My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CA CVC 22350 for "+70" in 60 zone on CA 101 near Salinas.
I have received (first time!) a copy of the ETS, ticket, cal logs, and officers written dec...
I lost my trial by written dec, and have trial in a week.
The ETS (traffic survey) I got seems a bit analytically deficient. It said 65 is the JUSTIFIED speed, but people want it lower, so its lower. Also it list some numbers for the survey, but with no units so I have idea what they mean or how derived. what does a rate of "9.5" mean? is that accidents(?) per month, per year, for all CA, all of 101, that mile marker...??
OF the 3 listed mile point numbers one was lower then the 'typical' listed number. so is that good or bad? again the ETS has no explanation. the survey actually says "this survey meets 40802b" when I think its technically deficient and lacking in info required by 40802b. An example of a proper ETS would be good if someone could point me to one.
Any thoughts on trying to attack the ETS during the trial as technically deficient thus dismissing ticket with the officers testimony and 60 speed limit? Or do all Cal trans ETS look like they were conducted poorly.
The ETS also does not have a full name as a signatory. so I cant look up if that person is a registered engineer.
On the officers written declaration(TR-235), I noticed two mistakes
1) officer has both item [4] (ETS within 5 year) and item [6] (ETS within 7 and 10 years) with [6a] and [6b] checked -"all elements in item 5"
why are both items 4 and 6 checked and why is 6b is check saying "all of item 5" when he did not check item 5.
To me this is contradiction (because he actually does not know if the ETS is valid) and an error worthy of tossing out the declaration on a technicality. 10 years ago I had a motion to dismiss a case denied because the judge "thought" I checked a wrong box...he never bothered to read the motion, he just 'thought' it was for aircraft survey (and not officer notes like checked), so i'm willing to try the technicality route, would this work?
2) in the cops written, he Identifies me correctly on one line, but a sentence later lists a different Mr.lastname! clearly he forgot to re read his boilerplate declaration! he is basically says a different driver signed the violation.Can I get out on a technicality on this?
The ticket itself actually has PACE AND rader/LIDAR checked as method- can they just check all of the methods and hope one sticks??
He also said I passed him doing 80! which I don't drive that fast I know I did not PASS him and let him follow me (pace)for 1.5miles- which again tells me his written is just boiler plate that he changes name and car details.
if I was doing +70 and thus 'unsafe' why did he take 1.5 miles to pull me over? could I say I WAS safe at my speed which is why he did not pull me over right away?



