Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Default When Can You Use the Speed Trap Defense for Speeding Citation

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

    I was pulled over on Ignacio Blvd, just after Entrada Drive in Novato, California and cited for violating CVC 22350. I was allegedly going 55 in a 35 zone on Ignacio Blvd at Entrada Drive. Ignacio Blvd is a minor arterial, divided road with two lanes in each direction. My ticket shows the location of my violation as “IGNACIO BL ENTRADA DR” with weather, road & traffic conditions as “DAY, CLR, DRY, MED”. I have a clean record and my courtesy notice shows I’m eligible for Traffic School. I can't afford the $400 ticket, as I'm very low-income.

    If you can look at a google map of the area I’m referring to it will help you to understand my post. In the Engineering and Traffic Survey for Ignacio Blvd, it shows that the section of road between Entrada Drive and Country Club Drive I was traveling on just before I was pulled over has a Critical Speed (85%) of 43 MPH, and 73% of the drivers were over the 35 MPH posted limit in the survey. This would warrant a 45 MPH limit for that stretch of road, not the posted 35. I believe the precise location I was allegedly clocked at 55 MPH was while I was coming from Country Club Drive, just before I reached Entrada Drive, while traveling on Ignacio Blvd.

    If this is the case, it seems I have excellent grounds for dismissal of my ticket, using the Speed Trap Defense. The squad car was parked on the opposite side of the two-way divided roadway to my left, at the Entrance to Entrada Drive. My understanding is that when an officer is using the laser gun from a stationary position, he will generally point the Laser gun towards an oncoming car that he sees coming towards him, which I believe was the case with my car. However, it is conceivable that the officer allegedly got his 55 MPH reading on LIDAR just after I passed Entrada Drive on Ignacio Blvd. If he did, then I have a weak case, since the critical speed for the section from Entrada Drive to Highway 101 is 36 MPH and only 15% of the drivers are above 35 MPH in traffic survey for this stretch of the road.

    The traffic survey is dated 3-28-07 and my citation was on 8-31-12, so the survey is over five years old. This means that if I go to trial and don’t get a dismissal, the prosecution will have to show the officer has completed the necessary Radar and Laser training. I have an extension till 10-22-12 to pay the bail or request a Trial by Written Declaration.

    I have read through the HELP! I got a ticket website’s tutorial. I also read everything pertaining to fighting a speeding ticket in the book Fight Your Ticket and Win in California, and I have a PDF copy of the Traffic and Engineering Survey. Based on what I have posted, do you think I likely have grounds for dismissal of my case using the Speed Trap Defense?

    If possible, at some point I would like to email a copy of the Traffic Survey to one or more of the experts here, if anyone would be so kind and willing to take a look at it to perhaps be better able to advise me. Thanks in advance for responses.

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

    Default Re: When Can You Use the Speed Trap Defense for Speeding Citation

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    I can't afford the $400 ticket, as I'm very low-income.
    Well, to fight the citation, most courts will require you to post bail equal to the fine amount (which, if you prevail after trial will be refunded to you)... So that will likely be a challenge if the court will not budge on bail.

    EDIT: But, I see that is no longer an issue anymore

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    I have an extension till 10-22-12 to pay the bail or request a Trial by Written Declaration.



    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    If you can look at a google map of the area I’m referring to it will help you to understand my post. In the Engineering and Traffic Survey for Ignacio Blvd, it shows that the section of road between Entrada Drive and Country Club Drive I was traveling on just before I was pulled over has a Critical Speed (85%) of 43 MPH, and 73% of the drivers were over the 35 MPH posted limit in the survey. This would warrant a 45 MPH limit for that stretch of road, not the posted 35. I believe the precise location I was allegedly clocked at 55 MPH was while I was coming from Country Club Drive, just before I reached Entrada Drive, while traveling on Ignacio Blvd.

    If this is the case, it seems I have excellent grounds for dismissal of my ticket, using the Speed Trap Defense. The squad car was parked on the opposite side of the two-way divided roadway to my left, at the Entrance to Entrada Drive. My understanding is that when an officer is using the laser gun from a stationary position, he will generally point the Laser gun towards an oncoming car that he sees coming towards him, which I believe was the case with my car. However, it is conceivable that the officer allegedly got his 55 MPH reading on LIDAR just after I passed Entrada Drive on Ignacio Blvd. If he did, then I have a weak case, since the critical speed for the section from Entrada Drive to Highway 101 is 36 MPH and only 15% of the drivers are above 35 MPH in traffic survey for this stretch of the road.

    The traffic survey is dated 3-28-07 and my citation was on 8-31-12, so the survey is over five years old. This means that if I go to trial and don’t get a dismissal, the prosecution will have to show the officer has completed the necessary Radar and Laser training.
    The location of the violation is indicated on the citation, what does it say in that regards?

    You really are short changing yourself and not allowing us to give you what we believe would make for an accurate assessment by simply citing the portions you feel are relevant. Rather than e-mailing it to certain members, why not post all pages that you have of it and that way we can all share views and ideas...

    You will not be able to post it directly and so there are a number of things you can do here... You can search the web for a way to convert the .pdf files into jpg files; you can scan the .pdf pages (or take pictures of them on a cell phone or digital camera)... And once you have them as images in .jpg format, go to www.photobucket.com or www.imageshack.com, upload the pages and either use the links those cotes will avail to you to post the images here (with photobucket, for example, you would simply copy the "IMG code" for each image (which will look like [IMG] link to image [/IMG]) and paste it here...

  3. #3

    Default Re: When Can You Use the Speed Trap Defense for Speeding Citation

    Thanks for your response, That Guy. In the future, I will try to reply to responses here sooner, since mid-October is soon and if I need to do a trial by written declaration, I will need to request one and mail it about a week before my October 22 deadline. In the meantime, I hope to avail myself to helpful people here.

    I agree with you that it would be good for me to post the Traffic Survey here, so I have done so at the bottom of this post. I didn’t even know this was possible before you informed me and I learned to convert to .jpg and use photobucket.com. I also agree I don’t want to sell myself short or limit responses I can get from helpful people here – besides, I realize it is not realistic for me to request anyone’s email and email anyone here yet as a newbie, having not even corresponded with anyone yet, except for having just begun posting with you.

    As I indicated in my first post, in regards to where my alleged violation occurred, the officer entered on my printed out ticket (sic)
    “LOCATION OF VIOLATION(S):
    IGNACIO BL
    ENTRADA DR”

    This is clearly indicating that my alleged violation occurred on Ignacio Blvd at Entrada Drive. This is all the information the ticket gives in regards to the location of alleged violation and is very close to, if not precisely where it in fact occurred, since the officer picked me up on LIDAR while he was parked at the stop sign at the exit point of Entrada Drive. The officer crossed over the westbound side of Ignacio Blvd to pull me over on the eastbound side.

