Quote Quoting cdwjava
View Post
Yes, but, road conditions may have created a situation where the safe speed was much lower. VC 22350 is not simply about violating a posted speed limit, or even an advisory one.



Carl is absolutely correct. Road conditions could have created a situation where the safe speed was much lower. However, as I pointed out earlier, the burden will be on the prosecution to PROVE that your speed was unsafe. So, let’s look at that:

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.

This statute is divided into two parts. The first says that you cannot drive faster than is reasonable or prudent given current conditions. I don’t think that it would take a very smart person to cross examine the cop and reveal that his interpretation of this is arbitrary. I’m betting that the cop is not an engineer, nor is he a road surface expert. So, if one were to ask him, “what was the safe speed?” He would likely reply with something obviously random or just parrot back the 35mph construction speed zone. A person could ask the cop, “what study or data do you have that supports your assertion of XXmph being the safe speed?” I doubt he would produce a reasonable answer.

The second part of 22350 says you can’t drive at a speed which ENGANGERS persons or property. Note that the statute doesn’t use the adjective “dangerous”. It uses the verb “endanger” which is to bring into peril. Endanger is an action verb. So, if you endangered someone or something, the cop should be required to specify what was endangered… specifically. Again, this wouldn’t be difficult to cross examine any response the cop may make. You would simply need to ask him how your ALLEGED speed of 65mph brought XXXX into peril, but a speed of 35mph would not have imperiled XXXX. Again, since the cop is showing clear and distinct lines between effects of different speeds, you would ask for data or something (other than his random judgment) to support his theory.

You would want to object to the cop’s testimony concerning “safe speeds” claiming that the officer has NOT been established as an expert witness. As such, it is improper for him to provide expert testimony that is based on nothing more than judgment. The cop is merely a witness and he is allowed only to testify to that which he saw. He is not allowed to testify to a “gut feeling”. In order to establish the officer as an expert, the court would either have to have taken judicial notice of that specific cop (which won’t be the case), or the prosecution would have to argue his credentials which qualifies him as an expert. Since there will be no prosecutor to argue for his credentials, and since you will have no opportunity to refute these credentials, the cop cannot be established as an expert in matters of safe speeds of vehicles. ***Note*** if the judge begins asking him questions about his credentials, you would object immediately claiming that the judge is crossing the line between judiciary and prosecution.

All this theory aside, I would bet a nickel that the cop will simply rely on the construction zone speed limit sign that was posted. As I said in my previous post, this sign has no effect unless there are construction crews present. Also, the cop likely would not be able to testify definitely to the signs being placed within 400’ of the beginning AND the end of the zone.

With all due respect, your intention in court should be to defend yourself… regardless of what you did on the highway. It is the state’s burden to prosecute… not yours. The state will not assist you with your defense, nor should they. Likewise, you have no legal, moral or ethical responsibility to participate in your prosecution… nor should you. The very foundation of our judicial system is that it is an adversarial system where both parties argue zealously for their side and the truth will rise to the top. Regardless of what others may think, from what you have told us, I say you have NOT violated the law. And you should defend yourself vigorously. And, if you were convicted, you were certainly NOT driving 30mph over the limit (since the construction zone speed limit did not apply). Therefore, traffic school should be a viable option for you.