Contesting a speeding ticket in California

[coreyw]

I did this about a couple months ago. Officer said 80 in a 65. Sent my written declaration, officer didn't send his side, so I won and they sent my money back. I was super stoked.

[deutschman]

dude 3 words...

choyce law firm.

I don't have the money for a law firm. If I did I would just pay the ticket.

I'm not from cali, and even I know that the posted speed is what THEY deem as the maximum reasonable and prudent speed based on perfect road conditions, and is not a subjective sign...

I did a whole lot of reading and I read that California law states that speed limits from 30-45 are suggested speeds for the safest driving conditions. Just like you would slow down when there is a lot of traffic or bad weather you can speed up when there is no traffic (no cars) and good driving conditions.
I am not sure if this is true or not but it did state this on ticketassassins.com.
I need to find a traffic survey for the stretch of road I was on because if it is older then 10 years it is not a valid speed limit.
I also need to look into this "pacing" and see what the rules are regarding it.
There is also a chance that the officer who pulled me over will never send in his half of the written court trial, in which case the court drops the charges all together.
I am not trying to argue with any of you I am asking for help, ideas, and tips. I have never had to do anything like this before and it is all new to me.
I guess I should not have expected anything but smart ass comments and useless retorts from the fine users of R3V anyways.

[deutschman]

if everything ells fails i can still go with CVC 41501

[TurboJake]

Find me the law where it states that the definition of limit is different than in all of the dictionaries. The sign says limit, not suggestion.

I don't want to argue with you either, I don't live there (And probably never will). But according to california's basic speed law, the posted speed limit is the limit of speed you can travel at in the best of conditions. From what I understand, the only time your allowed to break the limit is to pass somebody on a 2 lane road. And then immediately return to the posted limit.

In WI here, I can't even do that...

And, the 10 year old speed limit dealy-o of it not being valid? That doesn't sound right at all.

Check this.
CVC 22351(b): (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.

You'd be hard pressed to prove the non-emboldened portion. Best bet is the way your going about it already.

[deutschman]

Defendants Name:
Case No.:

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charges of violating CVC 22350.
The facts of my case are as Follows: While traveling on WB Doyle Dr. (101) on 5/27/11 at 1:10am, I was stopped by a California Highway Patrol officer (I.D. #14662) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The officer has alleged that I was driving 69mph in a 45mph speed zone based on pacing evidence. I believe that I was only traveling 65mph when I was pulled over. The speed at which I was traveling was momentary and necessary to alleviate a developing unsafe situation. While leaving Lombard St, driving WB on Doyle Dr., I noticed an unsafe erratic driver in front of me changing speed and direction randomly. At this time in the morning, Doyle Dr. is a two lane highway, and because of this there is limited room to maneuver and/or avoid an accident. Taking the aforementioned into account and using my best judgment, I concluded that the safest cores of action would be to increases my speed and over take the driver to the left. I immediately indicated, started decreasing my speed, and changed lanes to the right, after I was at a safe distance in front of the car I had passed. In this way I would not be in the other drivers path should he have an accident do to the manner of his driving. I was in the process of slowing down my vehicle when I was pulled over by the CHP officer. I believe that the speed at which I was traveling was safe and necessary for the circumstances and conditions prevailing at that time.
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, visibility was excellent, and traffic was very 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 more I believe that it was quite safe to travel at a speed in excess of the posted speed limited for a short duration of time with the favorable weather conditions (clear and dry) and the road conditions that excited at the time of my stop. Sins I was required for safety to momentarily to over take an unsafe driver who was behaving erratically during the time I was behind him, I contest that the speed in excess of 45mph was necessary, reasonable, and prudent pursuant to the Basic Speed Law.
Section (b) of Speed Law Violations, CVC 22351(b), states: "The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits...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."
The conditions existing at the time and place of my stop were favorable and made the speed I was traveling Safe and Reasonable under these conditions. As such, I know that I was not in violation of the basic speed law at the time and place of my citation and, pursuant to CVC 22351(b), contest that my speed at the time of my traffic stop was therefore not prima facie unlawful.
Further, I believe that the posted speed of 45mph on Doyle Dr. 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 Doyle dr. is more than five years old, the officer's use of the “pacing” method to determine my speed was illegal.
When using electronic methods to determine the speed of a moving vehicle as evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar, or other electronic devices, 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 Doyle Dr. is not an illegal Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), I trust the Court will rule any electronic evidence of my speed 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 judgment 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 Trial de Novo.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date:
Defendants Signature:

Jeremy Quinn Nugent, Defendant in Pro Per

[deutschman]

Update when court makes decision.

PS
I know the writing above has spelling and grammar issues, and will be checked by other persons before being sent to the court.

[accident]

I was gonna say, you should clean that up quite a bit before submitting it lol

[FCBmw]

Shit I just lost my TBWD. The form says guilty but they are sending me back a check for $78. WTF? Anyways im going to request a Trial De Novo.
Anyone know what I should write down as my reason for the request?