    As I tried to indicate in my first post, this is complicated and potentially problematic because where the ticket says my alleged violation occurred (and very close to or exactly where it in fact occurred) is precisely at the border between an apparent speed trap section of Ignacio Blvd and a section of Ignacio Blvd that is not a speed trap, so it is impossible to know whether a judge would decide if I’m being charged with violating CVC 22350 in a speed trap or not.

    Page 2 of the Traffic Survey states “In the past years Ignacio Blvd has been an accident problem, but through police enforcement in this area accident rates have been brought down significantly.” Of particular concern to me is where it states on page 2 in part c, conclusion: “Retain the existing 35 MPH speed limit and continue police radar enforcement above the 85th percentile (italics mine) in an effort to reduce speed violations in the area and retain the overall vehicle and pedestrian safety on this street.”

    The survey clearly recommends that police radar enforcement only be implemented for those who exceed the speed above the 85th percentile. This means for the section of road I was traveling on immediately before I was pulled over and where I was first picked up on LIDAR, on Ignacio Blvd just before Entrada Drive going eastbound coming from Country Club Drive, it is recommended that police only pull over and ticket drivers that exceed 43 MPH. If the survey clearly recommends that police only pull over and ticket drivers who exceed 43 MPH on the section of road that I was traveling on when I was first picked up on LIDAR, then does that mean those who are cited with a speed significantly above 43 MPH (as I was) and cannot provide reasonable doubt that they were not going above about 43 MPH will not be able to use the speed trap defense?

    Also, as I have mentioned, in the section of Ignacio Blvd immediately after where my alleged violation occurred and where I was pulled over, just after Entrada Drive but before Highway 101, the 85th percentile is 36 MPH. If a judge determines that my alleged violation falls within that part of the roadway, I think it will be difficult to have my case dismissed or to be able to win my case.

    However, only if it is necessary, I want to be able to use the defense that there was no person or property ever in danger and I was in full control of my vehicle when I was picked up on LIDAR and seen driving by the officer, regardless of whether I was moving at 55 MPH or slower. On the HELP! I got a ticket website I read that George, the owner of the website used this type of defense successfully when he was cited for going 67 MPH in a 45 MPH zone. Frankly, I prefer to generally drive at or slightly below the posted speed limits and I encourage people to drive safely and at reasonable speeds, but the fact is that someone like myself who has very fast motor responses, is athletic, is very aware of his surroundings and who has 25 years of experience at driving safely can drive several MPH over the speed limit much more safely and be in full control of their vehicle much more so than a poor, inexperienced driver with much slower motor responses and coordination, but the law tends to treat everyone the same when we are not the same.

    Again, my ticket says the violation occurred on Ignacio Blvd at Entrada Drive, even though I was first picked up on LIDAR just before I reached Entrada Drive heading east towards Highway 101. As I have mentioned, 73% of the drivers in the survey violated the 35 MPH speed limit in the section of roadway I was traveling on when I was picked up by LIDAR, Ignacio Blvd between Country Club Drive and Entrada Drive, where the 85th percentile is 43 MPH. This certainly gives evidence of a speed trap and does not justify the posting of a 35 MPH limit, but a 45 MPH limit instead for that section of Ignacio Blvd.

    I desire to fight my ticket in part because traffic citations are very largely based on revenue-generation that often gouges people unfairly and generally has little to do with enhancing public safety, in my opinion.

    Below, is a link to Google maps, where I have outlined the two sections on Ignacio Blvd pertaining to my case: Points C to B, Country Club Drive to Entrada Drive, and points B to A, Entrada Drive to Highway 101. Of course Point B is where my alleged violation occurred (Ignacio Blvd at Entrada Drive). You can of course zoom into the map as necessary. I have done a lot of research and reading about speed traps, the basic speed law, and fighting speeding tickets, but if there is any helpful information or insight someone can provide that could help me fight my ticket, I would appreciate it. I'm not resigned to being taken to the cleaners financially yet.

    Here is the Google maps link to the relevant two sections of Ignacio Blvd: http://goo.gl/maps/gY1yv

    Below, is an image of four of the seven pages of the 2007 Ignacio Blvd Traffic and Engineering Survey that are most relevant and pertain to my case. They include page 2: Analysis and Recommendations, page 3: Survey Data Sheet, Page 4: Data for Ignacio Blvd between Highway 101 and Entrada Drive, and page 5: Data for Ignacio Blvd between Entrada Drive and Country Club Drive that I was traveling on before I got pulled over. I am curious about other people’s opinions on the Traffic and Engineering survey and how good my odds are in getting my case dismissed due to me being cited in a Speed Trap.


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

    Default Re: When Can You Use the Speed Trap Defense for Speeding Citation

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    As I indicated in my first post, in regards to where my alleged violation occurred, the officer entered on my printed out ticket (sic)
    “LOCATION OF VIOLATION(S):
    IGNACIO BL
    ENTRADA DR”

    This is clearly indicating that my alleged violation occurred on Ignacio Blvd at Entrada Drive. This is all the information the ticket gives in regards to the location of alleged violation and is very close to, if not precisely where it in fact occurred, since the officer picked me up on LIDAR while he was parked at the stop sign at the exit point of Entrada Drive. The officer crossed over the westbound side of Ignacio Blvd to pull me over on the eastbound side.

    As I tried to indicate in my first post, this is complicated and potentially problematic because where the ticket says my alleged violation occurred (and very close to or exactly where it in fact occurred) is precisely at the border between an apparent speed trap section of Ignacio Blvd and a section of Ignacio Blvd that is not a speed trap, so it is impossible to know whether a judge would decide if I’m being charged with violating CVC 22350 in a speed trap or not.
    You can try your darnest to get it to fit farther westbound than eastbound. At the end of the day, the officer's testimony and answers on cross examination will dictate the location. So you'll have to prepare for both scenarios and hope for the best.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    Page 2 of the Traffic Survey states “In the past years Ignacio Blvd has been an accident problem, but through police enforcement in this area accident rates have been brought down significantly.” Of particular concern to me is where it states on page 2 in part c, conclusion: “Retain the existing 35 MPH speed limit and continue police radar enforcement above the 85th percentile (italics mine) in an effort to reduce speed violations in the area and retain the overall vehicle and pedestrian safety on this street.”

