Received Illegal Speeding Ticket from alleged officer Pacing

[mightymoose]

It is worth considering that not every police car has radar installed. I drove one for several years with no radar.
That the officer paced you is not suspicious. What will matter is if it was done correctly with a calibrated vehicle and the officer was trained.

 

[flyingron]

In some departments, none of the cars have radar. They're costly to purchase and maintain.
Even if you have radar, it may not be set up for moving mode and hence pacing is the only option.

Pacing has some advantages under California law as well (no speed trap applies).

 

[Highwayman]

Could it be this? \/\/\/\/\/\/\/
View attachment 2034

If he's a "first responder" and he "averages 7 bodies a day" I'd say he's a failure.

 

[army judge]

If he's a "first responder" and he "averages 7 bodies a day" I'd say he's a failure.

My friend, that all depends on what one's personal goal might be, doesn't it?

 

[mightymoose]

I think for his line of work he is more of a second or third responder.
I would be pretty embarrassed if the mortuary ever beat me to a call.

 

[DOCwsun]

Your math doesn't work out.
7 days x 24 hrs is 168 hrs.
168 hours divided by 3 is 56
You should be getting 56 bodies per week, not 27.

7 bodies per day x 7 days in a week is 49 bodies, not twenty seven.

Per your math, you work twelve hours per day.

Sorry the 7 was a mistake. Average for me is 4 to 5 daily. I don't get paid by the hour, just each body. I'm on call 24 hours a day. Mostly just driving. Some days I get 4, others days 6, even low as 2. My most in a day was 9. Strange thing is By end of the week, it always works out to 28 to 30 a week. About 56 to 60 every two weeks. The Daily Average for deaths in Los Angeles is 110 and Orange county is 107 deaths.

 

[flyingron]

How many hours you work can only work AGAINST you. Anybody who works 24 hours is a likely a hazard on the highway.

And can the BS. I was a paramedic for many years. Never did it involve having to operate my POV in excess of the prima facie limits.

 

[DOCwsun]

I Pick-up dead human remains from Crime scenes, Hospitals, Private Homes, County Morgue and Transport the human remains from the place of death to the funeral home, cemetery, crematorium, or other designated place.

 

[Zigner]

I Pick-up dead human remains from Crime scenes, Hospitals, Private Homes, County Morgue and Transport the human remains from the place of death to the funeral home, cemetery, crematorium, or other designated place.

Then why speed? They're not going anywhere...

 

[DOCwsun]

How many hours you work can only work AGAINST you. Anybody who works 24 hours is a likely a hazard on the highway.

And can the BS. I was a paramedic for many years. Never did it involve having to operate my POV in excess of the prima facie limits.

Wasn't driving above prima facie limit. I was driving 35 mph. Cop needed to make up lie, a reason to pull me over. I had already turned my headlights on. Was in Law enforcement for 15 years, COPS lie everyday. it's one of the reasons I got out.

 

[Zigner]

Wasn't driving above prima facie limit.

You weren't cited for driving over the prima facie speed limit. You were cited for violating California's basic speed law. Driving without your lights on at ANY speed after dark could be seen as violating the basic speed law, depending on how dark it was.

I was driving 35 mph.

Great - all you'll have to do is prove that 35 mph was a reasonable and prudent speed.

Cop needed to make up lie, a reason to pull me over.

No, he didn't. He SAW that your headlights were off - it doesn't matter that you subsequently turned them on.

I had already turned my headlights on. Was in Law enforcement for 15 years

Then you should know that the cop had EVERY reason to pull you over once he saw you with your lights off.

 

[army judge]

I Pick-up dead human remains from Crime scenes, Hospitals, Private Homes, County Morgue and Transport the human remains from the place of death to the funeral home, cemetery, crematorium, or other designated place.

Someone has to do it, so bully for you, may all deceased individuals RIP, as you transport them safely to funeral home, crematory, or mortuary.

In the old west people who practiced your profession were known as undertakers for obvious reasons.

As noted above, there is no need for you to violate the traffic laws, because you probably aren't ready TODAY for someone to transport YOU to your final resting place.

You also seem like a person that doesn't want to hurt or harm other innocent travelers while you are going about your appointed rounds and professional duties.

 

[mightymoose]

Driving without your lights on at ANY speed after dark could be seen as violating the basic speed law

No. That would not fly.That would actually be an easy citation to beat if the officer admitted that basis for a speeding citation.

