Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bay area CA
    Posts
    25

    Default Fighting a Speeding Ticket Based on ETS (Traffic Survey) and Officer's Mistake

    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South-Central Cali
    Posts
    1,274

    Default Re: C Vc22350 Mistake in Officers Written Dec and Traffic Survey (Ets);trial in Week

    Post ETS and cops declaration for us to review. Imageshack.com etc.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bay area CA
    Posts
    25

    Default Re: C Vc22350 Mistake in Officers Written Dec and Traffic Survey (Ets);trial in Week

    correction : the accident rate is listed as '1.07', and the ETS doc does have a name on it.
    I have posted the docs to this site:

    http://s191.photobucket.com/albums/z...t%20documents/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: C Vc22350 Mistake in Officers Written Dec and Traffic Survey (Ets);trial in Week

    Quote Quoting 98redrang
    View Post
    correction : the accident rate is listed as '1.07', and the ETS doc does have a name on it.
    I have posted the docs to this site:

    http://s191.photobucket.com/albums/z...t%20documents/
    according to his declaration, that's a pure "pace" and if he duplicates that at the TDN, you're going to get nowhere arguing a requirement for the survey or any details therein!

    Good luck!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    CT & IL
    Posts
    5,273

    Default Re: C Vc22350 Mistake in Officers Written Dec and Traffic Survey (Ets);trial in Week

    The officer has conflicting facts stated regarding the pace. First he says 1.5 miles, then when he pulled up to your vehicle, you pulled over...appears as if a proper pace did not occur.

    Additionally, the speedometer calibration does not appear to be valid. No certificate of calibration is shown, just a legal conclusion that it was calibrated. And a police officer hardly has the skills needed to perform such a calibration nor the equipment to do one. I know what they do...they drive around at various speeds and use their RADAR/LIDAR to check the speed by which the vehicle is going. However, the RADAR/LIDAR is not designed to perform this task.

    Of course, the officer's statement can be used to impeach him at trial...if he shows up.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bay area CA
    Posts
    25

    Default Re: C Vc22350 Mistake in Officers Written Dec and Traffic Survey (Ets);trial in Week

    I did receive a copy of the speedometer calibration (though technically I feel it is lacking but oh well) along with the lidar and training certs per my discovery request. However he did not included a copy of it with his written declaration, and I did Not submit a of copy of it with my written statement, so I don't know if it is actually entered into the record. Could I ask him at trial to produce the copy and if he does not then call him on it?
    So the speed trap/ETS defense is out, what about the wrong name on his dec? Also he states I passed him doing 15mph over the limit and he then followed me.
    but im not so blind that I dont know when I blow past a CHP on the highway, especially since I know was not not passing anyone on the 101 at ~70mph.

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

    Default Re: Fighting a Speeding Ticket Based on ETS (Traffic Survey) and Officer's Mistake

    Quote Quoting 98redrang
    View Post
    The ticket itself actually has PACE AND rader/LIDAR checked as method- can they just check all of the methods and hope one sticks??
    If he testifies at the TDN, that he simply paced you (irrespective of what he said in his declaration) then you're up **** creek simply because speed trap laws don't apply to a pace.

    But it still would be interesting to see his declaration, but in addition, I would like to know how you worded you discovery request with respect to calibration certificates, and which calibration certificates they provided you with; his notes might also provide some insight... So why not upload and post EVERYTHING you have!.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Fighting a Speeding Ticket Based on ETS (Traffic Survey) and Officer's Mistake

    OK so it looks like he wrote in the vehicle # 8578 on the front of the citation, he lists the same number on the back as part of his notes, includes the calibration information for the speedometer and refers to the same vehicle number and calibration information in his declaration.

    Additionally, in his notes, he circled the CHP vehicle "ROLLING" and there is no conceivable way he could operate Lidar as he's "rolling".

    His written notes (bottom of his copy) I read as follows:

    I WAS

    ?????????

    TRAFFIC

    INITIATE PACE 70

    GOT ????? PACED 75

    ??? 80 BEFORE STOP
    I'm not seeing any reference to Lidar/Radar anywhere there.
    Back tp your original post:

    Quote Quoting 98redrang
    View Post
    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.
    None of the survey data is relevant.

    Quote Quoting 98redrang
    View Post

    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?
    I wouldn't bet a cup of coffee on that making any impact whatsoever. But you can certainly try to make a issue out of it.

    Quote Quoting 98redrang
    View Post
    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.
    Where does it say you passed him at 80:

    What he says is: you passed him, he visually estimated your speed at 75, he placed his vehicle in position and paced you at a distance of 200 feet for 1.5 miles. When he attempted to pull you over as in get close, light you up and wait for you to yield to the right, his speedometer showed a speed of 80. ALL of which is pretty consistent with his notes from that date.

    Quote Quoting 98redrang
    View Post
    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?
    You could say that, but he also could say that he is not required to pull you over immediately, for one he has to contact dispatch, maybe run your license plate, or even wait for an area where you can safely pull over on the shoulder.

    Being unsafe as far as 22350 does not necessarily mean that an accident was about to happen, it simply means that at your speed, and if combined with other factors that are beyond your control, the potential for an accident becomes greater.

    Additionally, VC 22351(b) states that your speed, in excess of the PF limit -which in this case is 60mph- is prima facie -obviously/apparently- unlawful unless YOU can prove that it was safe for the conditions at the time... So in essence, and as long as the officer can provide a sufficiently accurate estimate of your speed, and as long as it is in excess of the posted limit, he's done his job. It then becomes your burden to prove that such a speed was not unsafe, and simply saying "hey, he waited 1.5 miles to pull me over" is not likely to cut it.