    The survey clearly recommends that police radar enforcement only be implemented for those who exceed the speed above the 85th percentile. This means for the section of road I was traveling on immediately before I was pulled over and where I was first picked up on LIDAR, on Ignacio Blvd just before Entrada Drive going eastbound coming from Country Club Drive, it is recommended that police only pull over and ticket drivers that exceed 43 MPH. If the survey clearly recommends that police only pull over and ticket drivers who exceed 43 MPH on the section of road that I was traveling on when I was first picked up on LIDAR, then does that mean those who are cited with a speed significantly above 43 MPH (as I was) and cannot provide reasonable doubt that they were not going above about 43 MPH will not be able to use the speed trap defense?
    I'm not so sure why you're feeling offended by ^that^. There are two primary purposes for conducting E&T survey, one is to establish a safe speed that may also promote the orderly movement of traffic, and the other to allow for speed enforcement using electronic speed measuring devices. As for your analogy and the 43mph being where drivers are ticketed, while it is true that 43mph is described as the 85th percentile speed, that is not the "safe speed" and so it is not the reference by which your speed is compared to in court. That reference will be the 35mph, and in fact, that should be indicated on your citation as the safe speed; and the presumption is, it is posted as such.

    In other words, the Prima Facie speed on that segment is 35mph, the officer will testify that he clocked you at 55mph, he'll say his schpeal about why your speed was unsafe (and he can simply cite a"high accident rate" as the reason) and be done. Now it becomes your burden to prove why your speed under conditions was not in violation of the basic speed law.

    And yes, it is a stretch to assume that you'll be able to justify 55 in a safe 35... But you made that conscious decision when you drove by that sign, you saw the 35mph limit (justified or not justified) you still made the decision to continue through at 55mph.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    Also, as I have mentioned, in the section of Ignacio Blvd immediately after where my alleged violation occurred and where I was pulled over, just after Entrada Drive but before Highway 101, the 85th percentile is 36 MPH. If a judge determines that my alleged violation falls within that part of the roadway, I think it will be difficult to have my case dismissed or to be able to win my case.
    Well, presumably, your speed didn't really fluctuate up or down by much as you went across Entrada, neither did the speed limit. So 55mph alleged speed in 35mph safe speed whether it is before or after Entrada, will make little difference.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    However, only if it is necessary, I want to be able to use the defense that there was no person or property ever in danger and I was in full control of my vehicle when I was picked up on LIDAR and seen driving by the officer, regardless of whether I was moving at 55 MPH or slower. On the HELP! I got a ticket website I read that George, the owner of the website used this type of defense successfully when he was cited for going 67 MPH in a 45 MPH zone.
    I thought it was "Geo", but regardless he's "selling clicks", do you seriously expect him to say it didn't work for him? There have been cases where it was 10 over, and the person used Geo's plan and was laughed out of court. In fact, I honestly cannot think of a single instance where I believed that it did work for anyone. And while it is true that 67 in 45 is 22mph, while yours is only 20 over, on a percentage basis, yours is @ 57% in excess of the limit, his is @ 48%

    Now set all that aside, even the fact that the officer is considered an expert, he's seen what high speeds can do and the carnage they can cause... All that out the window. Which do you think will sound more reasonable to the court? Someone who's main concern is safety of the public including yours, and is using long standing methods to determine safe or beyond unreasonably unsafe... or someone who's dismissing the mere possibility that a glitch can end up costing someone life or limb?

    It will get to a point in time during every speeding trial where one of the people standing before the court will start to sound ridiculous. You can make that much worse by starting with the XX questions but hey, its your case and at that point, I'm assuming that desperate times call for desperate measures.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    Frankly, I prefer to generally drive at or slightly below the posted speed limits and I encourage people to drive safely and at reasonable speeds, but the fact is that someone like myself who has very fast motor responses, is athletic, is very aware of his surroundings and who has 25 years of experience at driving safely can drive several MPH over the speed limit much more safely and be in full control of their vehicle much more so than a poor, inexperienced driver with much slower motor responses and coordination, but the law tends to treat everyone the same when we are not the same.
    Frankly, I think you're forgetting that speed trap rules do not allow for individualized speed limits. Whether someone is an olympic gold medalist or confined to wheel chair, if you're driving, you're bound by the same rules as Grandpa Joseph...

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    the law tends to treat everyone the same when we are not the same.
    What happened to justice, equality, fairness? And those qualities exist not because you're athletic and someone else isn't! And in all honesty, I urge you to take those sentiments with you before your judge. You will likely be treated differently than everybody else... Your fine is not set to the max for an infraction, and the 30 day license suspension within the judge's reach isn't that far fetched of an option!

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    I desire to fight my ticket in part because traffic citations are very largely based on revenue-generation that often gouges people unfairly and generally has little to do with enhancing public safety, in my opinion.
    As I stated above, as you drove past that speed limit sign, you had a choice, you could have considered the financial aspect of it, and the hassle of fighting it in court, but you opted to continue through at a higher speed, so any revenue that you are gouged for was voluntary on your part.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    Below, is an image of four of the seven pages of the 2007 Ignacio Blvd Traffic and Engineering Survey
    And without seeing the other pages, and even if they do not relate to the segment in question, even only as a way to determine the general validity of calculations or observations or commentary made on the survey, this is most likely an incomplete analysis but you were asked for the entire survey and you opted to post only part of it, So here it goes anyways:

    First, the survey is dated 04/04/2007 and as such would then have to conform to the 2006 CA-MUTCD. From there we go to the speed charts
    The 43mph determined to be the 85th percentile speed was deemed so in error, in my opinion.
    If you count 15 vehicles from the top, you will end up within the 43mph speed bracket...
    But is that vehicle #85, or is that vehicle # 86?
    I count it as vehicle #86 and so the next one down, is in fact the 85th percentile position, and would therefore represent the 85th percentile speed which turns out to be 42mph.
    It appears to be a typo though simply because it makes little difference whether we start with 43mph and follow thrrough to the end, we get the same result if it were 42mph. If we consider the 42mph to be the 85th percentile speed, then from Section 2B.13 of the 2006 CA-MUTCD, page 2B-7, it states:

    When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within established at the nearest 10 km/h or 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.


    And so the 85th percentile is 42mph, reduced to the nearest 5mph increment would set it at 40mph, and putting that through the last usual step:

    The posted speed may be reduced by 10 km/h (5 mph) from the nearest 10 km/h or 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed, where engineering study indicates the need for a reduction in speed to match existing conditions with the traffic safety needs of the community.


    And in light of the high accident rare, the presence of the bike lane on both sides of the roadway, would clearly justify an additional 5mph reduction in the speed limit. Which would then make the safe speed to be posted as a P.F. speed of 35mph.

    Whether it was a typo or a miscalculation, an experienced judge who knows how to read surveys can briefly review it and see that the results will be the same regardless, and a judge who hasn't a clue is likely to look at it and accept it for what it is. So I think you'd be stuck with it either way.

    Lastly, and you mentioned 7 pages, posted 3, 2 additional pages are likely the speed charts for the other 2 segments, and I can't think of what the last page could be about but you might find something else in that page... I don't know!

    Good luck!