 

[Zigner]

No. That would not fly.That would actually be an easy citation to beat if the officer admitted that basis for a speeding citation.

Reread the California Basic Speed Law.

 

[flyingron]

The officer's assertion was that he was driving 55 in a 35. This is above the prima facie speed by quite a bit and even with the lights on, road clear and dry, it would be hard to beat. Zig is right, doing 20 over with the lights off isn't safe or prudent, and the driver was obviously not paying attention to conditions as he failed to detect the police officer until after the stop was instigated.

Now I understand that you've invented reasons why you weren't exceeding 35 in your information, but all that will LOSE at trial because the officer as an expert witness will testify that he paced you at 55, and there's nothing you've said that's compelling that this is in error.

You can carp about all you want. Your case isn't tried on the internet. I gave you in post #13 what your options are. You want something more, it will take an attorney.

 

[mightymoose]

The officer's assertion was that he was driving 55 in a 35.

He can assert all he wants, but unless this is a citation from the CHP the vehicle likely does not have speedometer calibration records and the officer likely does not have specific training regarding pacing. It would be very easy for the officer to indicate the wrong speed, especially if determined over s short distance. The OP should investigate and learn what is accepted as normal/standard procedure for pacing a vehicle to compare with the officer's testimony. Also find out if the department has a specific policy regarding the procedure.

This is above the prima facie speed by quite a bit and even with the lights on, road clear and dry, it would be hard to beat.

Not necessarily as it does not exceed the maximum speed limit. Reviewing traffic surveys may find an out of date survey for that prima facie limit.

Zig is right, doing 20 over with the lights off isn't safe or prudent

This does not mean the area was not well lit. It would behoove the OP to obtain photos of the area showing the lighting conditions at the same time of day of it is in fact a well lit area.

and the driver was obviously not paying attention to conditions as he failed to detect the police officer until after the stop was instigated.

Not necessarily true. The officer may have come from a concealed area and quickly initiated the stop for the headlights, and before matching speeds and properly pacing. A subpoena for dashcam video, if available (it likely is in that area) will reveal exactly what the officer did, the speed he traveled to close distance on the car (possibly 55), and how long he paced after matching speeds, if at all.

but all that will LOSE at trial because the officer as an expert witness will testify that he paced you at 55, and there's nothing you've said that's compelling that this is in error.

Not necessarily true. While the justifications given so far would not help much, exposing the officer's possible lack of training and possible lack of maintenance records could disqualify him as an expert regarding pacing.

You want something more, it will take an attorney

Not necessarily true. Traffic court is informal and a well prepared person can do just fine sending out a subpoena and questioning the officer on their own, although an attorney would make it easier.

It may all ultimately be for nothing, but there are valid points to raise and questions to ask regarding this scenario that could lead to a dismissal of the citation.

 

[mightymoose]

Reread the California Basic Speed Law.

There is a specific violation for failure to use headlights. You can't transform it into a speed violation. One may be cited for both, but using it in the way you suggested is impractical, and I think would be embarrassing to admit in court.

 

[Zigner]

There is a specific violation for failure to use headlights. You can't transform it into a speed violation.

It's not transforming it. The simple fact is that neither 35 nor 55 at night with the lights off is a reasonable or prudent speed. You are right - if the area was very well lit, then CVC23250 probably wouldn't apply, and only the headlight violation would apply, even if the OP turned the lights on between the time that the officer observed it and the time s/he actually made the stop.

 

[mightymoose]

Reasonable and prudent speed is determined by the conditions at the time. In this case, the time of day and likely lack of traffic and pedestrians could be in the OP's favor. What is very much in the OO's favor is that he was not exceeding the maximum limit even if the officer is correct. The officer will have to explain how the speed was unreasonable for conditions in testimony, and should be questioned about it. It is not automatic.

 

[Zigner]

Reasonable and prudent speed is determined by the conditions at the time. In this case, the time of day and likely lack of traffic and pedestrians could be in the OP's favor.

Yes, I agree.

What is very much in the OO's favor is that he was not exceeding the maximum limit even if the officer is correct. The officer will have to explain how the speed was unreasonable for conditions in testimony, and should be questioned about it. It is not automatic.

I agree that it's not automatic. I don't agree that this is in the OP's favor unless the OP has an attorney.