There was actually no "danger" from the speeder. The real "danger" was from the rest of the traffic actually slowing to 65 mpg and some probably below, while the coded leo car was trying to speed up and pass the slowing packs.
While not inconsiderate it was interesting. Saw a Taurus parked at the bank yesterday where the plastic front bumper had two very long cracks in it. To "fix" it someone drilled a series of holes along both sides of each crack. They then took those plastic tie fasteners and looped them though the holes across the cracks. It looked like someone had sutured the car, we dubbed it "Frankencar".
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
All of a sudden so idiot races up behind me in my lane and swerves into the right lane at the very last minute to pass me.
For thrills in Chicago, also try driving the Dan Ryan expressway, say after midnight either on a Saturday or Sunday. Best watch your mirrors more than looking forward.
You may have gotten lucky before, but sooner or later Karma taps you on the shoulder. Worse, you're going to be at fault in a crash and hurt someone else.
That simply never would or could happen. I don't drive in a manner that allows accidents that are my fault to be possible.
You don't get lucky for 17 years of significant driving miles, sorry! You can tell your foolish "WIVES TALES" to the 20 year olds with 4 lucky years, but you can't convince me that someone can get lucky for 17 years.
Basic Speed Law 22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
Your quote and provided link appears to be written by a Police Officer in collusion with the DMV, and is simply false PROPAGANDA no more true then the stuff spewing from the controlled media in Egypt and Libya under the "regime"
That Vehicle code 22350 certainly doesn't mention that one may never go over the speed limit posted. HMMMM!!!!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Sorry, but does our countries justice system use handbooks that could have been written by [non-permissible content removed]'s or the actual law as written in the Vehicle code and law books?
P.S. the DMV should be the first gov't entity shut down as it is the most incompetent and wasteful of them all.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
What this makes clear is that it's up to the defendant to establish that his speed was not a violation of law.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG times 3.
The officer is the one making the false allegations and accusations. It is up to him to prove a violation of the law and the vehicle code cited occurred. Remember that old "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing in this country?
He has to prove that somehow my driving was unsafe and posed a hazard. A hazard to what and whom is a VERY good question :confuse: Perhaps he'll say "I almost rammed his motorcycle and he feared for his life" I wouldn't put that past the La Mesa PD, since there were no other pedestrians or cars to pose a danger against!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I wonder if the danger of flooring it and flying into traffic to catch a speeder is greater than the danger of the speeder alone. It's not like cops never crash. But I guess when you can't really get fired...
Well, the only accident I've had in the last 6 years or so is a not at fault accident from the La Mesa PD officer on a big Harley motorcycle chasing a red-light violator onto the freeway!
Certainly, in my experience, the cops on the road pose FAR MORE DANGER than do the speeders and red-light runners (within a second of the light going yellow to red of course).
$667 to repair my back bumper and take that up to about a $1,000 claim with the 1-week rental vehicle required. That officer should have either been fired or told to write 3 extra red light tickets. I'm sure the Seargent supervisor chose the latter.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
That Vehicle code 22350 certainly doesn't mention that one may never go over the speed limit posted. HMMMM!!!!
But Vehicle Code 22348 does....
"Excessive Speed and Designated Lane Use
22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit."
Yeah, I'm still missing the part where the CA Vehicle Code lets you drive faster than the speed limit just because you think you're able to do so safely. Of course, it's more interesting to watch Andres3 get louder and louder, as though putting things in caps, bold and italics will make them more logical/reasonable/legal.
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.
That is the vehicle code for which I was cited on my ticket. It is the ONLY one listed. It clearly allows one to ignore the posted speed limit, and drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent.
Of course, ignoring the speed limit isn't a great idea if the posted speed limit itself is reasonable and prudent. That only happens when it follows the 85th percentile convention; this one doesn't.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit."
Hahahah! :P You are making this way too easy to win the argument. Not that VC 22348, 22349, 22351, and 22356 have anything to do with my case, (and may therefore be irrelevant), but I'll play ball:
1) VC 22349 - This is the MAXIMUM speed law and certainly doesn't apply to this case. If you read the entire vehicle code, you'll note they take the time to mention in subsection B that two lane UNDIVIDED highways should be maximized at 55 unless a traffic engineering survey justifies higher. Of course, in my case the survey does justify higher, and furthermore, it is a 4 lane DIVIDED roadway; so this vehicle really doesn't apply, except to show that as I've stated earlier in previous posts, if you get written up for VC 22349 on the freeway, if you were going 65.000001 MPH, you are 100% guilty.
2) VC 22351 - this one is strange and I'll take it into consideration when going into the courtroom:
22351. A: The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law. 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.
Section A appears to be on my side. The officer has to prove I violated the basic speed law, where safety, prudentness, and reasonableness all matter and are elements of the law that has to be broken. Section B tells me I better take photographs of similar/identical conditions to that day I was pulled over and submit them as evidence in the courtroom, and not rely on my testimony alone. Seems to say I do have to prove my assertion the speed was safe, and the traffic survey should just ADD to it. Do you think La Mesa PD will respond to my lawful discovery request, or withhold it illegally forcing me to make a motion to compel discovery or dismiss?