  5. #5

    Default Re: When Can You Use the Speed Trap Defense for Speeding Citation

    You can try your darnest to get it to fit farther westbound than eastbound. At the end of the day, the officer's testimony and answers on cross examination will dictate the location. So you'll have to prepare for both scenarios and hope for the best.
    Good point, That Guy. The officer may claim he verified my speed at being 55 MPH shortly after I drove past Entrada Drive. This would make it difficult to prevail with the speed trap defense.
    I'm not so sure why you're feeling offended by ^that^. There are two primary purposes for conducting E&T survey, one is to establish a safe speed that may also promote the orderly movement of traffic, and the other to allow for speed enforcement using electronic speed measuring devices. As for your analogy and the 43mph being where drivers are ticketed, while it is true that 43mph is described as the 85th percentile speed, that is not the "safe speed" and so it is not the reference by which your speed is compared to in court. That reference will be the 35mph, and in fact, that should be indicated on your citation as the safe speed; and the presumption is, it is posted as such.
    I’m not offended by the statement in the Traffic survey that says “Retain the existing 35 MPH speed limit and continue police radar enforcement above the 85th percentile in an effort to reduce speed violations in the area and retain the overall vehicle and pedestrian safety on this street.” After thinking about my posting and concern over the statement in the survey, I realized it is really nothing to be concerned about, since it is irrelevant as to what determines whether or not the section of road I was driving on is a speed trap or not.

    The important issue, if I were to use a speed trap defense is whether or not the officer claims that he verified my speed at 55 MPH after Ignacio Blvd at Entrada Drive. You make a good point that the 35 MPH may indeed be the “safe speed”. You are indicating that the section of Ignacio Blvd between Country Club Drive and Entrada Drive does not meet the criteria of a speed trap (where 76% of the drivers went above the 35 MPH speed limit in the survey) and I think you may be correct about this. I’m aware that as of 2003 the guidelines for conducting a Traffic Survey changed from the CalTrans Manual to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or MUTCD. At some point I plan to look at the 2006 MUTCD to see what that says. However, the Traffic survey may be a mute point, as long as the officer were to claim that he verified my speed on LIDAR at 55 MPH shortly after Entrada Drive.
    In other words, the Prima Facie speed on that segment is 35mph, the officer will testify that he clocked you at 55mph, he'll say his schpeal about why your speed was unsafe (and he can simply cite a"high accident rate" as the reason) and be done. Now it becomes your burden to prove why your speed under conditions was not in violation of the basic speed law.
    Yes, I clearly do have a number of potential hurdles to get over if I were to fight this ticket.
    And yes, it is a stretch to assume that you'll be able to justify 55 in a safe 35... But you made that conscious decision when you drove by that sign, you saw the 35mph limit (justified or not justified) you still made the decision to continue through at 55mph.
    I have not actually admitted to going 55 MPH when I was picked up on LIDAR. This is how fast I was allegedly going. Technically, I’m innocent until proven guilty. With that being said, I do tend to agree with you that it would be a stretch for me to say that even if I was going 55, I was driving at a safe speed for the conditions (even though it was dry, clear, sunny, light to medium traffic).
    Well, presumably, your speed didn't really fluctuate up or down by much as you went across Entrada, neither did the speed limit. So 55mph alleged speed in 35mph safe speed whether it is before or after Entrada, will make little difference.
    Again, I have not admitted to going 55. However, I do agree that if I were to take my case to trial and the officer responds and claims he verified my speed at 55 MPH after Entrada drive, this will make it much more difficult, maybe even impossible to get my case dismissed using the speed trap defense.
    I thought it was "Geo", but regardless he's "selling clicks", do you seriously expect him to say it didn't work for him? There have been cases where it was 10 over, and the person used Geo's plan and was laughed out of court. In fact, I honestly cannot think of a single instance where I believed that it did work for anyone. And while it is true that 67 in 45 is 22mph, while yours is only 20 over, on a percentage basis, yours is @ 57% in excess of the limit, his is @ 48%
    I’ve learned that Geo. (with the period at the end, as shown on his website) is short for his first name, George. I’ve actually spoken with him and that is what he told me. I was a bit confused by the “Geo.” initially, until he clarified his name for me. I agree with you that Geo., AKA George McCalip is “selling clicks.” I believe you when you say there have been people who have used George’s strategy, have gone 10 MPH over the limit and used George’s defense and have not been taken seriously in court. Additionally, regardless of whether a person is going 67 in a 45 zone or 55 in a 35 zone, I think we can both agree that most officers, judges and the public would probably not consider these speeds to be safe and reasonable, even though a person was in full control of their car and no person or property was in imminent danger.
    Now set all that aside, even the fact that the officer is considered an expert, he's seen what high speeds can do and the carnage they can cause... All that out the window. Which do you think will sound more reasonable to the court? Someone who's main concern is safety of the public including yours, and is using long standing methods to determine safe or beyond unreasonably unsafe... or someone who's dismissing the mere possibility that a glitch can end up costing someone life or limb?
    You make a good point. I agree with you, the officer who has concern for the safety of the public and is knowledgeable about traffic safety will be taken seriously by the court more so than someone asserting that even if they were going 20 MPH over the prima facie, they were driving safely. I also want to make it clear that I do not dismiss the possibility that an unexpected hazard or mistake on someone’s part can cost a person’s life or permanently disable someone if one is driving faster than is considered safe or reasonable. Costing someone’s life or limb would obviously be a dramatically more serious matter to a person who is driving fast as well as to another person who may be injured or killed than the problem of getting a very expensive traffic ticket. It is the hypothetical of what could happen when one is traveling well over the speed limit that an officer, the judge and the public is concerned with. The hypothetical hazard does not have to be any mistake on the driver’s part; it could be a child running into the street suddenly or an incompetent driver pulling out from a side street without looking first. The fast speed of the driver who is going well over the prima facie could end up being the reason why someone gets badly hurt or killed when an unexpected hazard occurs, as opposed to an incident which would be much less destructive if one was driving at a much slower speed. I tend to agree with you that there is a good chance that if I argued that even if I was going 55 MPH, I was still driving safely will not likely be taken seriously. Given this, it is unlikely I will use it as a defense.
    It will get to a point in time during every speeding trial where one of the people standing before the court will start to sound ridiculous. You can make that much worse by starting with the XX questions but hey, its your case and at that point, I'm assuming that desperate times call for desperate measures.
    I tend to agree with you. I can imagine that if one were to use the “30 questions” tactic in court that George has on his website to cross-examine the officer with, one might get abruptly cut off by the judge before one could make it through even a few of the 30 questions, so it is unlikely that I will use the 30 questions defense if I were to choose to fight my ticket.
    Frankly, I think you're forgetting that speed trap rules do not allow for individualized speed limits. Whether someone is an olympic gold medalist or confined to wheel chair, if you're driving, you're bound by the same rules as Grandpa Joseph...
    I agree with you, speed trap rules and speed laws do not allow for individualized speed limits. I regret my statement and that I may have mistakenly given the impression that they do. I wanted to delete my statement and point regarding drivers being of different skill levels and abilities about an hour after I made my post, but when I went back onto this website, there was no Edit button available. I think that even though one has permission to edit their posts, it probably has to be done within no more than an hour or possibly even less time than that; otherwise one cannot make an edit. The reasons why I wanted to delete this part of my post are 1) I realize it is of no relevance to my case, since we are all indeed bound by the same rules, regardless of physical and mental abilities, and driving skills, and 2) I feel I may have been offensive to you and others by giving the impression that someone who has very good driving skills and who is athletic should be able to drive as fast as they want without impunity, as long as they are in full control of their vehicle and very aware of their surroundings. I’m sorry about this and I don’t actually believe this. I do believe that I and everyone else are bound by the same laws and rules. Even those who race cars professionally for a living and who sometimes get pulled over for speeding themselves, are bound by the same rules as everyone else.
    What happened to justice, equality, fairness? And those qualities exist not because you're athletic and someone else isn't! And in all honesty, I urge you to take those sentiments with you before your judge. You will likely be treated differently than everybody else... Your fine is not set to the max for an infraction, and the 30 day license suspension within the judge's reach isn't that far fetched of an option!
    I especially wanted to delete my statement in my post where I said “the law tends to treat everyone the same when we are not the same.” Again, this is 1) irrelevant to my case and I realize we are all bound by the same rules, and 2) I can see how this would be offensive to you and others and I’m sorry about this.

