Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68
  1. #51

    Default Re: Vc 22350, Downhill, Two Lanes, Multiple Motorcycle Cops

    I've updated the TBD again : http://www.mediafire.com/?d845iecm4xi28n0

    I included a citation and an excerpt from the traffic manual.

    Please review and let me know what you all think. Sorry for being such a noob

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Vc 22350, Downhill, Two Lanes, Multiple Motorcycle Cops

    Quote Quoting koutarou
    View Post
    I've updated the TBD again : http://www.mediafire.com/?d845iecm4xi28n0

    I included a citation and an excerpt from the traffic manual.

    Please review and let me know what you all think. Sorry for being such a noob
    I think you've picked a good citation in Goulet... If only you can find another one to close with (and those should be plenty)! Something that will say: "no survey, no evidence, no testimony..." etc... ~or words to that effect~!

    As far as the citation from the traffic manual, and since your survey was conducted in 2007, I think you would be better off going to pages 2B-8 of the 2006 CA-MUTCD, starting with the section titled: Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS), read that section through the middle of page 2B-10 and i'm guessing you might find a better paragraph to quote. Remember, collision rates is not the only factor that can be used to lower the limit. So to concentrate on that one factor alone -& dedicate 3 paragraphs to it while leaving all other factors unmentioned/un-discussed, is not very convincing IMO.

    And I wouldn't hesitate if it gets into 2 or 2 ½ pages as a result.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South-Central Cali
    Posts
    1,274

    Default Re: Vc 22350, Downhill, Two Lanes, Multiple Motorcycle Cops

    I would remove the self-incriminating stuff (50-55 mph). No need to mention your alleged speed, "the facts", "officer didn't mention weather", etc.

    Attach the survey you received AND a copy of Goulet to the TBD.

    Here is another quote adapted from the groove502 brief I mentioned you should look at earlier:



    The “critical speed,” or 85th-percentile speed, is “the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving.” (MUTCD06, p. 2B-10.) Caltrans recommends that “Speed limits [be] established at or near the critical speed … [¶] … [because they] conform to what the majority considers reasonable and prudent” (Ibid.)

    The posted speed limit must be rounded to the nearest 5 mph increment of the measured critical speed. It may be reduced by 5 mph from that number if engineering studies indicate such a need. (MUTCD06, p. 2B-7.) Caltrans provides the following example:

    • If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey was 60 km/h (37 mph), then the speed limit would be posted at 35 mph or optionally reduced to 30 mph. However,
    • if the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey was 61 km/h (38 mph), then the speed limit would be posted at 40 mph or optionally reduced to 35 mph. (Ibid.)


    The survey data sheet clearly shows the critical speed as 51 mph. At most, it may be optionally reduced to 45 mph, after appropriately listing and justifying the reasons behind such a reduction.

    [your existing Goulet quote here]

    The Goulet survey showed that 95 percent of the drivers exceeded the unjustified speed limit therein, making it obvious that it was not supported by the “reasonable and prudent majority of drivers.” (Id. at Supp. p. 12.) The survey documented no conditions justifying such a drastic reduction and thus made “violators of a disproportionate number of the reasonable majority of drivers.” (Id. at Supp. p. 11.)
    The survey data before us is based on 110 vehicles. The radar speed distribution sheet (page 2) clearly shows that approximately HALF of the vehicles were traveling ABOVE the 45 mph limit. Thus, this limit makes violators of 50 percent of drivers – certainly a "disproportionate number" and cannot be justified.
    Other Goulet quotes that may be helpful:

    Evidence that there was a survey within five years is prima facie evidence that the evidence or testimony is not based on
    a speed trap. (§ 40803, subd. (c)). However, that is merely a prima facie case, and the speed limit must be justified by
    the survey. A speed limit is not justified by a survey unless the survey proves or shows the speed limit to be just and
    based upon a sufficient lawful reason.
    An officer's description of conditions at the time of the alleged violation would be relevant to whether there
    was a violation of section 22350, if he were competent to testify. But his testimony is irrelevant to the existence of a
    speed trap. The existence of a speed trap depends on whether the survey justified the action of the local authority in
    setting the speed limit.
    the sanction for violation of speed trap prohibitions is not merely exclusion of
    the offending radar evidence. The officer is incompetent as a witness to a charge of speeding (§ 40804), and the court is
    deprived of jurisdiction (§ 40805).
    I would also NOT bother with the accidents part, in effect helping the prosecution out by creating a justification out of thin air. The problem is once you do it, you are not qualified to proclaim that it is only "0.12 acc/mvm" and should be ignored.

    Good luck!

