CHP Performance Awards on highway 1 this last friday...

I got me a big fat ticket on Friday leaving town... CHP had a huge
radar trap setup on highway 1 near La Selva Beach.. guy with radar gun
was up on the (very high up) overpass, radioing in the marks to a squad of
a half-dozen CHP bikes and cars.. they were flagging cars over
wholesale, and everyone was getting zero slack tickets, they wrote you up
for your actual radar speed.

I got a 97+ on mine. thats gonna hurt.

 

Ouch.
Try fighting it.
Here's what worked for me last time.
Circumstances:
86 in a 45, MacArthur Tunnel , south of GGB.

Defense:
1. Request a continuance after receving notice in mail.

2. Using "Registered, Receipt Requested mail"
Request these three things from the appropriate agencies.
a. Safety and Engineering report for that road
b. Copy of the Officer's certification , verifying his expertise in using
THAT radar gun.
c. Proof that particular radar gun was calibrated recently.
d. Some documentation that certifies that that particular brand of radar
gun has been proven to be accurate.
e. ( important!) Copies of the officer's notes and report regarding the
citation.

3. Request a second continuance prior to your already rescheduled court
date.

4. If you do not receive the above requested documents, then request a
dismissal. You have been denied the documentation necessary to mount a
defence, therefore you have been denied an opportunity to refute the charges
against you.

5. The officer may not show up.
6. The officer may not have the arrest report or notes.

If you still do not get a dimissal, you can always request traffic
school....But give it a try!
Or hire an attorney, it might be worth it.
This is how my ticket turned out:
http://www.moto-rama.com/dis_missed.jpg

good luck.
Jim Stinnnett
R1100RS
VTR1000
http://moto-rama.com

 

Sorry to hear about your ticket. It sounds like they *were* cutting you
some slack if it is written up for "97+". Exceeding 100mph is a misdemeanor
instead of an infraction, and then you would truly be hurtin' . If they
were writing actual speed they would have put 97.

I'm no legal expert, but unless you are confident and well-spoken in a
courtroom environment a Trial by Written Declaration has a lot of
advantages. It allows you to present a coherent, written defense of the
citation. Look carefully for any flaws in how the ticket was written up.
No one error is necessarily fatal, but if there are several, you can comment
on the officer's competence in recording the facts. Also, both officers
(the radar gunner and the ticket writer) must submit their individual
Written Declarations. Point out that if only one officer (e.g. the ticket
writer) submits his Dec, anything else is hearsay and must not be
considered. In other words, if the radar gunner radioed your speed to the
ticket writer but did not submit a Dec, the radar speed should not be
considered if the judge is being fair (they are often not).

Basically you have nothing to lose...and if you do, you can request a trial
de novo which is an "appeal" where you appear in person. Based on a highly
unscientific sample of friends and myself, showing up in person has almost
0% success; Written Dec is about 50/50.

Good luck,
Ken Ishiguro

 

Well 97+ is good for test scores but bad for tickets... you don't get an
A for this one John... more like you'll get to ante up some graft
money... on well at least you didn't go straight to jail...
Mr.CHP is cranking down here too... I think I'll go out and genuflect in
front the "Oh Shit" meter before I hit the fart sack tonight..
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/pics11-3-03/imagepages/RC45RemoteRadar.html


Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/
http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/
http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2

 

Jim had some good points. Get that safety and engineering report. Also, it
seems to me there are a couple things that may disqualify your ticket. One,
the section of road being radared must have been surveyed for traffic loads,
speeds, etc, within the last 2-5(?) years (s&e report). Two, if the officer
issuing the ticket was not the officer operating the radar gun. I can't
guarantee these are correct, but I've heard they are grounds for dismissal.
You'll have to research it yourself. Maybe someone here knows.

I beat my last ticket. The cop showed up, but he had put down the wrong
legal speed limit and the wrong color of my bike on the ticket. It was
enough to get the ticket dismissed.

nb

 

FWIW, I noted that the ticket-writing officer did NOT check the box
indicating that the infraction was hearsay (since he in fact didn't see
me, the radar was someone on a overpass with a radio..) In fact, I'd
seen the ticketing officers bikes between the cracks in truck traffic and
had slowed down to 65 before they could have seen me.

frankly, I'll be happy if I can take traffic school... last couple of
tickets I couldn't for stupid reasons (one was in Marin where any ticket
in the last 2 years disqualifies you for school, I'd had a ticket 18
months earlier that I couldn't do school for as I'd done school about 14
months prior to that).

I did note that the citation was for exceeding the 65 max speed limit, and
not reckless or anything, for some reason I thought 30-over, or anything
over 90 was automatically reckless driving.

 

What method was listed for the speed estimate?

Care to post your performance award somewhere?

 

ok, it says "22349(a) VL exceed 65" and (I) for infraction is circled.
it says "RADAR" down below. speed aprox is '97', not 97+. max speed 65.
a field labeled "special" has "99" written in it. It lists both an
arresting and a citing officer, rather illegible if you ask me. Anyways,
appears like its a regular speeding ticket, with only the high speed as a
exasperating factor (meaning, big fine... does anyone know if your
insurance (public) record shows the speed, or just the CVC section?

interestingly enough, the sections I scanned on reckless driving do not
refer to any specific speeds, they appear to leave it entirely up to a
judgement call. And 22348 (100MPH) isn't explicitly a 2 pointer, however
it has its own suspension rules, optional 30 days on first offense, and
mandantory on 2nd and beyond.

 

Well, it's not hearsay if BOTH officers testify in person or in writing.
But if only one testifies, then of course anything witnessed by the other
should not be considered.

The CVC specifically states you are automatically able to take traffic
school if the date of the two offenses were more than 18 months apart. I
don't think it's something a muni or superior court can override. The court
can also grant a 12-hour traffic school if two offenses were less than 12
months apart. The CVC doesn't say what happens between 12 and 18
months....but I would think the court would be willing to grant a request
for traffic school since their mission is maximizing revenue and nothing
unsafe was noted on your citation.

Note that you can have one point on your record in a 36 month period and
maintain the Good Driver discount. However, another insurance company can
decline to sign you up if a point is showing.

Ken Ishiguro

 

apparently, school vs no school is optional, up to the rules established
by the court or county. If you know some CVC to the contrary, please,
I'd love to read it.

 

In SF and Alameda Counties, you can look up your citation on
the web and determine whether you're eligible for traffic
school. Monterey County Superior Court doesn't have the
search or pay option online.

http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/court/traffic_info.html

Their policy on traffic school is a bit different -- in SF
and Alameda, the courtesy notice will be sent with a list
of traffic schools if you are eligible.

 

the last time I went to traffic school I was told (in the notice to appear or whatever it's
called) that I wasn't eligible. I was cited for 80 in a 55 and as I recall that was too far over the
limit for traffic school. I went to court and was told if I plead guilty I could go to traffic
school so that's what I did.

I guess my point is it never hurts to ask.

Bill

 

OK, a bit of clarification.. CVC 41501 and 42005 cover traffic school, and
you are correct that it's at the court's discretion.

The California Judicial Council sets standardized rules and procedures for
the courts to follow. California Rules of Court, Section 851:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/titletwo/title2-6-21.htm#TopOfPage
dictates that the court clerk can grant traffic school (pretrial) in most
cases, and local courts must follow these rules.

To find out the rules that apply to your specific situation, look up the
Rules of the Court for the appropriate county. A google search on "marin
court rules" for example should get the link you need; then look up the
court's rules for traffic school. The RoC will also spell out their
procedures for handling your case. Each court must also publish their list
of fines so you can calculate the damages. Sometimes it takes some digging
to find the list.

If someone with legal expertise wants to correct or clarify this, feel free!
Just don't ask why I have researched this.....


Ken Ishiguro

 

Get an attorney he can beat radar in court....the savings on insurance alone
will cover his fee.

Radar alone is not valid in court...other cars, any angle to the road... the
size of your vehicle etc all grossly affect the radar read..... you didnt
tell the officer you were boosting it did you?

Phil Scott

 

Wonderful!

Worth printing out.

Phil Scott

 

Sorry Ken... but the ticket program is a money raising deal... trial by
declaration is playing into the hands of the rip off...what these people
fear is a jury gettng a load of how the citizens are railroaded and ways to
beat that.

Most judges will take the word of an 'unbiased' officer before they will
believe some kid on a crotch rocket.

It does pay to look up the VC code violation by its number though and
parse that in detail... and do what Jim Stinnet advised...that pays off.

Pleading to the court though, or calling the officer biased etc...mostly
wastes time.

Now THATS a good point. thanks.

Ok that last paretheses should prove to you why you dont submit your case
by declaration... or sign the thingie waving your right to appeal or jury
trial... if you do a declaration *cross those clauses out and sign below
them.

I am surprised to hear that... showing up in person with an attorney
has in most cases been very sucessful...for Coleman Howard I think close to
100% on some very fast moving citations (Wash DC, east coast areas).


Phil Scott

 

Thanks, but it was about a year ago. I did a trial by Written Declaration,
and the ticket was dismissed. I will never know whether it was my
brilliantly crafted legal defense, or the officer simply failed to send in
his Declaration. Why do I suspect it was the latter?

Ken Ishiguro