    I do not really believe that I should be treated differently than anyone else or given special treatment under the law by being allowed to drive faster than others if it is not safe because of what could happen if there was a glitch. It would not be reasonable for me to get any special treatment. It interesting to me however that I have actually heard about one officer who will not give a ticket to someone if he knows someone is clearly not of good financial means, perhaps indicated by someone driving an old, beat-up car. I, myself drive an old, beat-up car and am very low-income but I do not ever expect to be treated differently by an officer than someone who is wealthy and can easily afford a speeding ticket and I have never gotten special treatment by police for being poor.

    There is at least one thing that is of small consolation in my case though. When I was stopped by the officer for allegedly speeding, the officer actually told me that I was not driving recklessly and that I was a good driver but he just felt that my speed was not safe, so I’m not too worried that my license will be suspended by a judge for reckless driving if I were to actually take my case to court trial. However, your point is well taken; I see that a judge might be inclined to suspend one’s license if one were to come in with an attitude that they should get special treatment.

    A side note that is disturbing to me is that people do actually often times get special and unequal treatment under the law, such as in criminal defense cases where if one is poor one may not get good representation and one may not be treated fairly in the judicial process, whereas if you are wealthy, a person can hire excellent attorneys and literally get away with murder sometimes.
    As I stated above, as you drove past that speed limit sign, you had a choice, you could have considered the financial aspect of it, and the hassle of fighting it in court, but you opted to continue through at a higher speed, so any revenue that you are gouged for was voluntary on your part.
    Again, I have not admitted to speeding on Ignacio Blvd, so technically, I’m innocent until proven guilty. I began posting on this website to get legal advice and opinions, but I feel like I have also gotten a bit of moral reprimanding from you. I suppose I’ve brought some of this upon myself though. Oh, well. With that being said, I do agree with you that people make choices to obey speed limits and speed laws or to disobey them. I of course do not think it is ever a good idea to drive at speeds that most people would consider unreasonable or unsafe.

    However, I do not believe that the clandestine method of police parked out of view on a side street with a laser gun, lying in wait, then pulling someone over for allegedly speeding, where the ticket can cost well over $400 (when you include traffic school fees) should be the primary method to get people to slow down. I think methods such as speed signs showing your speed compared to the posted limit encourages people to slow down and I think there are probably a number of other ways that are helpful to encourage people to drive at safe and reasonable speeds without having to generate revenue from people who often cannot afford to give a lot of money to the city and county. Severe financial punishment through law enforcement’s clandestine methods I believe will stop people from speeding in a particular area for awhile, but these methods are temporary, since after police stop enforcement in that area for awhile the number of speeding incidents will likely begin to rise again.
    And without seeing the other pages, and even if they do not relate to the segment in question, even only as a way to determine the general validity of calculations or observations or commentary made on the survey, this is most likely an incomplete analysis but you were asked for the entire survey and you opted to post only part of it, So here it goes anyways:

    First, the survey is dated 04/04/2007 and as such would then have to conform to the 2006 CA-MUTCD. From there we go to the speed charts
    The 43mph determined to be the 85th percentile speed was deemed so in error, in my opinion.
    If you count 15 vehicles from the top, you will end up within the 43mph speed bracket...
    But is that vehicle #85, or is that vehicle # 86?
    I count it as vehicle #86 and so the next one down, is in fact the 85th percentile position, and would therefore represent the 85th percentile speed which turns out to be 42mph.
    It appears to be a typo though simply because it makes little difference whether we start with 43mph and follow thrrough to the end, we get the same result if it were 42mph. If we consider the 42mph to be the 85th percentile speed, then from Section 2B.13 of the 2006 CA-MUTCD, page 2B-7, it states:

    When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within established at the nearest 10 km/h or 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.


    And so the 85th percentile is 42mph, reduced to the nearest 5mph increment would set it at 40mph, and putting that through the last usual step:

    The posted speed may be reduced by 10 km/h (5 mph) from the nearest 10 km/h or 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed, where engineering study indicates the need for a reduction in speed to match existing conditions with the traffic safety needs of the community.


    And in light of the high accident rare, the presence of the bike lane on both sides of the roadway, would clearly justify an additional 5mph reduction in the speed limit. Which would then make the safe speed to be posted as a P.F. speed of 35mph.

    Whether it was a typo or a miscalculation, an experienced judge who knows how to read surveys can briefly review it and see that the results will be the same regardless, and a judge who hasn't a clue is likely to look at it and accept it for what it is. So I think you'd be stuck with it either way.

    Lastly, and you mentioned 7 pages, posted 3, 2 additional pages are likely the speed charts for the other 2 segments, and I can't think of what the last page could be about but you might find something else in that page... I don't know!

    Good luck!
    In my last post, I only posted 4 of the 7 pages of the Traffic Survey because this forum would only allow me to post up to four images. After I entered the url for all 7 images of the for the 7 pages of the traffic survey, I got an error message saying I posted too many images, that I could only post 4 images and to correct the problem, so I posted the 4 pages that relate directly to my case, pages 2 through 5. I’m sorry I mistakenly assumed that you were probably already aware that you can only post 4 pages. i will post the other 3 pages at the bottom of this post.

    I tend to agree with your analysis of the Traffic Survey and that the survey may not be of any help to me, even if I could successfully argue that my alleged infraction occurred slightly west of Entrada Drive. In some ways I would like to be able to fight my ticket and win, as I have read and even been told by a traffic ticket attorney that Basic Speed Law violation is one of the easiest traffic tickets to fight and win. However, I feel I have already spent way more time and energy on my traffic ticket and how I might be able to fight it than I wanted to spend. I think I may end up settling for traffic school and maintain my clean record, pay a $50.00 fee to apply for community service (which I’m eligible for, being I’m low-income) and work off my fine at a rate of $10.00 an hour at a court approved volunteer organization.

    This is off-topic That Guy, but I was curious what does “s/n” stand for in your sign-off quote “I will no longer waste any of my time responding to gibberish posted by a known STALKER using a s/n "lostintime"!” Also, how did you come up with this sign-off quote? I’m just curious.

    Anyway, below is the other three pages of the Traffic and Engineering Survey for Ignacio Blvd. In page 1, the Public Works Director is just certifying that the survey is valid and is a legitimate copy. Pages six and seven are for the last two Radar Speed sections on the west side of Ignacio Blvd. Page six is Radar Speed Survey for Ignacio Blvd between Country Club Drive and Sunset Parkway, and page seven is Radar Speed Survey for Ignacio Blvd between Sunset Parkway and City Limits.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: When Can You Use the Speed Trap Defense for Speeding Citation

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    I have not actually admitted to going 55 MPH when I was picked up on LIDAR. This is how fast I was allegedly going. Technically, I’m innocent until proven guilty.
    ....
    Again, I have not admitted to going 55.
    ...
    Again, I have not admitted to speeding on Ignacio Blvd, so technically, I’m innocent until proven guilty.
    You don't have to admit to anything... And clearly, you're missing the whole entire point behind the basic speed law and any defense that law may require or involve. The fact that you're here asking for an opinion as to whether you should fight your citation, you're offering an implied admission that you were speeding and that you do not deny driving at 55mph. The mere fact that you would consider the 30 question defense would imply that you were admitting the fact that you were driving at 55 in a 35. Basically, whether you admit it or not, as soon as the officer testifies that he measured your speed at 55, that he is Radar/Laser trained, that fact is already proven, you can deny it all you want but you'd be wasting your time.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    I began posting on this website to get legal advice and opinions, but I feel like I have also gotten a bit of moral reprimanding from you. I suppose I’ve brought some of this upon myself though. Oh, well.
    You're clearly confused about a lot of things that are related to your case. Probably about the difference between what I offered and what might be considered a moral reprimand.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    However, I do not believe that the clandestine method of police parked out of view on a side street with a laser gun, lying in wait, then pulling someone over for allegedly speeding, where the ticket can cost well over $400 (when you include traffic school fees) should be the primary method to get people to slow down.
    A basic understanding of the basic speed law and how it works alongside the speed trap laws would clearly show that there is a difference between using a pace to estimate a driver's speed and using Radar/Laser to do the same. To conduct a pace, an officer who is in uniform, driving a vehicle that is clearly marked as a law enforcement agency vehicle, is doing so in the open, and charging you with possibly the came code section, which carries a penalty that follows the same schedule, and yet a pace ticket is even easier for the officer to prove since speed trap laws do not apply to a pace case. So the cost of the ticket does not change and clearly, the legislature did not intend on making the cost any different, it simply provided for stricter standards that the prosecution has to meet in cases where the officer may have been hiding.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    I think methods such as speed signs showing your speed compared to the posted limit encourages people to slow down and I think there are probably a number of other ways that are helpful to encourage people to drive at safe and reasonable speeds without having to generate revenue from people who often cannot afford to give a lot of money to the city and county.
    What happened to your speedometer? Again, from a legal standpoint, and while the type of sign you're suggesting is referenced in the MUTCD but nowhere is the CVC, the legal requirement is to post the speed limit... Until you can try and convince the legislature that those message signs are required, you are going to have to rely on your speedometer to inform you of your speed.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    The reasons why I wanted to delete this part of my post are 1) I realize it is of no relevance to my case, since we are all indeed bound by the same rules, regardless of physical and mental abilities, and driving skills, and 2) I feel I may have been offensive to you and others by giving the impression that someone who has very good driving skills and who is athletic should be able to drive as fast as they want without impunity, as long as they are in full control of their vehicle and very aware of their surroundings. I’m sorry about this and I don’t actually believe this. I do believe that I and everyone else are bound by the same laws and rules. Even those who race cars professionally for a living and who sometimes get pulled over for speeding themselves, are bound by the same rules as everyone else.I especially wanted to delete my statement in my post where I said “the law tends to treat everyone the same when we are not the same.” Again, this is 1) irrelevant to my case and I realize we are all bound by the same rules, and 2) I can see how this would be offensive to you and others and I’m sorry about this.
    I was not offended by anything you posted.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    I do not really believe that I should be treated differently than anyone else or given special treatment under the law by being allowed to drive faster than others if it is not safe because of what could happen if there was a glitch. It would not be reasonable for me to get any special treatment. It interesting to me however that I have actually heard about one officer who will not give a ticket to someone if he knows someone is clearly not of good financial means, perhaps indicated by someone driving an old, beat-up car. I, myself drive an old, beat-up car and am very low-income but I do not ever expect to be treated differently by an officer than someone who is wealthy and can easily afford a speeding ticket and I have never gotten special treatment by police for being poor.
    Nor should you... If you are of lesser means then you should be more cognizant of your actions knowing you could not afford the penalty if caught and found guilty. You made a conscious decision to speed and you were caught; the same penalty would apply! Unless you're suggesting that a financial statement should be submitted to the court before the sentencing phase, then the type/make/model/value of the car you drive and while it is considered a status symbol by most, it is not a measure of how wealthy a driver is or how guilty he should be deemed!

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    There is at least one thing that is of small consolation in my case though. When I was stopped by the officer for allegedly speeding, the officer actually told me that I was not driving recklessly and that I was a good driver but he just felt that my speed was not safe, so I’m not too worried that my license will be suspended by a judge for reckless driving if I were to actually take my case to court trial.
    Sorry but I don't see that as any consolation or any sort of confirmation of anything. An officer feeling you were reckless would charge you with reckless driving. So the officer's statement does not separate you from anyone else who was cited for 22350.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    A side note that is disturbing to me is that people do actually often times get special and unequal treatment under the law, such as in criminal defense cases where if one is poor one may not get good representation and one may not be treated fairly in the judicial process, whereas if you are wealthy, a person can hire excellent attorneys and literally get away with murder sometimes.
    You are not treated any differently because of your financial status. It is called "equal protection under the law, but if you feel differently, if you consider yourself poor and are concerned about legal representation, then don't commit a crime where you know (think) you might not get equal protection under the law.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    This is off-topic That Guy, but I was curious what does “s/n” stand for in your sign-off quote “I will no longer waste any of my time responding to gibberish posted by a known STALKER using a s/n "lostintime"!” Also, how did you come up with this sign-off quote? I’m just curious.
    s/n stands for "screen name" amd it is in reference to a member who used lostintime as a screen name. You can read some of his posts and you'll understand why I have that in my signature.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    Anyway, below is the other three pages of the Traffic and Engineering Survey for Ignacio Blvd. In page 1, the Public Works Director is just certifying that the survey is valid and is a legitimate copy. Pages six and seven are for the last two Radar Speed sections on the west side of Ignacio Blvd. Page six is Radar Speed Survey for Ignacio Blvd between Country Club Drive and Sunset Parkway, and page seven is Radar Speed Survey for Ignacio Blvd between Sunset Parkway and City Limits.
    My opinion still stands... If you plan on contesting te citation, you should prepare for both scenarios as I described above.