3) VC 22356 - Simply states that with approval from the CHP of all places, where posted, freeway maximum speed limits shall be 70 MPH in CA where it is safe and reasonable to drive that fast.
4) VC 22352 - simply talks about what situations and places have 15 or 25 prima facie speed limits even if NOT POSTED.
I think section B of 22351 clearly states that my interpretation of the Basic speed law is the correct one. I simply have to provide the judge competent evidence that my testimony is truthful, and the pictures and survey of the roadway and description of my vehicle should do the rest.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
1st example: one can get a speeding ticket @ 61mph with speed limit of 65 mph. It has been demonstrated time and time again (CA ticket courts) that officers have a leeway of 5 mph to make a ticket...stick.
2nd example: To further add to the insult one can also be cited for going too fast for conditions, aka, 35 mpg in a 65 mph speed limit.
Some reality on #2 example. I personally travel on a freeway that can support 100+ mph. Yet I have also been on the very same freeway (little to no traffic) where 35 mph would be pushing it (in fog, but no change to actual ROAD/pavement conditions).
1st example: one can get a speeding ticket 61mph with speed limit of 65 mph. It has been demonstrated time and time again (CA ticket courts) that officers have a leeway of 5 mph to make a ticket...stick.
2nd example: To further add to the insult one can also be cited for going too fast for conditions, aka, 35 mpg in a 65 mph speed limit.
Absolutely!!! One can definitely find conditions where even the speed limit itself might be too fast for conditions. I'm thinking black ice, heavy traffic, lots of pedestrians, senior center, school nearby with children present.
Your first example would be nearly impossible to prove in court, but I wouldn't put it past a judge to simply give the officer his way so he can get more re-election campaign money from the Police Officer's fund. The second example would be hard to prove as well.
If 85% of traffic was moving along at 35 and then Joe Blow zooms by at 65, that would help the officer's case. However, going with the flow of traffic when there are bad conditions would seem to save you from Johnny Law.
In my experience in CA, really the worst conditions you come across are either heavy rain, or very heavy fog. I find the fog protects you from the CHP because if you can't see them, they can't see you (nor radar or laser you). Fog is like a heaven-sent gift from the gods to not have to worry about the CHP's ridiculous enforcment tactics.
Also, the CHP and other traffic cops only "work" on nice warm sunny days. If it's raining or super foggy, you can forget about having to worry about being ticketed! I've never seen someone pulled over in the rain or heavy fog. It's always on the nicest brightest days with maximum visibility where it is safe to exceed speed limits that speeding tickets are mostly written. Your Typical sunny CA weather.
I have never seen the CHP pull over anyone for going to slow or Left Lane Camping. I have never seen the CHP pull someone over for going "under the speed limit" despite whatever conditions existed. I have seen the CHP pull over "speeders" numerous times (including myself) on days where conditions were near perfect to absolutely perfect.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Yes the funniest thing I ever witnessed was (to me anyway or perhaps my sense of humor is strange) when a MARKED CHP vehicle gets right UP on a LLCe'rs 6, in the #1 lane/4, full light codes (360 degree light patterns) for literally miles and with sirens going, still ... no behavior change. Finally, he gets on the bull horn and recites the guy's license plate # and vehicle description to ... get more specific.
Well, someone is wrong here. I don't think it's me.
You admit going above the posted speed limit, correct? That is the "prima facie" speed limit.
He has to prove that somehow my driving was unsafe and posed a hazard.
That's not how I read the law (emphasis added by me):
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.
"Prima facie" means, a fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved. That is, your speed above the posted speed is presumed to be unlawful until it is disproved. And it's clear that it's up to the defendant--which is you in this case, not the police officer--to establish (read: prove) that there was no violation of the basic speed law.
That's how I read it too, backy. However, Andre states that the officer cited the basic speed law as having been in violation, so I don't know whether he will only have to defend against arguments related to that. Either way, both laws point back to the basic speed law, so it remains the same defense.
If nothing else, the impressive number of posts generated on this topic is great practice for you to fine-tune your argument, Andre! If you don't win the argument in court now, you never stood a chance from the beginning. :shades:
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
cracked bumper shell is not merely a cosmetic problem - it indicates that the plastic/foam-block underneath has already absorbed one crash and is inadequate for another collision.
guys, while you are arguing about beating speeding tix, please pull over to the far right lane and let the faster traffic pass on the left.
Personally I try to pay my speeding tickets *before* I get them but the states don't have it linked with my EzPass yet, nor have they set up a pre-pay plan for frequent customers.
ps - If the right lane is available/safe/empty-enough, one is required to drive there - Move over red rover!
I wish you would not advocate that. Often times, it is the defacto FAST/passing lane. It is good to have those lanes free for folks like me. :shades: EVERYBODY knows the requirement. :lemon:
It is far safer and faster to pass someone going 55 mph +/- in the far right hand lane, than to pass some vigilante LLC'er going 65 with the attitude they are the undercover police and/or will not move over for mudder hood or apple pie or even a coded emergency vehicle.