  4. #54

    Default Re: Vc 22350, Downhill, Two Lanes, Multiple Motorcycle Cops

    Thanks for the help guys. Here is the newly revised version : http://www.mediafire.com/?f2le4wt8d8byak0

    Not sure if I modified this correctly... could you guys take a look again and see? Did I forget anything?

  5. #55

    Default Re: Vc 22350, Downhill, Two Lanes, Multiple Motorcycle Cops

    Anyone? o.o....

  6. #56

    Default Re: Vc 22350, Downhill, Two Lanes, Multiple Motorcycle Cops

    Really would like some input on my most current version of my TBD... I need to send this out tomorrow.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Vc 22350, Downhill, Two Lanes, Multiple Motorcycle Cops

    Quote Quoting koutarou
    View Post
    Really would like some input on my most current version of my TBD... I need to send this out tomorrow.
    You really need to understand that this site is manned by volunteers... We have lives, and our own issued to tend to... If you desire someone at your beck and call, then you might want to consider hiring someone and paying them to tend to you affairs!

    I'm not sure how much more direction that what you've already received are you looking for...

  8. #58

    Default Re: Vc 22350, Downhill, Two Lanes, Multiple Motorcycle Cops

    Quote Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    You really need to understand that this site is manned by volunteers... We have lives, and our own issued to tend to... If you desire someone at your beck and call, then you might want to consider hiring someone and paying them to tend to you affairs!

    I'm not sure how much more direction that what you've already received are you looking for...
    Sorry, not trying to be rude. Just trying to get some help.

    Just wanted to see if anyone could look over my TBD one last time to see if everything looks okay before I send it out.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    532

    Default Re: Vc 22350, Downhill, Two Lanes, Multiple Motorcycle Cops

    I don't have as much expertise as TG or Quirky, but I did read your statement. The comments that follow are intended to be critical, but not derogatory. I think that this is a reasonable start, but you could make some improvements. A few thoughts:

    1. Eliminate tentative language, like "I believe" and "I trust"
    2. Your argument about 50% of drivers being a violators, and hence a disproportionate, seems weak. I was conflicted about whether 50% really was disproportionate. I'd try adding an additional explanation that this is more than 3x the number of vehicles than the 15% that would be made violators if the speed were set to 50mph.
    3. You've omitted the strongest argument from the case, which is the one that Quirky and TG described on the first page of this thread: there's no justification for why the speed limit has been lowered by 5mph. This is the best argument, since you should be able to back it up with multiple citations from case law, in addition to the traffic manual, and the vehicle code. You found People v. Goulet, but also see People v. Flaxman, 74 Cal.App.3d Supp. 16 and People v. Halpoff, 60 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1.
    4. You cited the right part of Goulet to make the argument that there's not enough information to justify lowering the speed limit, but you could make a stronger point here. Be sure to observe that the engineering report needs to contain enough information for a fact finder to be able to determine whether the speed limit is justified or not. If no information is provided as to why the speed limit is lowered, then it is going to be impossible for a fact finder to reach the same conclusion as the engineers.
    5. The Goulet case lists about 5 different factors that are indicative of a speed trap, but you picked just one. I would go back through that list and find any others that are applicable. Be sure to explain how they pertain in your argument.
    6. Instead of asking the court to dismiss in the interest of justice, ask them to dismiss for lack of prosecution. If the survey isn't justified, then there's no way that the prosecution can meet their burden to prove that a speed trap doesn't exist. Since a speed trap exists, the officer is incompetent as a witness and the court lacks jurisdiction to enter a judgment of conviction.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South-Central Cali
    Posts
    1,274

    Default Re: Vc 22350, Downhill, Two Lanes, Multiple Motorcycle Cops

    ^^^^ Agreed, all excellent points.

    Quote Quoting themadnorwegian
    View Post
    • Instead of asking the court to dismiss in the interest of justice, ask them to dismiss for lack of prosecution. If the survey isn't justified, then there's no way that the prosecution can meet their burden to prove that a speed trap doesn't exist. Since a speed trap exists, the officer is incompetent as a witness and the court lacks jurisdiction to enter a judgment of conviction.
    Conclude by using the underlined language, and then follow with: "I move that the court acquit me under Penal Code section 1118, for insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of a speed trap."

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket, VC 22350
    By cslx99 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-21-2011, 04:24 PM
  2. Speeding Tickets: VC 22350 Speeding Ticket
    By craff1 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 12:48 PM
  3. Speeding Tickets: VC 22350 Speeding Ticket
    By ps3person in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 05:08 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: 30% Incline Downhill Speeding Ticket
    By element256 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-03-2008, 09:46 AM
  5. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket Due To Downhill Acceleration
    By Sunny3000 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-06-2008, 11:51 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources