Not Guilty !!!
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,419
Likes: 6
From: Arroyo Grande CA
Not Guilty !!!
I received a ticket in my C5 Vette back in late March. Lidar (even a Valentine One wouldn't have saved me) 
Local cop nailed me in a 35 @ 52. Violation of CVC22350. Well, I decided to contest it and requested a Trial by Written Declaration and submitted my defense and Statement of Facts on May 29th. Today in the mail I received the judgment. Bailment to be refunded within 6 weeks.
My record stays clean.
Local cop nailed me in a 35 @ 52. Violation of CVC22350. Well, I decided to contest it and requested a Trial by Written Declaration and submitted my defense and Statement of Facts on May 29th. Today in the mail I received the judgment. Bailment to be refunded within 6 weeks. My record stays clean.
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,419
Likes: 6
From: Arroyo Grande CA
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant's Name: Don
Case No.: X 0000
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.
The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on SR166 on 03-27-07, at approximately 5:41am, I was stopped by a Maricopa Officer (I.D. #XXXX) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 52mph in a 35mph zone based on Radar evidence. I believe that even if I was driving that speed at the time of my stop, my speed was quite safe for the prevailing conditions.
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 with very light traffic. On my citation, the officer marks that the traffic was "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Further, I believe that the posted speed of 35mph on SR166 is artificially low, reflecting an out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, may constitute an illegal Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(2) which defines an illegal radar speed trap as: "A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 SR166 is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal.
When using radar evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar 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 SR166 is not an illegal Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), I trust the Court will rule the radar evidence 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.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: May 25, 2007
________________________________________
Don, Defendant in Pro Per
Defendant's Name: Don
Case No.: X 0000
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.
The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on SR166 on 03-27-07, at approximately 5:41am, I was stopped by a Maricopa Officer (I.D. #XXXX) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 52mph in a 35mph zone based on Radar evidence. I believe that even if I was driving that speed at the time of my stop, my speed was quite safe for the prevailing conditions.
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 with very light traffic. On my citation, the officer marks that the traffic was "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, I believe that the posted speed of 35mph on SR166 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 SR166 is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal.
When using radar evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar 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 SR166 is not an illegal Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), I trust the Court will rule the radar evidence 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.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: May 25, 2007
________________________________________
Don, Defendant in Pro Per
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Corvette ZR1X Will Be Pacing the Indy 500, And Could Probably Race, Too!
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvettes Coming to Mecum Indy 2026!
Brett Foote
Top 10 C9 Corvette MUST-HAVES to Fix These C8 Generation Flaws!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Revolutionary 'Corvette Firsts' Most People Don't Know
Joe Kucinski
5 Reasons to Upgrade to an LS6-Powered Corvette; 5 Reasons to Stay LT2
Michael S. Palmer
2027 Corvette vs The World: Every C8 vs Its Closest Competitor
Joe Kucinski
10 Most Common Corvette Problems of the Last 20 Years!
Joe Kucinski
5 MOST and 5 LEAST Popular Corvette Model Years in History!
Joe Kucinski
2027 Corvette Buyer's Guide: Everything You Need to Know!
Joe Kucinski
Le Mans Master
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,021
Likes: 46
From: enterprise al
St. Jude Donor '08
not tryin to hijack your thread or anything but i got lucky as heck myself just yesterday.. got pulled over in a 35 doin 48 and i couldnt evn find my proof of insurance.. he just said 'this is a nice car and i bet its got some power but keep the speed down and go print a copy of your proof of insurance' 
.. i swear my gf had to have flashed him when i wasnt lookin haha
.. i swear my gf had to have flashed him when i wasnt lookin haha
Safety Car
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,743
Likes: 0
From: Omaha Nebraska
St. Jude Donor '06
not tryin to hijack your thread or anything but i got lucky as heck myself just yesterday.. got pulled over in a 35 doin 48 and i couldnt evn find my proof of insurance.. he just said 'this is a nice car and i bet its got some power but keep the speed down and go print a copy of your proof of insurance' .. i swear my gf had to have flashed him when i wasnt lookin haha
.. i swear my gf had to have flashed him when i wasnt lookin haha
Lucky yes.. but you know the drill.... No pics??? Com'on!! 
Thread Starter
Safety Car
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,419
Likes: 6
From: Arroyo Grande CA
Melting Slicks
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,608
Likes: 7
From: the GOCC are everywhere, even back from "band camp"
Very nicely done. You are to be congratulated on conscisely and lucidly stating the facts of your case in the interest of justice. I was just told about this style of defense last week. Very timely info...
Bruce
Bruce