Your forgetting to read the whole section and passage, particularly this par of your post:
violation of the basic speed law
Since the Basic speed law is defined by safety, reasonableness, and prudentness, the officer first has to prove a violation of the basic speed law happened.
See VC 22350
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Since this isn't your first time at the rodeo, I'll defer to your familiarity. However, I personally would not downplay the requirement of the defendant to establish the circumstances that apply to the basic speed law over-ruling the posted speed limit.
As I stated previously, I think it is good that all these thoughts are being shared, as it should help you develop a better defense/argument.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I quoted directly from the law. Please quote directly from the CA law where it says that the burden of proof is on the police, once it is established that the defendant violated the prima facie speed limit... which you have admitted doing, thus I assume you will hold to that position in court, i.e. that you were going at least 50 in a 35 zone. Where 35 is the prima facie speed limit.
Good luck in court. You'll need it. Hopefully for you the judge will be in a good mood.
Oh for sure I'll use each and every thing I can possibly think of and drum up in court to justify a safer higher speed than the Prima Facie speed limit.
First, I won't admit my speed. I"ll let the officer prove I was going faster than 35 or 50 if he can. I won't lie in court, but I won't incriminate myself.
I'll say I certainly wasn't going 52, that when I looked at my speedometer at my top speed going up the hill (AFTER he's already testified to 52 I'm assuming) , it was between 49 and 50, but EVEN if I had been going 52, it would have been legal because.......
It'll start with the traffic engineering survey that'll show the 35 MPH speed limit is bogus, follows no lawful convention, no engineering convention, and was simply set to generate a speed trap revenue source.
Then I'll go on to actual conditions, the excellent weather, visibility, non-existant traffic, wide lanes, smooth pavement, divided median in the center of the roadway, the empty sidewalk on the right, the condition of my car, it's weight, the brakes, the tires, all being optimal to justify a safe speed higher than 35. Pictures will be submitted of the roadway.
And then I need to find those ANTI speed trap CA Vehicle Codes... researching that next.....
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I won't admit to anything. I"ll force the prosecution to prove every element of the case and /or plead the 5th on the rest.
If he does establish that I was going faster than 35 MPH in his testimony to my satisfaction, I will then provide my refuting testimony AFTER I cross examine him.
If for some reason he forgot to say I was going faster than 35 during his testimony (brain fart maybe).... I"m pretty sure the judge would simply dismiss the case due to lack of evidence or prosecution right then and there, and I wouldn't have to even present a defense.
However, knowing traffic court judges that have a flair for the unfair, they'd probably remind the OFFICER that he left out some testimony, maybe even going so far as to play the role of prosecutor and ask him some key questions that get the needed key answers.
I can see the judge saying "officer, what speed did you estimate his speed at? What speed did you radar him at? What was the posted speed limit?
If for some reason the Officer forgot. There are some advantages to not having a DA against you, but unfortunately, traffic court judges think they should take the liberty to HELP the prosecution in a courtroom where they are supposed to be impartial and unbiased.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Oh for sure I'll use each and every thing I can possibly think of and drum up in court to justify a safer higher speed than the Prima Facie speed limit.
After this is all over, would it be time to reflect and ask was it all worth it? What are some better things to do with life? How much time, effort wasted just to go beyond the margins (5-10 mph) that most police officers will usually give. What is so important, special to go in velocity beyond these margins? What is the point?
Isn't it obvious? He saves all that time speeding. Probably, what, a minute or so a day? So what if it takes many hours in research, prep, court time, etc. for each speeding offense? And any fines... well, time is money!
C'mon guys, everyone needs a hobby. Shoot, I bet I was wasted a half hour today posting over in the Obama board about swimming sessions for women only. :P
I'm still trying to figure out where he got such a hatred for the courts from - a 'flair for the unfair'? Really? If he was so successful in winning at previous traffic hearings, you'd think he would be trumpetting the great fairness of the courts against those 'corrupt' cops. Instead, he's got a mad on for the whole system. Of course, it's not the courts or the cops that determine speed limits - but I haven't heard where he has lobbied the CA DOT or the state legislature or local council (whichever bureaucratic or legislative body determines speed limits where he is) to change the limits. Instead, he breaks them, then fights the limits in court - doesn't strike me as the correct venue, though perhaps he'll luck out and get an activist judge who is willing to legislate from the bench.
The point is that this will perhaps teach the La Mesa PD a lesson to not try and enforce unenforceable under posted speed limits that make no sense. The 10 MPH leeway is fine, if the speed limit makes some remote sense. Since the speed limit should be 40 or 45 anyway, this should not be an issue.
Not sure why the officer insisted on attemtping to make money for the city so scandalously....
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Actually, when you take into account green/yellow lights you never would have made in time if you hadn't been speeding, you can save as much as 5 minutes for each typical 20 minute trip. That cuts it down to 15 minutes.
However, since time is money, and fines are money, it is worth it to spend the time to avoid the fine! Also, by avoiding the fine you also avoid the monsters that work in the insurance industry from gouging you for no good reason.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'm still trying to figure out where he got such a hatred for the courts from - a 'flair for the unfair'?
