Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default Fighting a VC 22350 Speeding Ticket in California

    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

    Hey guys,

    I got a 22350 today and I need some help/advice on fighting it.

    So far this is what happened:

    Motorcycle cop off his bike parked under a tree
    Silver Mercedes e55 AMG next to me that looks similar to mine ( I was in a silver c class)
    The officer was standing next to a tree with his radar gun and tags me
    He runs into the middle of the street and gestures for me to pull over ( was extreamly unsafe)

    The car next to me was going way faster than me but I was on the side closest to the curb so thats why I believe he got me

    *Also we were the only 2 cars there and it was a wide street (2 lanes each side with one in the center)

    It was a 40mph and he tagged me at 62 but according to the law,

    22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

    I was cited for engdaring person or property (wouldnt the cop running into the middle of the street to pull me over be more of a danger to the traffic and public)

    It also says weather, (today was a beautiful day in SoCal, visibility, traffic (high visibility and no traffic since he was able to tag my car coming up a hill) surface, (incredibly smooth) and the width (one of the wider streets around here)

    I'm planning on calling the city hall and getting the engineering and traffic survey for the street that I was on too

    Anything else that I should do and any advice or tips?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also would him being under the tree and off his bike setup with the radar gun be considered a speed trap? I skimmed the speed trap laws but I dont really understand them (should I even try to mention this?)

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

    Default Re: Fighting a VC 22350 in California

    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    Silver Mercedes e55 AMG next to me that looks similar to mine ( I was in a silver c class)
    The officer was standing next to a tree with his radar gun and tags me
    He runs into the middle of the street and gestures for me to pull over ( was extreamly unsafe)

    The car next to me was going way faster than me but I was on the side closest to the curb so thats why I believe he got me

    *Also we were the only 2 cars there and it was a wide street (2 lanes each side with one in the center)

    It was a 40mph and he tagged me at 62
    Sounds to me like he used lidar not radar. If it was Radar he would have likely picked up the fastest car which you claim would not have been you. It might sound ridiculous but it is possible that you were going faster when he first looked at you both, and hence why he tagged you... Regardless of who else was there, you get the prize. No getting around it now.

    There should be a box on the citation that says "Radar/Laser/Patrol Vehicle No." any markings/writing in that box?

    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    but according to the law,

    22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

    I was cited for engdaring person or property
    I disagree... And this is why most people flunk these citations. Because they only read half the code section... The underlined part.

    The other part you would like to ignore says: the posted limit of 40mph is more than likely the safe and prudent speed.

    And you were driving at 21mph higher than it!

    Let me ask you this though... You remember the road you were driving on... Posted for 40mph... At what speed do you think you would have been a danger to people, property and/or to your self?

    Your answer is obviously going to be at a speed that is higher than 40, probably close to 60 or 61... the question then becomes 'WHY?" what makes you think that... If you can give a legit answer to this question, something that a reasonable person could read and say... "hmmmm, interesting point"... Then you're able top overcome the reason why 99% of people lose these citations in court!

    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    (wouldnt the cop running into the middle of the street to pull me over be more of a danger to the traffic and public)
    Well, you didn't run him over, but given your speed, the possibility was there. Regardless and while he might use it to add more reasons to cite you, even without it, he's got you good!

    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    It also says weather, (today was a beautiful day in SoCal, visibility, traffic (high visibility and no traffic since he was able to tag my car coming up a hill) surface, (incredibly smooth) and the width (one of the wider streets around here)
    And the survey that was conducted in an effort to establish a speed limit on that road was more likely conducted under the ideal conditions you describe as well. Time will tell though!

    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    I'm planning on calling the city hall and getting the engineering and traffic survey for the street that I was on too
    Good, and when you do, upload it to an image hosting site and post the links to those images here. In the meantime...

    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    Anything else that I should do and any advice or tips?
    You could search the forum for 22350 and read a few threads to get an idea on what is going on!

    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    Also would him being under the tree and off his bike setup with the radar gun be considered a speed trap?
    Not even remotely close to the legal definition of a speed trap, which is why I said you should read a few threads to understand it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: Fighting a VC 22350 in California

    Just looked at my ticket again and he did indeed use a laser to tag me. I'm sorry for being so ignorant on the subject but this is the first time that I've tried to fight a speeding ticket. So you're basically saying that I'm SOL?

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

    Default Re: Fighting a VC 22350 in California

    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    Just looked at my ticket again and he did indeed use a laser to tag me. I'm sorry for being so ignorant on the subject but this is the first time that I've tried to fight a speeding ticket. So you're basically saying that I'm SOL?
    No, nothing about being SOL yet; In fact, whether it was Laser or Radar, it makes little difference as they are both "electronic speed measuring devices" (as defined by law). I was just commenting on the method you described and the reason why -in my opinion- once he decided to tag you it would have been easier to just stick with you and leave the other guy for another day. He obviously could have attempted to stop you both, but his safety was clearly an issue so he opted for one (just my guess).

    You'll still have to get the Engineering and traffic survey and you still have as much chance of losing this thing as you would have with Radar. LOL

    J/K... In fact, the legal presumption is that this was an illegal speed trap and the prosecution has to prove otherwise.

    - - - Updated - - -

    What year C-class do you drive? If you don't mind me asking!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: Fighting a VC 22350 in California

    Hmm I did some more research and it looks like I would be best off doing a Trial by Declaration instead of showing up to court. I was thinking about using this guideline and changing it to my info.. What do you think?

    *NOT MY ACTUAL INFO*

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Simone De Beauvoir
    Case No.: S780824

    I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on Sorrento Valley Road on 10-21-99, I was stopped by a SDPD Officer (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 62mph in a 45mph zone based on Radar evidence. I believe that I was driving approximately 50-55mph at the time of my stop and that my speed was quite safe for the prevailing conditions.

    The Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350 states: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."

    At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with light traffic. On my citation, the officer marks that the traffic was "light." No persons or property were put at risk. As such, the Officer does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law.

    Further, I believe that the posted speed of 45mph on Sorrento Valley Road is artificially low, reflecting an out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, may constitute an illegal Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(2) which defines an illegal radar speed trap as:"A particular section of a highway with a...speed limit that is provided by this code...[which] 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." If the traffic survey on Sorento valley Road is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal.

    When using radar evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar is not an illegal speed trap. Speed Trap Evidence 40803(b) states: "In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802."

    If the prosecution does not attach proof with its written declaration (a certified copy of the speed survey) to establish as part of its prima facie case, that Sorrento Valley Road is not an illegal Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), I trust the Court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.

    CVC 40805, Admission of Speed Trap Evidence, states:"Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgement of conviction against any person for violation of this code involving the speed of a vehicle if the court admits any evidence or testimony secured in violation of, or which is inadmissible under this article."

    I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.

    If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a Court assignment to attend traffic school.

    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

    Date:

    Simone De Beauvoir, Defendant in Pro Per

    - - - Updated - - -

    I drive a lightly modded 2003 C230 btw

  6. #6

    Default Re: Fighting a VC 22350 in California

    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    Hmm I did some more research and it looks like I would be best off doing a Trial by Declaration instead of showing up to court. I was thinking about using this guideline and changing it to my info.. What do you think?

    *NOT MY ACTUAL INFO*

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Simone De Beauvoir
    Case No.: S780824

    I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on Sorrento Valley Road on 10-21-99, I was stopped by a SDPD Officer (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 62mph in a 45mph zone based on Radar evidence. I believe that I was driving approximately 50-55mph at the time of my stop and that my speed was quite safe for the prevailing conditions.
    At best you just admitted to speeding. What hasn't been mentioned yet, and really should have been, is 22351(b), which establishes violating a law speed limit as a violation of 22350.
    22350 ...
    (b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima
    facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in
    this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by
    competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not
    constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and
    under the conditions then existing.

    So, at best you just admitted to speeding in the 1-15 mph over bracket (still a point, but smaller fine), at worst the judge will take the officer's word over yours.

    The Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350 states: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."

    At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with light traffic. On my citation, the officer marks that the traffic was "light." No persons or property were put at risk. As such, the Officer does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law.
    [points back to 22351(b)]
    You aren't going to be "credible" enough to full fill the second half of 22351(b). Safety, when it comes to 22350 due to the speed limit isn't a required element that the officer has to testify to since, by being over the speed limit, it's unsafe on the face of things.


    Further, I believe that the posted speed of 45mph on Sorrento Valley Road is artificially low, reflecting an out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, may constitute an illegal Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(2) which defines an illegal radar speed trap as:"A particular section of a highway with a...speed limit that is provided by this code...[which] 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." If the traffic survey on Sorento valley Road is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal.
    I wouldn't make this argument without seeing the ETS first.


    When using radar evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar is not an illegal speed trap. Speed Trap Evidence 40803(b) states: "In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802."

    If the prosecution does not attach proof with its written declaration (a certified copy of the speed survey) to establish as part of its prima facie case, that Sorrento Valley Road is not an illegal Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), I trust the Court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.

    CVC 40805, Admission of Speed Trap Evidence, states:"Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgement of conviction against any person for violation of this code involving the speed of a vehicle if the court admits any evidence or testimony secured in violation of, or which is inadmissible under this article."

    I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.

    If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a Court assignment to attend traffic school.

    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

    Date:

    Simone De Beauvoir, Defendant in Pro Per

    - - - Updated - - -

    I drive a lightly modded 2003 C230 btw
    I don't see any harm, but I'm sure Thatguy will have something.

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

    Default Re: Fighting a VC 22350 in California

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    At best you just admitted to speeding.
    Agreed. bad strategy to start with that or even mention it. In fact, you're dedicating 90 % of the declaration to arguing a speed trap and how the survey does not justify the limit (I also agree with CS that you shouldn't make that argument until you've established that the survey is lacking), which means that your speed is not relevant simply because if the limit isn't justified, NONE of the evidence is admissible including your alleged speed.

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    At best you just admitted to speeding. What hasn't been mentioned yet, and really should have been, is 22351(b), which establishes violating a law speed limit as a violation of 22350.
    22350 ...
    (b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima
    facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in
    this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by
    competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not
    constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and
    under the conditions then existing.
    True.. I never explicitly mentioned 22351 but I did ask a similar question:

    Quote Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    Let me ask you this though... You remember the road you were driving on... Posted for 40mph... At what speed do you think you would have been a danger to people, property and/or to your self?

    Your answer is obviously going to be at a speed that is higher than 40, probably close to 60 or 61... the question then becomes 'WHY?" what makes you think that... If you can give a legit answer to this question, something that a reasonable person could read and say... "hmmmm, interesting point"... Then you're able top overcome the reason why 99% of people lose these citations in court!
    Which the OP totally ignored

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post

    [points back to 22351(b)]
    You aren't going to be "credible" enough to full fill the second half of 22351(b). Safety, when it comes to 22350 due to the speed limit isn't a required element that the officer has to testify to since, by being over the speed limit, it's unsafe on the face of things.*
    WOW!!!

    Anybody that can get to this point of understanding a 22350 defense has made great strides, IMO, to not necessarily winning every case (simply because i think that is a HUGE challenge), but to rarely getting cited.... Simply because now he understands the limits of what "safe" is!

    I agree with the general premise of what you said, however, I think you can link it all better if it is described as follows:

    It is true that the speed limit isn't a required element in 22350. meaning regardless of how you read it, 22350 makes no reference to the speed limit at all. However, the speed limit is in fact an integral part in most 22350 prosecutions simply because radar/Lidar was used in most cases and such, speed trap laws are now in effect, the prosecution must prove that the "speed limit is justified by a current E&T survey" and so that is one indirect connection to the speed limit. So yes, it is not an element of the offense of violating the basic speed law, but it is an element that must be proven to sustain a conviction.

    Additionally, the speed limit (assuming it is justified by a current E&T survey) becomes the gauge by which "the safety element" in 22350 is measured. So again, it is not directly mentioned in 22350, however the validity of a 22350 charge is predicated upon what the speed limit is.

    And lastly, the speed limit is also that fine line where the burden to prove guilt is upon the prosecution (pursuant to 22351(a)), or the burden to prove innocence lies upon the defendant!

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    I don't see any harm, but I'm sure Thatguy will have something.
    LOL... I always do have something, don't I!

    And actually, I do see harm under circumstances where the survey is solid, the defendant may have passed up the chance to traffic school!

    So what you said earlier is accurate, its hard to argue much without the survey.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    I drive a lightly modded 2003 C230 btw
    Yeah, now that I'm looking again, I should have figured ^that^ from this:


    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    Silver Mercedes e55 AMG next to me that looks similar to mine ( I was in a silver c class)
    Oh, and we've already confirmed that it was Lidar that the officer used... Did he state the distance (usually in feet) on the citation?

    I am not concerned about "how far", but more curious about how close!

  8. #8

    Default Re: Fighting a VC 22350 in California

    The funny part is that out of my 3 (including my pending one, which I need to update the thread) CA tickets, none have been a 22350 ticket.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: Fighting a VC 22350 in California

    Hmm so basically its going to be me against the officer and the judge will obviously find the officers reason more credible since he is saying that I was going over the speed limit so that automatically makes it unsafe?

    Would the only way for me to win be the E&T report and hoping that its older so speed trap laws come into place or am I completely confused?

    Please tell me if I am completely off course haha I feel as if I am..

    - - - Updated - - -

    bump for that question ^

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

    Default Re: Fighting a VC 22350 in California

    Quote Quoting California student
    View Post
    The funny part is that out of my 3 (including my pending one, which I need to update the thread) CA tickets, none have been a 22350 ticket.
    That's not the funny part... That's exactly what I was saying... You clearly understand the elements of the 22350 offense and that's why you probably haven't been cited fort it. Now if you can work on your ability to read and understand signs, you'd be golden!

    And yes, an update is way past due!!! So get to it!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Quoting Jfarhanbod
    View Post
    Hmm so basically its going to be me against the officer and the judge will obviously find the officers reason more credible since he is saying that I was going over the speed limit so that automatically makes it unsafe?

    Would the only way for me to win be the E&T report and hoping that its older so speed trap laws come into place or am I completely confused?

    Please tell me if I am completely off course haha I feel as if I am..

    - - - Updated - - -

    bump for that question ^
    If the speed limit is justified by a good survey, it is not only you against the officer, it is you, against the officer and possibly up to 85 drivers or more who decided that 40mph or thereabouts is the upper limit of the safe speed on that roadway. That makes 1 against (possibly) 86... And for you to stand there saying "I think I was safe at 62" when 86 decided 40 should be tops... Not very convincing.

    At any rate, we can sit here and speculate, pose hypotheticals and try to predict outcomes. Or, you can get the survey, post it, let us look at it, and that way you can proceed with factual information instead of just guesses and speculation!

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket (VC 22350) 44 in 30 (Alhambra, California)
    By igotcaughtspeeding in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 06-07-2010, 01:03 PM
  2. Speeding Tickets: California Speeding 22350 Ticket by Unmarked Car
    By Lacp09 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-21-2010, 08:29 PM
  3. Speeding Tickets: 22350 VC California Speeding Ticket
    By jlin524 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-24-2009, 11:29 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: Fighting a VC 22350 Speeding Ticket
    By Marvin123 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 01:41 PM
  5. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket in California - 22350
    By Trinitix in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-24-2009, 11:03 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources