Would you believe me if I said it is because it annoys you?
Yes, lol. Wasn't sure if typo, or I'm forgetting that much from my uni days.
Had Court this morning...
- Thread starter Caneatic
- Start date
Yes, lol. Wasn't sure if typo, or I'm forgetting that much from my uni days.
Just to update, I spent a good portion of last night building my case (as predicted), only to have the officer not show up in court this morning.
I did discover something, though. I dunno if anyone gives a shit but since I researched it and all, here is what I found...
I was cited for violating VC 22349(a), driving over the state maximum speed limit (which is 65mph). However, the highway I was on had a posted limit of 45 (I was coming off of Gerald Desmond Bridge in Long Beach, heading west). The officer had me on radar at 74mph.
The fine/bail amount was $480. I did some research, and realized that the reason that amount was so high was because the penalty and penalty assessment were calculated based on traveling 29mph beyond the speed limit. However, I was technically cited for going faster than the state maximum, so it should have been calculated for breaking the speed limit (65mph) by 9mph, and it would have been around $250 or so after all the random fees.
Doing further research, I discovered that in California, when you are cited for VC 22349(a), it is very difficult to beat because you cannot use the common speed trap defense in cases where you are cited for breaking the state maximum speed limit of 65. At least, not without making a big fuss. In the case of the people v Studley, an appellate judge decided that if you are cited for exceeding the state maximum speed limit on a non-local road with a prima facie speed limit, they still need to have the proper foundation for any speed related evidence to be admissible (traffic survey, radar calibration, etc). But whether or not the judge accepts that case law reference is probably up to their discretion.
So, my conclusion is that the LBPD regularly writes citations in this notorious speed trap (where by the way even the semi-trucks are going at least 55) and cite VC 22349(a) intentionally to make them near impossible to fight, while still calculating the fine amount as if you were cited under VC 22351 (driving in excess of prima facie speed limits).
This makes it much easier for the city to rape you with impunity.
My plan was to prove that the officer based his citation on the posted speed limit rather than the state maximum, therefore proper foundation was necessary to prosecute me. If they challenged that, I was going to show how the fine they charged me supported my case and again insist that proper foundation need be present. None of this was necessary cause the cop was probably home in bed.
Case dismissed.
Also, the idea of non-jurisdiction is fascinating to me and I will definitely be looking more into it. As Guerilla predicted, I was not prepared to make this type of case.
I did discover something, though. I dunno if anyone gives a shit but since I researched it and all, here is what I found...
I was cited for violating VC 22349(a), driving over the state maximum speed limit (which is 65mph). However, the highway I was on had a posted limit of 45 (I was coming off of Gerald Desmond Bridge in Long Beach, heading west). The officer had me on radar at 74mph.
The fine/bail amount was $480. I did some research, and realized that the reason that amount was so high was because the penalty and penalty assessment were calculated based on traveling 29mph beyond the speed limit. However, I was technically cited for going faster than the state maximum, so it should have been calculated for breaking the speed limit (65mph) by 9mph, and it would have been around $250 or so after all the random fees.
Doing further research, I discovered that in California, when you are cited for VC 22349(a), it is very difficult to beat because you cannot use the common speed trap defense in cases where you are cited for breaking the state maximum speed limit of 65. At least, not without making a big fuss. In the case of the people v Studley, an appellate judge decided that if you are cited for exceeding the state maximum speed limit on a non-local road with a prima facie speed limit, they still need to have the proper foundation for any speed related evidence to be admissible (traffic survey, radar calibration, etc). But whether or not the judge accepts that case law reference is probably up to their discretion.
So, my conclusion is that the LBPD regularly writes citations in this notorious speed trap (where by the way even the semi-trucks are going at least 55) and cite VC 22349(a) intentionally to make them near impossible to fight, while still calculating the fine amount as if you were cited under VC 22351 (driving in excess of prima facie speed limits).
This makes it much easier for the city to rape you with impunity.
My plan was to prove that the officer based his citation on the posted speed limit rather than the state maximum, therefore proper foundation was necessary to prosecute me. If they challenged that, I was going to show how the fine they charged me supported my case and again insist that proper foundation need be present. None of this was necessary cause the cop was probably home in bed.
Case dismissed.
Also, the idea of non-jurisdiction is fascinating to me and I will definitely be looking more into it. As Guerilla predicted, I was not prepared to make this type of case.
Must be a very small town. That probably won't work very well in any decently-sized city.
This is a good defense from what I can tell for your code violation:
The Ticket Assassin: Forms and Examples
I've used that site in the past to get out of tickets (carpool lane, right turn only) but I think the guy is AWOL.
I prefer trial by declaration first to avoid judge intimidation and then trial de novo if you lose.
Marc Stevens is coming out with another book soon that should help with future defenses.
The Ticket Assassin: Forms and Examples
I've used that site in the past to get out of tickets (carpool lane, right turn only) but I think the guy is AWOL.
I prefer trial by declaration first to avoid judge intimidation and then trial de novo if you lose.
Marc Stevens is coming out with another book soon that should help with future defenses.
Probably smart in general. But the judge today could not have been further from "intimidating." He was like 120 years old. Looked and sounded like Blue from Old School. He was so hard of hearing that during roll call he kept not hearing people say "here" and moved on and the bailiff had to go up there to stop him and correct him.
The bailiff got so frustrated at one point he walked over to the judge and I heard him say (in the kind of tone an adult uses with a senile parent) something like "I don't want this to happen again today, if you can't hear them you need to tell me so we can get the clerk to speak louder to you."
Good timing. I received a speeding ticket in the mail for going 105 through [redacted] County about 3 years ago. I tried to explain to them that I have never even been to California, and for purposes of this public forum I will maintain that position. I also have no idea who would have been driving a rented Challenger at such high rates of speed through their fine county with my license in their wallet. Nevertheless, since they have no jurisdiction over a Michigan drivers license I figured it would be no big deal.
Then I started getting calls from them a year or so later telling me that my license would be suspended if I didn't pay them like $600 or some shit. I explained that I didn't have a California license and that I had no idea what they were talking about, but they insisted that my Michigan license could be affected for not paying the ticket. Well, I went in to renew my license yesterday and it looks like I'm good for 4 more years just like Obama. Fuck you Cali.
Then I started getting calls from them a year or so later telling me that my license would be suspended if I didn't pay them like $600 or some shit. I explained that I didn't have a California license and that I had no idea what they were talking about, but they insisted that my Michigan license could be affected for not paying the ticket. Well, I went in to renew my license yesterday and it looks like I'm good for 4 more years just like Obama. Fuck you Cali.
Our roads are very different to yours remember.
We have roundabouts in most instances you have intersections, for example. Intersections by comparison are pretty rare here, and many could be dealt with just by telling people to merge in turn.
My local town has become ridiculous, what used to be a 10 minute drive from here to the other side of town is now often closer to 20 minutes, because you have to stop at 7-8 sets of new traffic lights.
There's one stretch of road which is probably 100-200 yards long that has 3 sets of traffic lights on it to help pedestrians cost, which is ridiculous.
The council are trying to encourage pedestrians and cycling and discourage cars, but all it's doing is turning the town into a car park during peak hours.
We have a road that's just changed from a 40mph to a 30mph speed limit too - where the houses are all a good distance from the road, there's a layby on either side and it's the width of many 60mph roads. The stupid thing is it then goes back to a 40mph limit afterwards, where the houses are all closer to the road and the road is narrower. I was talking to a police officer about it, and it turned out that several members of the council live on the road, and it was them that got it changed.. They just didn't want cars going past their houses as fast. The police force refuse to enforce the speed limit on the stretch, because they agree it's ridiculous.
Whole thing is utterly ridiculous in the UK with speed cameras/roads in general. Speed doesn't kill, bad drivers driving outside of their capabilities in the given conditions kill.