[bernzpeed]

I am currently contesting a traffic ticket in California. The oficer said he paysed me at 69mph in a 45 zone. In California any posted speed 30-50mph is a suggested speed and may be exceeded if the speed you are traveling in are safe for the conditions you are driving in (traffic, weather, and so on). This is clearly stated in the law I was charged with violating (cvc 22350) which 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."
It was 1am, there was no one ells on the road besides me at all, the weather was 100% clear with no rain wind or fog, the road was well lit, and and strait as an arrow. I also do not see how the officer can prove my speed beyond a reasonable doubt if he was only paising me and has no radar evidence or anything.
I am sending in my trial by declaration form tomorrow and then I have to wait for them to send me the next form.
Any advice on arguments to make/not make? Helpful Comments or experiences?
Thanks guys!

PS
I just finished six 12-13 hour work days (sleeping in a tent) so if my spelling and so on is bad please give me a brake and help a brother out!

Cheers!

First of all, it's "pacing." Second, Choyce Law Firm in SF gets you off from that ticket.

[thedguy]

I just won my TBWD (56 in 40, hit with lidar), if you lose, do a trial de novo and request maintenance records on the officers vehicle. Find out when the speedo was last calibrated, also find out when he last trained on speed judging.

If neither of those were done in in a certain time frame the case will be tossed out.

I didn't notice if you also required the state to prove the road conditions with a traffic survey ( sorry reading from my phone). if he doesn't you have a better chance of winning on that account.

Having been doing near the state maximum limit will be an interesting one to beat. I personally would have put in a lower actual speed since there was no radar evidence.

Good luck. You should probably see a judgment soon.

-Dustin

[mrsleeve]

I'm not from cali, and even I know that the posted speed is what THEY deem as the maximum reasonable and prudent speed based on perfect road conditions, and is not a subjective sign...

this is the correct response.


Op the statute you are referencing is there so you can be ticketed for driving the posted limit, when the cops feel that conditions are not safe for driving that fast. IE fog, Snow/ice, heavy rain, night time and any of the above, ect...

Not so you can run 70 in a 45 and claim it was safe and prudent.................

[Dean]

Your word versus his.

Officer wins.

Exactly. I contested a speeding ticket when I was caught doing 51mph in a 30mph limit in the UK 18 months ago. Just a gun and single officer hiding in a private drive way. Empty road 11pm wide and nothing on the road, no cars cats or children.

I should have got a warning. Instead I lost half my UK driving licence thanks to the judge being a gaylord who insisted young people shouldn't drive powerful cars and made an example of me, it later emded up in the local newspapers that I got a massive fine and lost half my licence. 6 points on a 12 point licence. If I'd been going at 53 mph or above I'd have lost my licence!

In short you'll lose no matter how good your case is. Like me, deal with it like a man. Plus you might get public reconition like I did lol and the respecr of your friends after reading it!!!

[dirtymike]

how I beat tickets

first thing you do is nothing .what i mean is when you get pulled over dont even try to talk your way out.give em the paperwork they want ,liscense,reg,insurance.let them say what they want. answer yes sir no sir sign the ticket and leave. now you have a court date usually about a month or so away.wait 1or2 days before that date go online and get an extension,another month or so later your new court date is set. very important go to court on that date.you have 2 choices guilty or trial ,tell the judge trial.everyone is entitled to a trial.they may order you to pay the bail on your ticket,but dont .tell em you dont have the funds they may persist and order you to pay before your trial,and you will be givin a by when to pay go to court on that day and tell the judge you still dont have the funds.most likely theyll waive it .come back to court on your trial date.this seems like alot to go thru but for me its been well worth the extra effort.its not guaranteed but its worked for me 4x in a row over the last year. maybe im lucky but in every case the didnt show up. case dissmissed.

[ak-]

^^Yes.
Do not pay the funds until you see a judge.
If you pay before trial and the cop shows up, the judge will most likely say you are guilty with a stupid excuse like, "the policeman was trained for this, shut up" and dismiss you because you already paid.
If you pay and lose, you also lose your chance for your bail amount to be lowered; because duh, you already paid. She/He doesn't care anymore.

What "thedguy" also said is good, but officers usually end their statements in court by saying how their radar/lasars are calibrated by the date, and the amount of hours in training they have for use of the radar/laser to back up their judgement.

In court, if the officer shows up, it usually always ends up in "your word vs. his" and you definitely guessed it, the cop wins.

'MERRICCAAAA.

[thedguy]

this is the correct response.


Op the statute you are referencing is there so you can be ticketed for driving the posted limit, when the cops feel that conditions are not safe for driving that fast. IE fog, Snow/ice, heavy rain, night time and any of the above, ect...

Not so you can run 70 in a 45 and claim it was safe and prudent.................

Not true in California.

The law says that traffic/road surveys have to be done at a certain interval (IIRC it's 7 years) to justify the speed limits. If the survey is out of date then speeding tickets get thrown out based on that. If the survey is up to day however, then it's a matter of the posted limit being in the 85% range as law requires.

City of Pasadena was handing out speeding tickets for a bunch of zones set at 30mph even though the survey said safe speeds were nearly 45mph. The law says the limit should have been set at a minimum of 35 (and you'd still have a 3mph tolerance).

The problem the op has is he admitted to doing 65mph. 65 is usually the max (sometimes 70) for the state regardless of what a survey may say.