It comes from not only witnessing my trials in traffic court, but also others as well who went before me at my court date and time (and sometimes I'd stay after to see further cases after mine if I had the time only to further confirm how unfair the judge was being to everyone.
Unfortunately most citizens only exposure to the justice system is through traffic court. This is one of the arguments in a motion for anything in traffic court, that the judge should work to adhere to the law and fairness especially in traffic court, as this will be most people's only exposure to the justice system. If the system is viewed to be biased, unfair, and unjust, it only works to make the people hold the groups in charge in contempt, and to foster disrepsect for the "system," the "courts," and "law enforcement." My experience in traffic courts has done exactly that. I have ZERO respect for police officers, zero respect for judges, and no respect for the courtrooms or the justice system. But not all judges were created equal, some are more unfair than others.
The conviction rate in traffic court is far too high. Although I have had some success, it is mostly due to the officer not showing up and my case getting dismissed. Almost always, when the officer shows, I do not get my way. Sometimes the officer's have failed to show because during pretrial motions I was able to get something granted, or have something ignored, or their beaucracy failed to respond in a timely manner to something they must by law respond to within a certain time period, and then they get embarrassed to show up, and then therefore simply don't.
I'm mad at the whole system because the whole system is rigged, corrupt, and designed to be a revenue generator. Orange county has walk up drive-through like windows where you can simply walk up to the exterior window, and fork over cash/credit/check/first born, arm, leg.
They make it time consuming to fight your unjust ticket, and extemely easy to pay it and just give up. They make it difficult or unknown what all of your rights are, and the clerks are generally unhelpful.
Some judges are downright nasty when you try to assert you rights. I've seen judges act like prosecutors. Act ARbitrarily without any consideration for both sides of the story. I've found judged who found a guy guilty even though he brought in proof his speedometer had malfunctioned and was the only reason he had been speeding technically. Don't you think someone who's speedo was off by 5 MPH deserves a break? He had the calibrations confirming everything.
So unfortunately I'm one of many thousands of examples of people who were exposed to the justice system via the traffic courts, and came out with nothing but contempt, hatred, and disrespect for those in power.
To be frank, I'm suprised more judges are not assassinated in the USA. A lot of them sure do deserve to earn a bounty on their heads.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The point is that this will perhaps teach the La Mesa PD a lesson to not try and enforce unenforceable under posted speed limits that make no sense.
Teach? Teach? Incredible.
Let us know how it goes after your court appearance(s) and if you gave the Police Department a lesson or two. You realize that if somehow, by some miracle, the court/judge finds for you, then that opens the gate for anarchy in traffic laws and other laws.
Of course, it's not the courts or the cops that determine speed limits - but I haven't heard where he has lobbied the CA DOT or the state legislature or local council (whichever bureaucratic or legislative body determines speed limits where he is) to change the limits. Instead, he breaks them, then fights the limits in court - doesn't strike me as the correct venue, though perhaps he'll luck out and get an activist judge who is willing to legislate from the bench.
Well, looking at some of those Vehicle Codes previously posted on this board/forum, it looks like they do give the police/CHP a say, at least with the maximum speed limits!
It's hard enough to fight the system in court, I woudln't know where to begin or who to call first to get the damn speed limit changed to something reasonable. I'd probably call the La Mesa PD first!
I don't need a judge who legislates from the bench. I have the law on my side in this case. I never violated the basic speed law 22350 for which I was cited. I would have had to have NO regard for the conditions, weather, traffic, and other factors in order to break that law. The fact is, I always drive with regard to all those factors, and I was having much regard on the day in question. I never drive unsafely, unreasonably, or unprudently. The only thing unreasonable, is the officer blindly looking at an aluminum sign with a 3 and a 5 on it, and acting like a computerized robot with no thought process to issuing a citation.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
then that opens the gate for anarchy in traffic laws and other laws.
That would be the BEST thing for the majority of citizens in this country!
Anarchy? really? Don't you think that's far fetched? Now if I was advocating we go out in a mob and kill all the traffic court judges in their homes, that'd be different!
The basic speed law was designed in CA to allow a few subjects of interpretation. We don't want robots dressed as police officers issuing tickets where safety is not a factor or element of the crime! We dont' want speed traps. The people have spoken. The law is written correctly. Now we just need better, more logical, and more reasonable enforcement. I also need the judged to be on board with defending the law as it is written, and not always believing the officer over the defendant.
Some laws can be absolute, such as murder (though even that is not absolute as it is allowed when you are a soldier killing other countries' citizens, or in self-defense). But some laws require good judgement and interpretation, such as the basic speed limit laws.
My wish????
To have every person handed a speeding ticket go to court and fight it. Make the officer show, make them prove their bogus case. IF everyone suddenly did this, the whole system would crash, and that my friend, would FORCE change, without any violence!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I think it's fine that you want your day in court. I don't think you are going to teach the cop or the judge or the system anything. They see guys like you everyday (remember Karl?). Otherwise, they wouldn't even be holding court.
If everyone contested their ticket, they'd just push the calendar back or assign one of the floating judges to a new court session. If they don't have room, they'll make it a night court.