    But there's no point in retracting now... Good luck!

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

    Default Re: Fighting a Speeding Ticket Based on ETS (Traffic Survey) and Officer's Mistake

    Quote Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    I'm not seeing any reference to Lidar/Radar anywhere there.
    You may have missed my last post just above yours:

    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    In this case, there are three strong arguments that the speed trap law applies and a proper survey (ETS) is required:

    • The officer stated on the TBD, under penalty of perjury, that an ETS was completed. He DID NOT check box 3, which says "no ETS needed."
    • The citation states emphasizes that a specific LIDAR unit was used, in addition to pacing.
    • Since your discovery request asks for training, certification and maintenance for the device(s) used to ascertain the speed of [your] vehicle, their response is an implicit admission that LIDAR was in fact used, in addition to pacing.
    It doesn't matter whether he actually used, or even could use LIDAR or not --- he stated, under penalty of perjury, that a specific LIDAR unit was used AND that an ETS was required (implying lidar/radar was used).

    At trial, the burden is on him to show that these were "harmless mistakes". And if he makes such mistakes under penalty of perjury, how can the court trust ANYTHING he says?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Fighting a Speeding Ticket Based on ETS (Traffic Survey) and Officer's Mistake

    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    You may have missed my last post just above yours:
    Actually, yeah I did... And then I had a pending post that I hadn't posted and pushed that through as well.

    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    It doesn't matter whether he actually used, or even could use LIDAR or not ---
    Sure it does. I think the case law citation applicable here will say "if the officer relied at any point in his determination of the offender's speed on an electronic device, then he's invoked the speed tap law and would be required to prove the non-existence of a speed trap" or words to that effect (too lazy to look it up). If he could not have used Lidar, then at no point did he rely on that electronic device to determine the offender's speed.... Then its a pure pace upon which, the speed trap laws do not apply!

    But let's not argue that point!

    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    he stated, under penalty of perjury, that a specific LIDAR unit was used
    Where?



    I am without reading glasses but my eyes haven't fooled me that much as of yet...

    I see on page one of his declaration:

    Box 1.h. was checked indicating: Speed supported by the patrol vehicle's speedometer was a significant factor. Pursuant to department policy, the patrol vehicle used in connection with this citation was officially calibrated on (date): 3/14/11
    The result was (specify): Accurate for all speeds.
    The calibration was considered by me in determining defendant's speed.




    Also, I see that Boxes 2(a) and 2(c) were checked indicating: THE METHOD(S) USED TO DETERMINE THE SPEED OF THE INVOLVED VEHICLE WAS/WERE: ODOMETER and PACING.


    I don't see Laser or Radar as being checked!!!!


    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    he stated, under penalty of perjury, ...... that an ETS was required
    But I do not see a box that indicates "that an ETS was required" (as you phrased it)!!

    I don't see a checkmark on Box 3 indicating: Engineering and traffic survey (ETS) not required per Vehicle Code section 40802, subdivision (b).

    (Note the "not required") and the lack of a checkmark is not indicative that one IS required or that the officer used Lidar!

    I do see a checkmark on box 4 indicating: ETS completed within five (5) years prior to date of alleged violation. And box 4.b. indicating: ETS on file with the court.


    But neither of those are indicative that he used Lidar or that he is required to produce a survey! Only that one is on file with the court!

    On page 2



    I do see the boxes that were checked indicating

    6. ETS completed within seven (7) and ten (10) years prior to the date of the alleged violation.
    a. A registered engineer has evaluated the section of the highway in question and has determined that no significant
    changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred.

    b. All of the elements marked under item 5, above, which are applicable.


    But again, nothing that indicated he used Lidar (or any other electronic device for that matter)

    Or...

    Any indication where he stated that he is required to produce a survey.


    Quote Quoting quirkyquark
    View Post
    At trial, the burden is on him to show that these were "harmless mistakes". And if he makes such mistakes under penalty of perjury, how can the court trust ANYTHING he says?
    Well, for one, that was the TBD (key term is "was"), and even then, and as far as harmless... How different would it be if he didn't check the boxes indicating a survey was on file, evaluated, 7 & 10 years... etc?

    Are you suggesting that without those checkboxes marked, the defendant would have been found "not guilty"?
    Or are you implying that the defendant's defense would have been any different if it weren't for those boxes? It had zero effect there simply because the defendant could not see those boxes at the time his declaration was written and later submitted.
    You can claim that the calibration certificates might give rise to an assumption that Lidar was used, but then again the Radar certs were included as well! Does that mean Radar was used too?
    And lets not forget the officer's notes... Nothing indicative of any electronic device being used!
    So do we believe the notes more or do we buy into an assumption that simply because I requested calibration certificates and they provided calibration certificates that he was lying in his notes and my assumption prevails?

    How about for our purposes here, we shift the burden over to the defendant... How did those checkmarks harm his defense in his TBD in any way?

    Fact is, it had ZERO effect on the verdict and the same on the defendant's defense! Therefore it is harmless!

    And I'm still not seeing it!

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fighting a Ticket Based on a Technicality
    By muszyngr in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-08-2009, 07:07 PM
  2. Fighting a Large Speeding Ticket - Must the Ticketing Officer Be Present
    By chris1487 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-01-2009, 05:25 AM
  3. Traffic Stop Based On Claims Of An Off-Duty Officer
    By GoodieProctor in forum Police Investigations
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-12-2007, 05:24 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket and Engineering Traffic Survey
    By randstein45 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-24-2006, 01:36 PM
  5. Speeding Tickets: Speed Survey, Traffic Survey, or Engineer Survey
    By shearn33 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-04-2005, 10:02 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources