Trial by Declaration for Speeding, CVC 22349(B)

[lostintime]

Sometimes the radar detector is mounted in the dash, and cannot be moved.

The problem is, no matter how good your case is, the courts aren't exactly fair when it comes to speeding citations. If you lose the trial by written declaration, you will get a chance in a real courtroom. Give it a try - no other state offers it.

If the fine for going 70 is the same as 62 in 55, it's probably best to just pay it and move on.

[cdwjava]

And yes the traffic violator school option will still exist (People vs. Wozniak 1987)

READ the case ... it says that the court must only consider the option, not that they MUST make it available. And since the court is NOT required to explain why it decides not to allow it.

As a matter of real life application, traffic school is not always available after a conviction at trial. as such, this should be a consideration in your deliberations.

and if I am found guilty then it will be my first traffic offense.

Okay.

And no, him getting out of his car did not jeopardize his safety whatsoever.

As a point of fact, you exiting your car to come to his IS an officer safety issue and would have done nothing to PROVE your speed since - as I mentioned - the speed locked into the radar could be some other vehicle's and not yours. As a matter of practicality, officer and public safety, and the big "L" word - Liability, it is a BAD idea to have a driver come back to the patrol car to look at the radar reading. As there is probably no specific policy prohibiting it with any department, an individual officer could do it. But, I know of no officers that do this and I would not permit any of my officers to do this, either.

Now my question is, how should I word my Trial by Dec. so I don't admit guilt?

Don't mention your speed.

The state (through the officer's testimony - which will carry a great deal of weight) has to show that you were speeding in excess of the 55 MPH limit AND that the roadway conformed with the description in (b). You don't have to prove that you were not.

- - - Updated - - -

If the fine for going 70 is the same as 62 in 55, it's probably best to just pay it and move on.

It is. And that was my point, exactly.

[anthonyo1995]

The big thing about the officer showing my speed from his police patrol car was that my dad once got pulled over from a CHP lieutenant at night one time for speeding and got to see the officer's dashboard radar. And the cop I know who was an officer for 23 years told me he always showed speeders their radar/lidar speed no matter what the situation was. And my next question is, is it grounds for a case to be dismissed if the officer does NOT submit my radar log within the declaration as evidence?

[cdwjava]

The big thing about the officer showing my speed from his police patrol car was that my dad once got pulled over from a CHP lieutenant at night one time for speeding and got to see the officer's dashboard radar.

Good for him. Not a smart move on the CHP officer's part, but then, they tend to get attacked and killed quite a bit - maybe that laxness towards safety is one of the reasons why.

And the cop I know who was an officer for 23 years told me he always showed speeders their radar/lidar speed no matter what the situation was.

Very unwise. But, as I said, I know of no policy in agency that would prohibit it. But, as a supervisor and administrator, and as a safety conscious cop of nearly 22 years, I would discourage my people from doing this to the point of telling them not to do it. Fortunately, none of them do so it's not an issue. As I said, it really proves nothing and exposes the officer and the driver to increased risk so it's often a lose-lose proposition. At most, it MIGHT diffuse an argument from someone inclined to admit guilt if they were presented with proof of guilt. However, in this case it would have done nothing because you ADMIT you were doing 62 MPH in violation of VC 22349(b) so even if you had seen a radar reading of 70 MPH you would still be here. So, the added risk and liability to the officer would have been pointless.

And my next question is, is it grounds for a case to be dismissed if the officer does NOT submit my radar log within the declaration as evidence?

No.

If you want to argue a failure to comply with discovery, that's a whole different ballgame and there are others here that can better explain this process than I.

[anthonyo1995]

Why wouldn't submitting radar evidence of my speed within a trial by declaration be grounds for dismissal of the case? That would mean there's no proof of my speed. What are the grounds for dismissal within a trial by declaration for my specific citation of CVC22349 (b)?

[cdwjava]

Why wouldn't submitting radar evidence of my speed within a trial by declaration be grounds for dismissal of the case?

What "radar evidence" do you expect him to produce? You said "logs" ... failure to present a "log" would NOT be grounds for anything.

That would mean there's no proof of my speed. What are the grounds for dismissal within a trial by declaration for my specific citation of CVC22349 (b)?

He can also testify as to visual estimation as well as the reading on his device. Chances are he will present both his training certification and some evidence that the radar met NHTSA standards as this is part of the standard "template" that most radar officers use in such matters. But, as the speed trap defense does not apply here, there appears to be no REQUIREMENT that these two things be shown in order to testify as to your speed. However, a court will likely want to see the officer establish both his training and the compliance of the device in order to weigh the value of the testimony.

[anthonyo1995]

I was found not guilty!! I won!! So F you all!!