Instead of trying to beat the system, you may find your energy better spent on trying to beat your ticket. :shades:
If everyone contested their ticket, they'd just push the calendar back
I dont thnk you realize how many tickets are issued each and every day for ALLEGED traffic offenses! But lets say they had enough judges to simply add night court, or use an empty courtroom, and then simply push back the calendar so that if you request a court date you get one 6-12 months down the road.
Now I advocate each and every person in Arraignment where you plead "not guilty" also specify that you do NOT waive your right to a Speedy trial.
AHAH! Now they have 45 days to get your court date to happen, or they violate your fundamental right to a speedy trial, and therefore you can make a just motion to dismiss on the basis of your Constitutional rights being violated on the case.
You'll have a TSUNAMI of DISMISSALS!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
So they continue the case beyond 45 days and you ask for it to be dismissed. You still would have to show that the continuance damaged your rights somehow.
More reading material for you (the 10/25 comment):
It is kind of fun watching you work this. I should go fight a ticket but the last one I got, back in '82 or so, was for doing a California stop and it was memorable to the cop since my Tercel had some big ol' canoe on top. Stuck out like a sore thumb.
Rammed into the Caddy a couple of years earlier - that failure to yield ticket probably would have been hard to beat too.
So they continue the case beyond 45 days and you ask for it to be dismissed. You still would have to show that the continuance damaged your rights somehow.
They can't continue your case rightfully so past 45 days UNLESS you've waived your right to a speedy trial. You simply refuse to waive your right to a speedy trial, and gosh darn it, insist on a speedy trial.
However, if you got a bum judge that didn't care about your rights and did what you suggest anyway (wrongfully I might add) now at least you have appealable grounds for an appeal. Of course, in an appeal, THAT IS where now you are burdened with having to show the breach of your right somehow hurt your defense and case in some way.
Shouldn't be too hard. With time, memories fade, and it'll be harder to recall all of the conditions, events, and situations in the case that help your defense. Also, having the weight of these "charges" hanging over your head produces undue stress, lost sleep, and aggravation over lengthy extended periods of time. That stress affects your ability to conduct an effective defense in the courtroom.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Since the speed limit should be 40 or 45 anyway, this should not be an issue.
Well, let's see... you got written for 52. So, even if the speed limit was based on your opinion, you were still speeding. Officers have no obligation to give 'leeway'.
Guilty as cited. Pay the clerk. Oh, and I hope you fed the parking meter when you got here, sir. Call the next case, please, bailiff.
Well, let's see... you got written for 52. So, even if the speed limit was based on your opinion
No, that's not my opinion, that's scientific fact thanks the the traffic engineering survey and 85th percentile principles.
Remember, VC 22350 is a Prima Facie speed limit, whether it's 5, 15, 25, 35, or 50. Therefore, I was not speeding unless it can be shown that conditions made my speed unsafe, unreasonable, and unprudent having due regard for weather and other factors.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I don't know who the commenter is but he said "But just because more than 45 days runs – does not mean a case gets dismissed automatically. You have to show that the delay caused you “prejudice”, which means harmed your case in some way." Your delay argument may or may not work, but what's another day off from work to argue that eh?
Comments
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
What, no duct tape?
For thrills in Chicago, also try driving the Dan Ryan expressway, say after midnight either on a Saturday or Sunday. Best watch your mirrors more than looking forward.
That simply never would or could happen. I don't drive in a manner that allows accidents that are my fault to be possible.
You don't get lucky for 17 years of significant driving miles, sorry! You can tell your foolish "WIVES TALES" to the 20 year olds with 4 lucky years, but you can't convince me that someone can get lucky for 17 years.
http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22350.htm
Basic Speed Law
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.
Your quote and provided link appears to be written by a Police Officer in collusion with the DMV, and is simply false PROPAGANDA no more true then the stuff spewing from the controlled media in Egypt and Libya under the "regime"
That Vehicle code 22350 certainly doesn't mention that one may never go over the speed limit posted. HMMMM!!!!
P.S. the DMV should be the first gov't entity shut down as it is the most incompetent and wasteful of them all.
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG times 3.
The officer is the one making the false allegations and accusations. It is up to him to prove a violation of the law and the vehicle code cited occurred. Remember that old "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing in this country?
He has to prove that somehow my driving was unsafe and posed a hazard. A hazard to what and whom is a VERY good question
Well, the only accident I've had in the last 6 years or so is a not at fault accident from the La Mesa PD officer on a big Harley motorcycle chasing a red-light violator onto the freeway!
Certainly, in my experience, the cops on the road pose FAR MORE DANGER than do the speeders and red-light runners (within a second of the light going yellow to red of course).
$667 to repair my back bumper and take that up to about a $1,000 claim with the 1-week rental vehicle required. That officer should have either been fired or told to write 3 extra red light tickets. I'm sure the Seargent supervisor chose the latter.
over the speed limit posted. HMMMM!!!!
But Vehicle Code 22348 does....
"Excessive Speed and Designated Lane Use
22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit."
That is the vehicle code for which I was cited on my ticket. It is the ONLY one listed. It clearly allows one to ignore the posted speed limit, and drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent.
Of course, ignoring the speed limit isn't a great idea if the posted speed limit itself is reasonable and prudent. That only happens when it follows the 85th percentile convention; this one doesn't.
"Excessive Speed and Designated Lane Use
22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit."
Hahahah!
1) VC 22349 - This is the MAXIMUM speed law and certainly doesn't apply to this case. If you read the entire vehicle code, you'll note they take the time to mention in subsection B that two lane UNDIVIDED highways should be maximized at 55 unless a traffic engineering survey justifies higher. Of course, in my case the survey does justify higher, and furthermore, it is a 4 lane DIVIDED roadway; so this vehicle really doesn't apply, except to show that as I've stated earlier in previous posts, if you get written up for VC 22349 on the freeway, if you were going 65.000001 MPH, you are 100% guilty.
2) VC 22351 - this one is strange and I'll take it into consideration when going into the courtroom:
22351. A: The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law.
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.
Section A appears to be on my side. The officer has to prove I violated the basic speed law, where safety, prudentness, and reasonableness all matter and are elements of the law that has to be broken. Section B tells me I better take photographs of similar/identical conditions to that day I was pulled over and submit them as evidence in the courtroom, and not rely on my testimony alone. Seems to say I do have to prove my assertion the speed was safe, and the traffic survey should just ADD to it. Do you think La Mesa PD will respond to my lawful discovery request, or withhold it illegally forcing me to make a motion to compel discovery or dismiss?
3) VC 22356 - Simply states that with approval from the CHP of all places, where posted, freeway maximum speed limits shall be 70 MPH in CA where it is safe and reasonable to drive that fast.
4) VC 22352 - simply talks about what situations and places have 15 or 25 prima facie speed limits even if NOT POSTED.
I think section B of 22351 clearly states that my interpretation of the Basic speed law is the correct one. I simply have to provide the judge competent evidence that my testimony is truthful, and the pictures and survey of the roadway and description of my vehicle should do the rest.
1st example: one can get a speeding ticket @ 61mph with speed limit of 65 mph. It has been demonstrated time and time again (CA ticket courts) that officers have a leeway of 5 mph to make a ticket...stick.
2nd example: To further add to the insult one can also be cited for going too fast for conditions, aka, 35 mpg in a 65 mph speed limit.
Some reality on #2 example. I personally travel on a freeway that can support 100+ mph. Yet I have also been on the very same freeway (little to no traffic) where 35 mph would be pushing it (in fog, but no change to actual ROAD/pavement conditions).
1st example: one can get a speeding ticket 61mph with speed limit of 65 mph. It has been demonstrated time and time again (CA ticket courts) that officers have a leeway of 5 mph to make a ticket...stick.
2nd example: To further add to the insult one can also be cited for going too fast for conditions, aka, 35 mpg in a 65 mph speed limit.
Absolutely!!! One can definitely find conditions where even the speed limit itself might be too fast for conditions. I'm thinking black ice, heavy traffic, lots of pedestrians, senior center, school nearby with children present.
Your first example would be nearly impossible to prove in court, but I wouldn't put it past a judge to simply give the officer his way so he can get more re-election campaign money from the Police Officer's fund. The second example would be hard to prove as well.
If 85% of traffic was moving along at 35 and then Joe Blow zooms by at 65, that would help the officer's case. However, going with the flow of traffic when there are bad conditions would seem to save you from Johnny Law.
In my experience in CA, really the worst conditions you come across are either heavy rain, or very heavy fog. I find the fog protects you from the CHP because if you can't see them, they can't see you (nor radar or laser you). Fog is like a heaven-sent gift from the gods to not have to worry about the CHP's ridiculous enforcment tactics.
Also, the CHP and other traffic cops only "work" on nice warm sunny days. If it's raining or super foggy, you can forget about having to worry about being ticketed! I've never seen someone pulled over in the rain or heavy fog. It's always on the nicest brightest days with maximum visibility where it is safe to exceed speed limits that speeding tickets are mostly written. Your Typical sunny CA weather.
I have never seen the CHP pull over anyone for going to slow or Left Lane Camping. I have never seen the CHP pull someone over for going "under the speed limit" despite whatever conditions existed. I have seen the CHP pull over "speeders" numerous times (including myself) on days where conditions were near perfect to absolutely perfect.
Well, someone is wrong here. I don't think it's me.
You admit going above the posted speed limit, correct? That is the "prima facie" speed limit.
He has to prove that somehow my driving was unsafe and posed a hazard.
That's not how I read the law (emphasis added by me):
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.
"Prima facie" means, a fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved. That is, your speed above the posted speed is presumed to be unlawful until it is disproved. And it's clear that it's up to the defendant--which is you in this case, not the police officer--to establish (read: prove) that there was no violation of the basic speed law.
It's clear to me, anyway.
If nothing else, the impressive number of posts generated on this topic is great practice for you to fine-tune your argument, Andre! If you don't win the argument in court now, you never stood a chance from the beginning. :shades:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Personally I try to pay my speeding tickets *before* I get them but the states don't have it linked with my EzPass yet, nor have they set up a pre-pay plan for frequent customers.
ps - If the right lane is available/safe/empty-enough, one is required to drive there -
Move over red rover!
It is far safer and faster to pass someone going 55 mph +/- in the far right hand lane, than to pass some vigilante LLC'er going 65 with the attitude they are the undercover police and/or will not move over for mudder hood or apple pie or even a coded emergency vehicle.
violation of the basic speed law
Since the Basic speed law is defined by safety, reasonableness, and prudentness, the officer first has to prove a violation of the basic speed law happened.
See VC 22350
As I stated previously, I think it is good that all these thoughts are being shared, as it should help you develop a better defense/argument.
Good luck in court. You'll need it. Hopefully for you the judge will be in a good mood.
First, I won't admit my speed. I"ll let the officer prove I was going faster than 35 or 50 if he can. I won't lie in court, but I won't incriminate myself.
I'll say I certainly wasn't going 52, that when I looked at my speedometer at my top speed going up the hill (AFTER he's already testified to 52 I'm assuming) , it was between 49 and 50, but EVEN if I had been going 52, it would have been legal because.......
It'll start with the traffic engineering survey that'll show the 35 MPH speed limit is bogus, follows no lawful convention, no engineering convention, and was simply set to generate a speed trap revenue source.
Then I'll go on to actual conditions, the excellent weather, visibility, non-existant traffic, wide lanes, smooth pavement, divided median in the center of the roadway, the empty sidewalk on the right, the condition of my car, it's weight, the brakes, the tires, all being optimal to justify a safe speed higher than 35. Pictures will be submitted of the roadway.
And then I need to find those ANTI speed trap CA Vehicle Codes... researching that next.....
If he does establish that I was going faster than 35 MPH in his testimony to my satisfaction, I will then provide my refuting testimony AFTER I cross examine him.
If for some reason he forgot to say I was going faster than 35 during his testimony (brain fart maybe).... I"m pretty sure the judge would simply dismiss the case due to lack of evidence or prosecution right then and there, and I wouldn't have to even present a defense.
However, knowing traffic court judges that have a flair for the unfair, they'd probably remind the OFFICER that he left out some testimony, maybe even going so far as to play the role of prosecutor and ask him some key questions that get the needed key answers.
I can see the judge saying "officer, what speed did you estimate his speed at? What speed did you radar him at? What was the posted speed limit?
If for some reason the Officer forgot. There are some advantages to not having a DA against you, but unfortunately, traffic court judges think they should take the liberty to HELP the prosecution in a courtroom where they are supposed to be impartial and unbiased.
After this is all over, would it be time to reflect and ask was it all worth it? What are some better things to do with life? How much time, effort wasted just to go beyond the margins (5-10 mph) that most police officers will usually give. What is so important, special to go in velocity beyond these margins? What is the point?
The point is that this will perhaps teach the La Mesa PD a lesson to not try and enforce unenforceable under posted speed limits that make no sense. The 10 MPH leeway is fine, if the speed limit makes some remote sense. Since the speed limit should be 40 or 45 anyway, this should not be an issue.
Not sure why the officer insisted on attemtping to make money for the city so scandalously....
However, since time is money, and fines are money, it is worth it to spend the time to avoid the fine! Also, by avoiding the fine you also avoid the monsters that work in the insurance industry from gouging you for no good reason.
It comes from not only witnessing my trials in traffic court, but also others as well who went before me at my court date and time (and sometimes I'd stay after to see further cases after mine if I had the time only to further confirm how unfair the judge was being to everyone.
Unfortunately most citizens only exposure to the justice system is through traffic court. This is one of the arguments in a motion for anything in traffic court, that the judge should work to adhere to the law and fairness especially in traffic court, as this will be most people's only exposure to the justice system. If the system is viewed to be biased, unfair, and unjust, it only works to make the people hold the groups in charge in contempt, and to foster disrepsect for the "system," the "courts," and "law enforcement." My experience in traffic courts has done exactly that. I have ZERO respect for police officers, zero respect for judges, and no respect for the courtrooms or the justice system. But not all judges were created equal, some are more unfair than others.
The conviction rate in traffic court is far too high. Although I have had some success, it is mostly due to the officer not showing up and my case getting dismissed. Almost always, when the officer shows, I do not get my way.
Sometimes the officer's have failed to show because during pretrial motions I was able to get something granted, or have something ignored, or their beaucracy failed to respond in a timely manner to something they must by law respond to within a certain time period, and then they get embarrassed to show up, and then therefore simply don't.
I'm mad at the whole system because the whole system is rigged, corrupt, and designed to be a revenue generator. Orange county has walk up drive-through like windows where you can simply walk up to the exterior window, and fork over cash/credit/check/first born, arm, leg.
They make it time consuming to fight your unjust ticket, and extemely easy to pay it and just give up. They make it difficult or unknown what all of your rights are, and the clerks are generally unhelpful.
Some judges are downright nasty when you try to assert you rights. I've seen judges act like prosecutors. Act ARbitrarily without any consideration for both sides of the story. I've found judged who found a guy guilty even though he brought in proof his speedometer had malfunctioned and was the only reason he had been speeding technically. Don't you think someone who's speedo was off by 5 MPH deserves a break? He had the calibrations confirming everything.
So unfortunately I'm one of many thousands of examples of people who were exposed to the justice system via the traffic courts, and came out with nothing but contempt, hatred, and disrespect for those in power.
To be frank, I'm suprised more judges are not assassinated in the USA. A lot of them sure do deserve to earn a bounty on their heads.
Teach? Teach? Incredible.
Let us know how it goes after your court appearance(s) and if you gave the Police Department a lesson or two. You realize that if somehow, by some miracle, the court/judge finds for you, then that opens the gate for anarchy in traffic laws and other laws.
Well, looking at some of those Vehicle Codes previously posted on this board/forum, it looks like they do give the police/CHP a say, at least with the maximum speed limits!
It's hard enough to fight the system in court, I woudln't know where to begin or who to call first to get the damn speed limit changed to something reasonable. I'd probably call the La Mesa PD first!
I don't need a judge who legislates from the bench. I have the law on my side in this case. I never violated the basic speed law 22350 for which I was cited. I would have had to have NO regard for the conditions, weather, traffic, and other factors in order to break that law. The fact is, I always drive with regard to all those factors, and I was having much regard on the day in question. I never drive unsafely, unreasonably, or unprudently. The only thing unreasonable, is the officer blindly looking at an aluminum sign with a 3 and a 5 on it, and acting like a computerized robot with no thought process to issuing a citation.
That would be the BEST thing for the majority of citizens in this country!
Anarchy? really? Don't you think that's far fetched? Now if I was advocating we go out in a mob and kill all the traffic court judges in their homes, that'd be different!
The basic speed law was designed in CA to allow a few subjects of interpretation. We don't want robots dressed as police officers issuing tickets where safety is not a factor or element of the crime! We dont' want speed traps. The people have spoken. The law is written correctly. Now we just need better, more logical, and more reasonable enforcement. I also need the judged to be on board with defending the law as it is written, and not always believing the officer over the defendant.
Some laws can be absolute, such as murder (though even that is not absolute as it is allowed when you are a soldier killing other countries' citizens, or in self-defense). But some laws require good judgement and interpretation, such as the basic speed limit laws.
My wish????
To have every person handed a speeding ticket go to court and fight it. Make the officer show, make them prove their bogus case. IF everyone suddenly did this, the whole system would crash, and that my friend, would FORCE change, without any violence!
If everyone contested their ticket, they'd just push the calendar back or assign one of the floating judges to a new court session. If they don't have room, they'll make it a night court.
Instead of trying to beat the system, you may find your energy better spent on trying to beat your ticket. :shades:
I dont thnk you realize how many tickets are issued each and every day for ALLEGED traffic offenses! But lets say they had enough judges to simply add night court, or use an empty courtroom, and then simply push back the calendar so that if you request a court date you get one 6-12 months down the road.
Now I advocate each and every person in Arraignment where you plead "not guilty" also specify that you do NOT waive your right to a Speedy trial.
AHAH! Now they have 45 days to get your court date to happen, or they violate your fundamental right to a speedy trial, and therefore you can make a just motion to dismiss on the basis of your Constitutional rights being violated on the case.
You'll have a TSUNAMI of DISMISSALS!
More reading material for you (the 10/25 comment):
Pleading “Not Guilty”? You Don’t Have To Give Up The Right to a Speedy Trial
It is kind of fun watching you work this. I should go fight a ticket but the last one I got, back in '82 or so, was for doing a California stop and it was memorable to the cop since my Tercel had some big ol' canoe on top. Stuck out like a sore thumb.
Rammed into the Caddy a couple of years earlier - that failure to yield ticket probably would have been hard to beat too.
They can't continue your case rightfully so past 45 days UNLESS you've waived your right to a speedy trial. You simply refuse to waive your right to a speedy trial, and gosh darn it, insist on a speedy trial.
However, if you got a bum judge that didn't care about your rights and did what you suggest anyway (wrongfully I might add) now at least you have appealable grounds for an appeal. Of course, in an appeal, THAT IS where now you are burdened with having to show the breach of your right somehow hurt your defense and case in some way.
Shouldn't be too hard. With time, memories fade, and it'll be harder to recall all of the conditions, events, and situations in the case that help your defense. Also, having the weight of these "charges" hanging over your head produces undue stress, lost sleep, and aggravation over lengthy extended periods of time. That stress affects your ability to conduct an effective defense in the courtroom.
Well, let's see... you got written for 52. So, even if the speed limit was based on your opinion, you were still speeding. Officers have no obligation to give 'leeway'.
Guilty as cited. Pay the clerk. Oh, and I hope you fed the parking meter when you got here, sir.
Call the next case, please, bailiff.
No, that's not my opinion, that's scientific fact thanks the the traffic engineering survey and 85th percentile principles.
Remember, VC 22350 is a Prima Facie speed limit, whether it's 5, 15, 25, 35, or 50. Therefore, I was not speeding unless it can be shown that conditions made my speed unsafe, unreasonable, and unprudent having due regard for weather and other factors.