    Good luck!

  7. #7

    Default Re: When Can You Use the Speed Trap Defense for Speeding Citation

    I know it has been five weeks since I last posted but I’m back to ask for further input on my case. Thank you, That Guy for your input and opinions on my case so far. I feel it has been helpful to me for you to let me know of the potential problems with my case which I need to be prepared for. Before I give an update on my case and ask for input on my case, I wanted to respond to a few of the things you said in your last reply post to me.
    You're clearly confused about a lot of things that are related to your case. Probably about the difference between what I offered and what might be considered a moral reprimand.
    I don’t actually feel confused about anything related to my case. Also, I have realized I have not actually gotten any moral reprimanding from you and I don’t particularly feel like you have morally reprimanded me at all. You have simply provided input and opinions as to the potential problems with my case and tried to provide realistic assessments. Part of this includes pointing out to me how a judge may view my case and what he or she views as reasonable, assuming the judge is inclined to believe that I did actually go 55 mph in a 35 zone. It is your opinion that it is not too far-fetched that a judge could add an additional charge of reckless driving to my citation if I were to go to court and argue that I was driving safely, even if I was going 55 in a 35. I realize this is simply your opinion and it is not moral reprimanding (although a judge can of course morally reprimand someone if a defendant pisses him or her off). Also, in regards to your statement in a previous post:
    As I stated above, as you drove past that speed limit sign, you had a choice, you could have considered the financial aspect of it, and the hassle of fighting it in court, but you opted to continue through at a higher speed, so any revenue that you are gouged for was voluntary on your part.
    This also is simply your view and assessment of things and I know you are not being righteous or morally reprimanding me. I also realize you are not here to provide sympathy to people who have been cited and issued an expensive traffic ticket nor do I particularly want any sympathy. Again, I appreciate your input and letting me know of the potential obstacles I have to be prepared for in my case.
    My opinion still stands... If you plan on contesting te citation, you should prepare for both scenarios as I described above.

    Good luck!
    I agree. Thanks for the good luck wish. I may need it! By the way, Happy Thanksgiving to you and everyone.

    Here is a brief review and update of my case:

    1. August 31, 2012: I was cited for allegedly violating CVC 22350 and going 55 mph in a 35 mph zone on Ignacio Blvd at Entrada Drive in Novato, California and required to appear or pay fine by 9/21/12.
    2. 9/21/12: I was granted an extension until October 22 to post bail, appear or plead not guilty and request a trial.
    3. 10/22/12: I made a request to the Marin County Traffic Court clerk for a trial by declaration. I was told that I was required to post bail. Only after I politely let him know my legal rights, then handed him a copy of VC 40902(b) and Rule of Court 4.210(b)(4) and he read these, did he hand me the paperwork and give me 30 days to turn in form TR-205 without me being required to post bail until the time I turn in form TR-205. Form TR-205, Request for Trial by Written Declaration is really not a request for a trial by written declaration. It is actually the statement you turn in for your trial by declaration. I learned this through the Help! I got a ticket website.
    4. 11/20/12: I have more or less completed final editing to my Motion for Dismissal based on my alleged violation occurring in an illegal speed trap.
    5. 11/21/12: I will be turning in form TR-205, Request for Trial by Written Declaration with my motion for dismissal attached.

    Although it is very last minute, I wanted to ask if there is anything else you think I should include in my written motion for dismissal I will be attaching to form TR-205 before I give it to the traffic court office today (11/21). I’m posting a copy of my motion to dismiss below. I have of course left out my personal identifying information, as well as that of the officer who cited me. I’m hoping that my post can be responded to before I have to turn it in with form TR-205 before the traffic court closes at 3:00 PM today. I realize I may not get a response to my post until after I turn my paperwork into the traffic court office today.

    I have used a written motion for dismissal template I received from Geo. (owner of the Help! I got a ticket! website) to prepare my motion for dismissal. I think I have included everything I need in my motion for dismissal but I like to be thorough, so please let me know if there is anything else you think I should include in my motion for dismissal at the last minute or anything else you think I should include with form TR-205. I have copied and pasted my motion for dismissal below, leaving out any of my personal identifying information and the officer's real name. I could not find a website that would allow me to convert a Word document directly to a jpeg image (without purchasing WinZip first) so I would be able to use photobucket to insert it in my post. However, I did try converting my Word document to PDF, then using photobucket and IMG codes to post the three pages here as jpg images but it would have just been much harder to read, with huge white space between each of the three pages, so I just decided to copy and paste the text from my Word document to this post. The simple copy and paste leaves out all of the formatting from my Word Document so it looks much different than the original but it is about the best I can do right now. Here is my Motion to Dismiss.

    Alleged Speeder
    123 Any Street
    Anytown, CA 12345
    Pro Per
    Phone: 555-555-5555


    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    COUNTY OF MARIN, TRAFFIC DIVISION

    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

    vs.

    Alleged Speeder
    Case No. 00000000
    MOTION TO DISMISS


    In People v Goulet (17 Cal.Rptr.2d 801; 13 Cal.App.4th Supp.1) the court ruled that in a case which involves (not depends on) the use of radar or other electronic speed measuring devices, Vehicle Code section 40802(b) (now 40802(a)(2)) applies. The officer indicated on the citation that he used LIDAR. Therefore, § 40802(a)(2) clearly applies.
    In Goulet the court further ruled that:
    Evidence that there was a survey within the five year period 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. (emphasis in original)
    The court also stated in Goulet:
    For the purposes of this case, the rules are well summarized in the [CalTrans] traffic manual, section 8-03.3, subdivision B.2.b, Which provides in part:
    “The speed limit normally should be established at the first five mile per hour increment below the 85th percentile speed.”
    Per Vehicle Code section 627(a) and Caltrans the traffic manual has been replaced by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 as amended by the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement. MUTCD Chapter 2B: Regulatory Signs; pages 51 – 54 requires that:
    “The speed limit normally should be established at the closest five mile per hour increment to the 85th percentile speed.”
    Defendant was driving eastbound on Ignacio Blvd and heading towards Entrada Drive when Officer Speed Catcher used LIDAR to measure the speed of defendant’s vehicle.
    According to page 5 of the April 5, 2007 Traffic and Engineering Survey conducted by the City of Novato, the 85th percentile speed for the section of road in this case, Ignacio Blvd at Entrada Drive to Ignacio Blvd at Country Club Drive is 43 mph. Given the above rule, the posted speed should be 45 mph unless other conditions justify lowering the limit.
    The MUTCD warns against setting the limit so low as to make violators of a disproportionate number of drivers. According to the survey, 73% of the drivers violate the posted limit of 35 mph for the section of Ignacio Blvd in which defendant’s alleged violation occurred. Therefore, according to the MUTCD, the survey would justify a limit of 45 mph, not the 35 mph limit posted.
    Given the above facts, defendant respectfully requests that the court:
    1. Rule that enforcement of the 35 mph speed limit for the section of road from Ignacio Blvd at Entrada Drive to Ignacio Blvd at Country Club Drive, covered by the 4-05-2007 survey, where such enforcement involves the use of an electronic device used for determining the speed of a vehicle, constitutes an illegal speed trap as defined in Vehicle Code section 40802(a)(2).
    2. Immediately dismiss this case per Vehicle Code sections 40802-40805.
    Submitted this 21st day of November, 2012.


    Alleged Speeder
    Pro Per

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

    Default Re: When Can You Use the Speed Trap Defense for Speeding Citation

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    10/22/12: I made a request to the Marin County Traffic Court clerk for a trial by declaration. I was told that I was required to post bail. Only after I politely let him know my legal rights, then handed him a copy of VC 40902(b) and Rule of Court 4.210(b)(4) and he read these, did he hand me the paperwork and give me 30 days to turn in form TR-205 without me being required to post bail until the time I turn in form TR-205. Form TR-205, Request for Trial by Written Declaration is really not a request for a trial by written declaration. It is actually the statement you turn in for your trial by declaration. I learned this through the Help! I got a ticket website.
    I'm not really sure what "rights" you're talking about but as I indicated above, you will be required to post bail when you request a TBD... This is in the court rules and it applies to everyone equally. So which rights are you talking about and what is it that the court is violating here that you fixed by way of handing him whatever 40902 says?

    For all intents and purposes, all the court did here was to grant you a 30 day extension to submit your request, when you do, you'll have to post bail and when that is done, the process for your TBD will begin. This will result in a longer than usual time between your submission and your receipt of the result simply because the officer will have to be notified and given sufficient time to submit his declaration.

    Quote Quoting Alleged Speeder
    View Post
    Alleged Speeder
    123 Any Street
    Anytown, CA 12345
    Pro Per
    Phone: 555-555-5555


    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    COUNTY OF MARIN, TRAFFIC DIVISION

    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

    vs.

    Alleged Speeder
    Case No. 00000000
    MOTION TO DISMISS


    In People v Goulet (17 Cal.Rptr.2d 801; 13 Cal.App.4th Supp.1) the court ruled that in a case which involves (not depends on) the use of radar or other electronic speed measuring devices, Vehicle Code section 40802(b) (now 40802(a)(2)) applies. The officer indicated on the citation that he used LIDAR. Therefore, § 40802(a)(2) clearly applies.
    In Goulet the court further ruled that:
    Evidence that there was a survey within the five year period 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. (emphasis in original)
    The court also stated in Goulet:
    For the purposes of this case, the rules are well summarized in the [CalTrans] traffic manual, section 8-03.3, subdivision B.2.b, Which provides in part:
    “The speed limit normally should be established at the first five mile per hour increment below the 85th percentile speed.”
    Per Vehicle Code section 627(a) and Caltrans the traffic manual has been replaced by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 as amended by the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement. MUTCD Chapter 2B: Regulatory Signs; pages 51 – 54 requires that:
    “The speed limit normally should be established at the closest five mile per hour increment to the 85th percentile speed.”
    Defendant was driving eastbound on Ignacio Blvd and heading towards Entrada Drive when Officer Speed Catcher used LIDAR to measure the speed of defendant’s vehicle.
    According to page 5 of the April 5, 2007 Traffic and Engineering Survey conducted by the City of Novato, the 85th percentile speed for the section of road in this case, Ignacio Blvd at Entrada Drive to Ignacio Blvd at Country Club Drive is 43 mph. Given the above rule, the posted speed should be 45 mph unless other conditions justify lowering the limit.
    The MUTCD warns against setting the limit so low as to make violators of a disproportionate number of drivers. According to the survey, 73% of the drivers violate the posted limit of 35 mph for the section of Ignacio Blvd in which defendant’s alleged violation occurred. Therefore, according to the MUTCD, the survey would justify a limit of 45 mph, not the 35 mph limit posted.
    Given the above facts, defendant respectfully requests that the court:
    1. Rule that enforcement of the 35 mph speed limit for the section of road from Ignacio Blvd at Entrada Drive to Ignacio Blvd at Country Club Drive, covered by the 4-05-2007 survey, where such enforcement involves the use of an electronic device used for determining the speed of a vehicle, constitutes an illegal speed trap as defined in Vehicle Code section 40802(a)(2).
    2. Immediately dismiss this case per Vehicle Code sections 40802-40805.
    Submitted this 21st day of November, 2012.


    Alleged Speeder
    Pro Per
    A properly submitted motion will have to be accompanied by an affidavit and supporting documentation including points and authorities... So for what its worth, you're not submitting a motion, it is simply your statement under your TBD. Why complicate matters, call it a motion when it can possibly be rejected for not complying with the rules for motions when you can simply call it your statement and include it under cover of your TBD?

    Second, your survey was conducted on 2007 and yet you are referencing the traffic manual from before 2003 as well as the 2003 MUTCD. Instead, you should be referencing the 2006 MUTCD.

    Third, you've provided an incorrect description to the process by which a speed limit is determined.

    Forth, you only considered one situation when in fact, we had discussed and decided that it would be in your best interest to consider two different situations.

    In conclusion, your only potential to prevail here would be if the officer were to fail to submit a timely declaration. Other than that, my guess is you'll likely be found guilty.






    Happy thanksgiving to you and yours as well!

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Hearings and Trials: Using a Speed Trap Defense
    By charityann in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-12-2012, 08:04 AM
  2. Speeding Tickets: Speed Trap Defense
    By crewl4e in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-29-2011, 09:20 AM
  3. Speeding Tickets: Speed Trap Defense
    By llchelp in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 12:54 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: Using the Speed Trap Defense
    By duttb in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-31-2009, 10:42 PM
  5. Speeding Tickets: Is the Speed Trap Defense Valid for Construction Zone Speeding Tickets
    By roo6 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 04-01-2009, 11:40 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources