CVC 22350 Unsafe Speed vs Excessive Speed

[apausa]

I live in California. I received a citation on 12/02/2014 for violating CVC 22350 Unsafe Speed, lost TBWD and now set trial DE NOVO in mid August. Below are questions.

1. I was cited for CVC 22350 Unsafe Speed but my TBWD found me guilty in CVC 22350 Excessive Speed. Can I argue that CVC 22350 made no reference about Excessive Speed limits alone which is "absolute" speed limits. The citation should be dismissed. If the prosecution is not clear about exact charges, my case should be dismissed.

If the judge denies my motion, then I would have to fight harder and I received a copy of the officer's decoration:

2. I made a mistake by stating "I wasn't sure how fast I was driving, must be too fast". I am not sure if my stupid big mouth would bite me later although I would argue that driving too fast alone would not make my speed unsafe without considering other conditions in CVC 22350, I Have prepared documents addressing elements in the code. I did mention that "traffic is light", an element should be considered in CVC 22350.

3. The officer stated that the speed measuring device was last calibrated on 4/25/3015, which was a date almost five months after the date when I was cited. Evidently, when I was cited for the violation, this future evidence did not exist. Therefore, there was no evidence that the measuring device was calibrated timely. All evidences of the radar device produced should be excluded.

4. Officer stated that he first assumed me speeding was at 1620 hours and he noted the same time on the citation. Shouldn't there be time difference on record between the start and stop? If this is allowable by the judge, can I argue that I need the information which would be critical for my defense because if I knew the exact time when the radar clocked me and when the officer made the stop then I'd be able to quickly calculate how much time would be needed to make the entire 1,700', ( per Google map) trip, under the alleged speed.

5. If the readout on the radar is absolute and correct why would its data written on the citation referred as "approximate"? Therefore, the officer really did not know how fast I was driving, so the case should be dismissed.

Thank you for the advice.

 

[mightymoose]

If you want any realistic chance of succeeding you need to hire a traffic attorney. The arguments as you present them here will not get you far. And it seems you don't have much to work with in the first place.
It is extremely unlikely you will obtain the didmissal you are seeking. Your best hope is that the officer fails to apprar for a hearing.

 

[Highwayman]

4. Officer stated that he first assumed me speeding was at 1620 hours and he noted the same time on the citation. Shouldn't there be time difference on record between the start and stop? If this is allowable by the judge, can I argue that I need the information which would be critical for my defense because if I knew the exact time when the radar clocked me and when the officer made the stop then I'd be able to quickly calculate how much time would be needed to make the entire 1,700', ( per Google map) trip, under the alleged speed.

Times are always "on or about". I've stopped people and written them ten minutes later and used the time of writing the ticket as the time of the offense. A five or ten minute difference is meaningless.

5. If the readout on the radar is absolute and correct why would its data written on the citation referred as "approximate"? Therefore, the officer really did not know how fast I was driving, so the case should be dismissed.

Nothing is perfect and totally accurate. If I remember correctly, I was taught that the radar we used is accurate +/- 1 mph.

 

[apausa]

I understand that I need a reality check after I hear all the advices. You kindly responded to two of my questions, I did not see the rest of them, please repost in case there were accidentally cut off.

Thank you so much.

 

[Highwayman]

I commented on what I know about. California law is not something I'm familiar with so I'd rather avoid issues with specific statutes like this. I'll leave it to those that are knowledgeable about California specifics.

Check the other forum too, in case you forgot that you posted the same thing there.

 

[izzy]

As I am aware this thread is old, I feel it may be helpful to others in the future to point out a few facts based on my own experience regarding this topic.

VC22350 falls under a "presumed" limit, which in and of itself makes no sense. The purpose of this limit has nothing to do with safety, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Speed limit is defined as the maximum limit of speed allowed, hence the term 'limit'. It literally means all "speed limits" are absolute. A "presumed" speed limit does not exist. It is a legal absurdity. A non-nonsensical play on words to accomplish a malfeasance of justice under the guise of safety. Nothing more than a viable excuse intentionally calculated in it's purpose, evident by it's use, or rather abuse, in Officers ticketing drivers at or below the posted limits, regardless of conditions. Looking then to courts abuse of process, funding schedules raise questionable motive in the face of incentives. Statistical analysis of information, judgements & fee allocations also reveal the presence of conflicting interests.

The point is without existing conditions its nothing more than a ploy to generate revenue, and if no real conditions exist, it's an abusive of both legal and due process. Any judgement made is therefor void on its face by operation of law. Not voidable, but void without limitation. Look at the rules for invoking the courts jurisdiction and how they try to get around the issues of criminal offenses vs misdemeanor vs infractions, while at the same time imposing punishments in the form of fines. Extortion under color of office is more of a safety issue than victim-less infractions, not to mention a real crime.

Is ignorance of the law an excuse for unlawful acts committed by Officials?

 

[Highwayman]

The statute makes no mention of any type of speed limit.

This thread is a year old and your comment is hardly useful.

 

[izzy]

The statute makes no mention of any type of speed limit.

This thread is a year old and your comment is hardly useful.

Yes you are correct. This thread is old as I have pointed out, and then stated that maybe it can help someone in the future. And yes I can imagine it making no sense to others as my mind races with too much information sometimes. I'll clarify to keep it simple.

If someone is cited in California, or anywhere else, with "Unsafe Speed for Conditions", then the Conditions must be clearly described on the citation that constitute the alleged offense. Officers in California tend to abuse this ordinance the most, which is ridiculous if you live in Southern California where it's habitually sunny.

There must be some kind of weather or road condition(s) that would require a change in driving or speed, otherwise driving 5 to 10 mph over the presumed limit is not a violation of the presumed limit law, and Officers would be unlawfully citing drivers for violations of the prima facie posted limits in the presumed limit zones.

And since a citation is technically an arrest, an unjustified citation would be considered a false arrest, which is a common law tort. The gentleman above said his original charge was unsafe speed for conditions.

To change the charge later on to something else or find one guilty of an unrelated charge simply for a lack of evidence of the original one would certainly bring into question the validity of the violation.

My point was directed more towards the abuse of unsafe conditions where there are none. If a speed is truly unsafe, a speeding ticket would be the proper option. But for the charge of vc22350 the conditions must be described on record and the alleged speed must be proven unsafe for those conditions by the prosecution.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact and law.

How they found him guilty of excessive speed is beyond comprehension but I can guarantee it would of have been worth appealing.

As an Officer of the law, how would you feel if you found that multiple violations (some including felonies) were possibly being committed just to convict infractions? Shouldn't the law apply to everyone? The law isn't just made to punish citizens, it also serves to protect citizens from those in power who would abuse authority and misuse office to take advantage of weaker individuals. In fact, more laws apply to officials than to citizens.

Anyway, thank you for the intelligent conversation and I hope that cleared up any confusion.