revenue and not safety. I believe that cops and courts alike simply ignore the law with respect to traffic infractions. That said, I believe that your interpretation will not fly in court. If a guy like me can see a big hole in it, then you better believe that a biased traffic court judge will see a huge hole in it.

    I know of no case law that supports your interpretation. I would, however, LOVE to see the OP argue your point up through the appellate court and get some case law on the issue. However, I am just skeptical that this will happen.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South-Central Cali
    Posts
    1,274

    Default Re: How to Best Fight 22350vc in a School Zone

    Quote Quoting EWYLTJ
    View Post
    Look, I am the one who always advocates the most conservative interpretation of the law in favor of the motorist. I honestly believe that the state enforces its traffic laws primarily for the purpose of revenue and not safety. I believe that cops and courts alike simply ignore the law with respect to traffic infractions.
    First of all, glad to see it's still the old Jim we came to know and love (well, perhaps not TG ). For a moment there I thought we had a Face/Off situation after your hiatus!

    Quote Quoting EWYLTJ
    View Post
    But my point still remains. Why would the statute call out a 25mph speed limit if it had to be supported by a speed survey.
    The speed limits are primary; how they are enforced is secondary. My explanation is still that 40802 contains that reference to prevent radar speed-traps in residential/business districts. I don't have access to the entire legislative history, but the following brief history seems dispositive:

    • VC 40802 was first amended in 1972 to define speed-traps beyond fixed-distance/time ones to ones where radar was used to enforce p.f. limits. It has contained that reference to paragraph blah-blah of 22352 since that point.
    • VC 22352, however, has contained precisely the current language of "25 mph..." since the last reorganization of the CVC in 1959, and
    • derives from former VC 513, enacted 1935, when the pertinent part said:

      (b) Twenty miles per hour:
      (1) In any business district.
      ...
      (c) Twenty-five miles per hour in any residence district.
      which in turn,
    • derives from Section 113 of the former California Vehicle Act, enacted 1923, when it used to say:

      5. Fifteen miles an hour in a business district as defined
      herein;
      6. Twenty miles an hour in a residence district, as defined
      herein;


    Thus, the residence and business p.f. speed limits have been in place long before radar enforcement (or even radar!) and speed surveys were invented. I can't say more without looking at the legislative history of that 1972 amendment to 40802, but it seems obvious that the language in 40802 referencing 22352 was added for some specific reason (and not the other way around).

    P.S.: Welcome back!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    26

    Default Re: How to Fight Speeding in a School Zone, VC 22350

    I finally got all the info you (quirkyquart) had asked me to secure. I'm sorry though for the delay in posting them as I recently lost my internet connection due to my modem failing.

    First is the speeding survey, which doesn't look promising to me. The following are the photocopies of the survey I got from the San Bruno City Hall:







    The following photo shows the traffic signs I photographed in the scene.



    The main photo clearly shows that the school yard has two fences -- one interior fence encloses the school classrooms and other buildings and the second exterior one encompasses the school soccer field.

    The first inset photo on the left is a sign located in between Bryant Way and Cambridge Lane, the second inset photo is a sample sign found in all locations along Crestmoor Drive, the third is combined Speed Limit and School signs located between Bennington Drive and Rosewood Drive, and the far right inset photo contains the sign located between Ridgeway Avenue and Kent Court.

    Please note that, as far as I can remember, the automatic radar reader/indicator (or what ever you call it) below the Speed Limit sign and the solar panel pictured in the far right inset wasn't there when I was pulled over. When I visited the area over the weekend, I saw the speed reader for the first time and it was apparently installed due to a repavement project on both sides of the Crestmoor Drive. Installed signs along the road specified the project as being undertaken from Oct 25-28.

    On Tuesday, I visited John Muir School looking for the principal but she was in a meeting. I was able to talk to the secretary who said the school midday recess runs from 12:00 to 12:45. She also said the school doesn't allow anyone under any circumstance to go out of the school grounds during the lunch break. When I asked for a copy of the student handbook, the secretary told me to come back as she had to make a copy specifically for me.

    Additional info: the school's main entrance is on Cambridge Lane and the picture you earlier posted with a crossing guard is actually the back gate located close to Yorkshire Ct. It is locked during the noon recess. The crossing guard/volunteer is apparently present in the morning when children come to school and in the afternoon during their dismissal.

    I am looking forward to your feedback on these pieces of information. Thanks!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South-Central Cali
    Posts
    1,274

    Default Re: How to Fight Speeding in a School Zone, VC 22350

    Quote Quoting M.Q.
    View Post
    I am looking forward to your feedback on these pieces of information.
    Thanks, that was quick!

    OK, so we've disposed of the school zone issue entirely, the only problem now is the current speed survey. It's surprising that, in this economic climate, they would conduct a new study within 3-4 years of the previous one. Additionally, it's by a private firm which (surprise!) justifies keeping all the limits the same. I mention this because with the recent chance in the MUTCD (round to nearest 5 mph instead of rounding down), a lot of new surveys by city/state agencies recommend limits 5 mph higher.

    There are still quite a few options though. First, you need to get more of the survey -- here's an example of a full survey performed by the same firm (TJKM) in San Carlos. These are what I recommend you get (with reference to pages in the previous example so you'll know exactly what they look like):

    • Introduction and Summary (page 1)
    • Survey Methodology (pages 4-6)
    • Appendix A: Speed Survey Data and Traffic Counts for Crestmoor Dr. only (e.g. see page 15 and 20)
    • Appendix B: Accidents -- all pages for Crestmoor Dr. (e.g. see pages 25-32 for Elm St. in San Carlos)





    There are two ways of "fighting" the survey -- using the law and using the facts. Using the facts is possible but will be very difficult in this case -- you would basically be attacking the 5 mph downward zoning. Another far-fetched option is to try to get copies of the actual data sheets at the time the survey was done (this might be handwritten, or a computer printout, etc.) and compare to the plots to see if the consultants "massaged" the data in any way.

    Anyway, using the law is probably much easier given that the city used a private firm to not just conduct but also publish the survey. Two ways: the first is if the complete survey is not produced. The page you have is just the summary; there is case law saying that's not enough, you need the full survey -- if not the complete one for the city, at least consisting of all the items I listed above.

    The second involves you actively using the rules of evidence to NOT allow the survey in and thus have your case dismissed. It's easiest to explain by way of an example from a very similar real case: People v. Abelson (1980) (104 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16).

    Quote Quoting Here's the setup
    Defendant was charged with and convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 22350, driving 53 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour zone. It was stipulated that radar was used in determining defendant's speed. Therefore the burden was placed on the prosecution to demonstrate the existence of an engineering and traffic survey to justify the speed limit. The prosecutor produced a copy of such a speed survey and offered it in evidence. Defendant challenged this document on grounds of hearsay, authenticity and secondary evidence.
    ...
    The exhibit in question is part of the record on appeal. It is entitled: "Speed Zone Survey City of Los Angeles Department of Traffic S.S. Taylor City Traffic Engineer." The speed studies were performed December 9, 1975. Stamped on this copy is the legend: "City of Los Angeles Department of Traffic Certified A True Copy Survey Section" and the initials "JMQ." We turn now to defendant's evidentiary challenges.
    The big difference in your case is that your survey was published by a private entity.

    Quote Quoting Secondary Evidence
    (1) Secondary evidence: This document purports to be a copy of an official record within the meaning of section 1530. It appears from its face to be published by a public entity, the City of Los Angeles. ( 1530, subd. (a)(1).) The copy is certified as "a true copy" which we deem to be the equivalent of the words "a correct copy" as used in section 1531. The rules relating to secondary evidence of official records are satisfied in this case.
    • The survey produced must be stamped "true copy" (or have an accompanying letter saying that) and signed by a city employee who has custody of it. In practice this means either the City Clerk or the Public Works department. If it's a plain photocopy it will be thrown out.
    • It also has to be published by a public entity, which this isn't. Now, it does say it's "authorized for release by City of San Bruno..." at the bottom, but there is no signature/seal of any city employee doing the "authorizing"...it's the same consultant (compare the San Carlos signatures).


    Quote Quoting Authentication
    The court basically says that the rubber stamp with initials in place of a signature is sufficient
    Quote Quoting Hearsay
    (3) Hearsay: The official records exception to the hearsay rule, section 1280, applies here. Three foundational elements must be shown: (a) the writing was made by and within the scope of duty of a public employee; (b) the writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition or event; and (c) the sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworthiness. ( 1280, subds. (a), (b) and (c).).

    Proof of these elements must be made by the testimony of witnesses or by the court taking judicial notice...No testimony was offered in the trial court to establish the foundation required by section 1280... Therefore, ...we take judicial notice...of the foundational facts of the survey as required by section 1280.

    • The survey appears to be made by public employees within their duties. (Veh. Code, 40802, subd. (b); 22354 through 22358.3; 627.)
    • The document itself bears the dates of all the work done on the survey from the speed studies to adoption of the results.
    • The writing thus appears to be made contemporaneously with the survey.
    • The survey appears to be comprehensive in the factors considered, the description of the road and adjoining properties, the speeds of cars travelling the road and accident history.
    • The sources of information — mainly from the field — and the method and time of preparation appear trustworthy.
    • The identity of this document and its trustworthiness satisfy us that it was proper to admit the survey in evidence as an official record within the meaning of section 1280.
    • This is where you should try to shake things up: your survey was NOT made by a public employee so it should not be admitted as an official record. The list in the quote above should also give you numerous hints of all the possible issues with your survey.
    • If it's not an official record -- the secondary evidence/authentication described earlier is no longer applicable. It will probably have to come in as a business record. That places a much heavier burden on the prosecution...they either have to have the custodian of records from the consulting company testify in person that the survey is a true copy OR subpoena the original from the company with an affidavit from the custodian.





    So, you see, unless the officer doesn't bring the (complete) survey, you're going to have to learn a little bit of the law, mainly to make the appropriate objections (it's not hard -- Mr. Abelson just said three magic words) and possibly justify them. If you get a commissioner or a pro-tem judge, you will probably have to appeal to have a chance at winning. If you get a "real" judge, the chances of your winning at trial are somewhat higher, but you should still be prepared to appeal.

    Anyway, the best way to get an idea is to go to a trial or two and see a 22350 case.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,622

    Default Re: How to Fight Speeding in a School Zone, VC 22350

    quirky,

    Interesting stuff. But this really seems to be on the fine edge. It looks like you are hanging your hat mostly on the fact that the survey was not prepared by a public employee. I'm sure that, in an appeal, the prosecution would argue that the contractor was an agent of the city.

    The easiest way this ticket goes away for the OP is if the cop:

    1. Doesn't show up for trial
    2. Shows up but doesn't bring the speed survey believing it to be a school zone
    3. Shows up, brings the speed survey, but it is not a certified true copy.


    In my experience, the documents that the cop introduces are not certified true copies more often than not. This is an easy win. I have won a case like that. The OP definitely should bring pictures of the signs and any other evidence necessary to show that there was no school zone.

    Seems to me that this one is gonna be tough if the cop brings the certified copy of the speed survey. I'd love to hear about the outcome.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South-Central Cali
    Posts
    1,274

    Default Re: How to Fight Speeding in a School Zone, VC 22350

    ^^^^ Jim, agree that the easier chances to get this sorted out at the trial level are exactly what you described.

    The evidence-based defenses do turn on a fine point: can the survey be admitted as a official record, thus bypassing the more stringent requirements for a business record? The three sub-points/arguments are:

    1. If certified, was it by a public employee of the department having custody? (City Clerk/Records Division/Public Works)?
    2. Was it published by (or on official authority of) a public entity?
    3. Was it "made" by a public employee - not agent/contractor? (to use the official records hearsay exception)


    If (1) and (2) are established as solid, (3) can be bypassed only if the document isn't being introduced to prove the truth of the matter. All (1) and (2) do is authenticate the document and its content -- they say nothing about whether the content is true -- that requires (3).

    As happened to me recently, if you bring up objections re official records, the judge/commissioner may try to have it entered as a business record by having the officer testify to things like "Did you pull the copy yourself from the file?"..."Was it in your possession at all times from then until now?" etc. Which is, of course, nonsensical because the officer is not the custodian of these records by any imaginable definition (the City Clerk/Public Works employee OR the consulting company's employee would be).

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    26

    Default Re: How to Fight Speeding in a School Zone, VC 22350

    I appreciate the quick reply and the exchange happening between you (quirky) and EWYLTJ. It's like iron sharpens another that in turn makes the whole argument clearer and stronger.

    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    First, you need to get more of the survey -- here's an...
    I'll try to schedule another trip to the City Hall and request more of the relevant pages. I'll post them here once I get them.

    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    There are two ways of "fighting" the survey -- using the law and using the facts.
    Upon reading your suggestion about going after the survey, I become uncomfortable. I feel it's a tall order fighting the speed survey. It's basically arguing against an official document commissioned by the City, using the finer points of the law. I frankly don't think I am capable of doing that as speaking in public, much less in front of an intimidating judge, is not my strongest suit. In such situations, my nerves often get the better of me.

    Don't get me wrong, I consider your argument solid despite EWYLTJ's reservation. What I doubt is my ability to deliver. But reading your post over and over again seems to make your proposed defense very doable. Your last post that outlines/summarizes this defense especially convinces me to adopt this strategy.

    Here's what I understand so far of this position (using my own simple words):

    - that my case is a classic 22350 basic speed law violation.
    - that it qualifies under the CVC 40802 Speed Trap law because the section of the highway has a prima facie speed limit, not a school zone (based on the wrong signages), and not a local road (but a collector road). Plus, I got tagged by the use of radar.
    - because the highway has a p.f. speed limit, a survey is needed to establish that. The existing survey though doesn't help my case instead it bolsters the posted 25 mph limit. This means I need to discredit it, not so much as targeting its veracity as its authenticity.

    Quote Quoting EWYLTJ
    View Post
    The easiest way this ticket goes away for the OP is if the cop:

    1. Doesn't show up for trial
    2. Shows up but doesn't bring the speed survey believing it to be a school zone
    3. Shows up, brings the speed survey, but it is not a certified true copy.
    How I wish any of these scenarios cited by EWYLTJ happens to make things easier. But I am sure it won't be that easy. So I think I'm left with quirky's suggested defense as my only viable option. (For EWYLTJ: What's OP?)

    My questions for now are:

    1. Should I forego trial by declaration and prepare for trial de novo?
    2. Do I need to do informal discovery?
    3. Should I drop my county seat request and settle for the Superior Court venue instead?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South-Central Cali
    Posts
    1,274

    Default Re: How to Fight Speeding in a School Zone, VC 22350

    Let's take this in reverse, beginning with what's more immediate:

    Quote Quoting M.Q.
    View Post
    My questions for now are:

    1. Should I forego trial by declaration and prepare for trial de novo?
    2. Do I need to do informal discovery?
    3. Should I drop my county seat request and settle for the Superior Court venue instead?
    My answers are:

    1. Why? If nothing, the TBD will give you a free look at the officer's testimony/argument. The only "risk" is that this broke state of ours gets to hold on to your bail for a month or two more
    2. NO - do not do discovery. As I've explained earlier, that request lands on one of the superior officers' desks who will make sure your officer knows about it. If he goes to the trouble of digging everything up, he will probably bring it all to trial.
    3. Do you have a county seat request in process already? The only way to get it now is to go to your arraignment in person and request a change of venue. You can cite the VC code, but this is entirely up to the court's discretion since I don't think the County Seat is closer to your home or work than the South SF court? If you want to do this, call or go up to the S. SF. clerks and ask what their change of venue policy for traffic tickets is. You may be able to handle it there, or at least submit a written motion beforehand scheduled to be heard at the time of your arraignment.


    Here's the other secret to not asking for discovery --- all the fine points of the speed trap law (radar calibration, officer training, etc.) only apply IF the survey is more than five years old, but in the courts I've been, it's standard for the officer to bring these in even if not necessary and bring them up in his testimony. The commissioners/pro tems also seem to think that these are relevant for some reason..* These documents have a high chance of being photocopies with no "true copy" certification and are very easily dispatched by an objection.

    * you CAN make them relevant, even if not required, by making a foundational objection as soon as the officer says the magic word "my radar measured him at 42 mph". Before he can state that, he has to prove that (a) the radar was accurate and (b) he can operate it correctly. What evidence is sufficient to establish these foundations is conveniently provided in VC 40802.

    Upon reading your suggestion about going after the survey, I become uncomfortable. I feel it's a tall order fighting the speed survey. It's basically arguing against an official document commissioned by the City, using the finer points of the law. I frankly don't think I am capable of doing that as speaking in public, much less in front of an intimidating judge, is not my strongest suit. In such situations, my nerves often get the better of me.
    Assuming you have the time, don't care about traffic school here and can afford to let the state keep your bail for a few more months, none of the above matter much. Given the tendencies of the usual commissioner/pro-tem judge in traffic trials, your case will almost certainly be decided in appeals - where 99% depends on very well written briefs. Oral argument is optional, limited to 5 minutes and often just waived.

    What you need to remember is this: you cannot bring up new evidence or new arguments in the appeal. It must be based on the existing record, most importantly a transcript of your trial. If you do not object to something at trial, you cannot argue that it was incorrect in the appeal. So your focus at trial is NOT arguing your case, BUT on making the appropriate one/two/three-word objections every time something important happens. Knowing the meaning of each kind of objection and briefly justifying it is recommended -- all of these can be written into an easy one-page cheat-sheet relevant to your case (well, that's the way I do it).

    At appeal, you simply use those objections to jump off into detailed explanations, with citations to case law, as to why it was wrong. (we can help you there). As long as the appellate court finds one single thing about the survey in your favor, it gets thrown out (along with your case). The other thing you can do is prepare a short brief of the issues (here, school zone signing and entering the survey) and at the beginning of your trial, ask the court to enter it into the record as evidence. The judge may or may not read it, but its presence in the "record on appeal" ensures that the appellate judges will know you were on a solid track from the beginning.

    Bottom line, with a few well-placed oral objections, it then becomes an almost completely written path. From your writing I guess you'd do a pretty good job at it! The impression I've gotten from reading a few appeals court opinions (and they get very few pro per=self represented people) is that as long as you follow the format (font, spacing, etc.), make some actual arguments (not whining) and back those up with citations to statute and case law, they're very happy -- no complicated legalese is needed. The appellate divisions (where limited civil - less than $25,000, infraction and misdemeanor cases go) naturally have a MAJORITY of their appellants self-represented, so I can imagine they're even more relaxed.

    - that my case is a classic 22350 basic speed law violation.
    - that it qualifies under the CVC 40802 Speed Trap law because the section of the highway has a prima facie speed limit, not a school zone (based on the wrong signages), and not a local road (but a collector road). Plus, I got tagged by the use of radar.
    - because the highway has a p.f. speed limit, a survey is needed to establish that. The existing survey though doesn't help my case instead it bolsters the posted 25 mph limit. This means I need to discredit it, not so much as targeting its veracity as its authenticity.
    You've got it pretty much right. The critical point is you are not discrediting the authenticity of the survey itself, but the authenticity of the copy that is actually produced in court.

    Don't forget the school zone though, because dismantling it will be the first part of your argument -- the judge may not even let you to the point where a survey becomes necessary! This part doesn't need many objections, because the errors here will be errors of law (which are fully reviewed by the appellate court). What you need to guard against is the judge trying to let the officer prove that the school signs are adequate by questions like "Aren't these signs like all the ones in the area/city/county?" or "How many tickets have you issued and gotten convictions at this location?" You can parrot away one or more of three objections at any such question, as appropriate: hearsay, irrelevant and speculation.

    Quote Quoting EWYLTJ
    The easiest way this ticket goes away for the OP is if the cop:

    1. Doesn't show up for trial
    2. Shows up but doesn't bring the speed survey believing it to be a school zone
    3. Shows up, brings the speed survey, but it is not a certified true copy.
    MQ (that's OP=original poster=you!) wishes these happened, and you'd be surprised at how often they do!! CHP is usually quite diligent about attending trials, local agencies less so. Now, if you don't care about trying to win this at TBD, it makes the probability that the officer won't even bring the survey in since it's a "school zone"; you'll know the second you look at the officer's declaration to see if he checked off the "ETS not necessary" box.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    26

    Default Re: How to Fight Speeding in a School Zone, VC 22350

    I went back to John Muir School yesterday to get the official student handbook which the secretary had promised to photocopy for a fee. When I met her, she seemed disinterested and told me she forgot to do it (i.e. the photocopying). She referred me instead to the school website where I could download the whole document. Why didn’t she tell me that in the first place instead of promising something but not following through with it later. Anyway I suspected all along that she won’t be that cooperative when I revealed that I got stopped for going beyond the 25mph speed limit along Crestmoor Dr. In fact in her own eyes I am already guilty when she opined on the first day I met her with this following remark: “I would have done the same thing (stopping and citing me) if I were the cop.” In spite of her biased attitude, I have remained cordial with her throughout. I guess I would just have to rely on the online version of their handbook.

    Moving on with the more substantial issues… It looks like we are focusing more on VC 40802 Speed Trap, which I clearly understand my case falls under. How about VC 22350, which I am cited for? Shouldn’t I also prepare my defense against it and challenge the prosecution to prove that all elements or provisions in it (i.e. reasonable and prudent speed with regards to existing conditions: weather, visibility, traffic, and safety) are not met. I know that I need the student handbook, which contains the school’s recess policy and class schedules, so I can prove that the safety of persons (schoolchildren) and property are not endangered. What I’m thinking is if the prosecution fails to prove any of these conditions then I automatically win without even going to the speed survey issue. Is this so?

    Another clarification is about the overall format of my defense, specifically—how do I tie up 22350 with 40802? “Transition” is what I’m looking for here. Should I say in my TBD or at the actual court hearing that “I believe I didn’t violate 22350 for the following reasons (citing proofs that all the conditions do not exist or are not met)… In fact, the citing officer violated the speed trap law 40802… and so on…” Is this the correct format—the first part of my defense is focused on disproving that I had violated 22350 and the second part on proving that in fact the police officer had violated 40802 (or 40801)?

    Can you clarify these legalese terms/phrases?

    “the court taking judicial notice..”

    “entered as a business record..”

    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    • The survey produced must be stamped "true copy" (or have an accompanying letter saying that) and signed by a city employee who has custody of it. In practice this means either the City Clerk or the Public Works department. If it's a plain photocopy it will be thrown out.
    • It also has to be published by a public entity, which this isn't. Now, it does say it's "authorized for release by City of San Bruno..." at the bottom, but there is no signature/seal of any city employee doing the "authorizing"...it's the same consultant (compare the San Carlos signatures).
    Are you saying that the signature and the rubber stamp stating the name and title of the engineer (Christopher Thnay on the very first page of the San Carlos speed survey sample) is not enough because he is not authorized official/employee of the San Bruno Public Works but a representative of a private entity?

    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    If you get a commissioner or a pro-tem judge, you will probably have to appeal to have a chance at winning. If you get a "real" judge, the chances of your winning at trial are somewhat higher, but you should still be prepared to appeal.
    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    Given the tendencies of the usual commissioner/pro-tem judge in traffic trials, your case will almost certainly be decided in appeals - where 99% depends on very well written briefs.
    Am I understanding this right--that I am probably going to lose the TDN and should prepare to appeal the court's decision? That's risky! I definitely want to win this at the trial and not wait to go to the appellate court.

    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    [*]Why? If nothing, the TBD will give you a free look at the officer's testimony/argument. The only "risk" is that this broke state of ours gets to hold on to your bail for a month or two more
    This is a two-way street--I get to peek at the officer's argument and he gets to see mine. By making all my arguments known in my declaration, I am in effect revealing everything to the officer. If I lose TBD which is most likely, the witness (citing officer) would have a preview of my arguments and would likely make adjustments during the TDN. The court would also likely use or refer to my defeated TBD case and reinforce or support the previous judgement.

    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    [*]Do you have a county seat request in process already? The only way to get it now is to go to your arraignment in person and request a change of venue.
    I did make the request with the officer, but I have not made such a formal request with the court. But since you said the court would less likely approve the venue change because I live and work close to the Superior Court than the county seat, I would not waste time changing it. What I was hoping to accomplish with the change of venue is to put the citing officer out of his comfort zone especially when he acknowledged during my stop that it was his first time to hear such a request, meaning he wasn't at all familiar with the county seat in Redwood.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Speeding Tickets: How to Fight a Speeding Charge, 50 MPH in a 35 MPH Zone (VC 22350)
    By idog in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-14-2011, 06:23 AM
  2. Speeding Tickets: School Zone Speeding Ticket, but School Zone Lights Weren't Flashing
    By Lostproph37 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-03-2011, 04:02 PM
  3. Speeding Tickets: Ticketed for Speeding in a School Zone but No School Zone is Present Within One Mile
    By aleeweb in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-02-2011, 02:22 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: How to Fight a Speeding in a Construction Zone Ticket, VC 22350
    By Nick Ellis in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-06-2011, 07:06 PM
  5. Speeding Tickets: CVC 22350 35 in 25mph (School Zone)
    By AlX in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-29-2009, 07:34 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources