MUHAHAHAHA I BEAT MY TICKET! = )
06-04-2002, 05:52 PM
#1
AudiWorld Expert
Thread Starter
MUHAHAHAHA I BEAT MY TICKET! = )
<img src="http://paul.azian.com/audi/ticket_blur.jpg">
<img src="http://paul.azian.com/audi/not_guilty.jpg">
That officer can kiss my A$$! Just that one though =) Treating like I stole the car, sob... anyways =) WOOHOO! Fought it in the mail and I won! now to wait for my 162 bucks to be refunded!
<img src="http://paul.azian.com/audi/not_guilty.jpg">
That officer can kiss my A$$! Just that one though =) Treating like I stole the car, sob... anyways =) WOOHOO! Fought it in the mail and I won! now to wait for my 162 bucks to be refunded!
06-04-2002, 06:01 PM
#4
AudiWorld Expert
Thread Starter
fought my ticket throught the mail, learned some tricks from a website(email me 4 info) and wrote
the following, mailed it in and waited.. =)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant's Name:
Case No.:
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 Mira Mesa Boulevard on 02/22/02, I was stopped by a SDPD Officer(I.D #XXXX) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 53mph in a 35mph zone based on Radar evidence showing I was traveling at 40mph as noted on my citation. I believe that I was driving at approximately 38-42 mph at the time of my stop and that 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 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Further, I believe that the posted speed of 35mph on Mira Mesa Boulevard is artificially low, reflecting an out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, may constitute an illegal Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(2) which defines an illegal radar speed trap as:"A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 Mira Mesa Boulevard 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 Mira Mesa Boulevard 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 judgement 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.
If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a Court assignment to attend traffic school.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
, Defendant in Pro Per
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant's Name:
Case No.:
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 Mira Mesa Boulevard on 02/22/02, I was stopped by a SDPD Officer(I.D #XXXX) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 53mph in a 35mph zone based on Radar evidence showing I was traveling at 40mph as noted on my citation. I believe that I was driving at approximately 38-42 mph at the time of my stop and that 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 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 Mira Mesa Boulevard 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 Mira Mesa Boulevard 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 Mira Mesa Boulevard 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 judgement 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.
If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a Court assignment to attend traffic school.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
, Defendant in Pro Per
Trending Topics
06-04-2002, 06:13 PM
#8
Member
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 3,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, Paul, that RULES.. hehe..
I only got pulled over for the first time ever two days ago, the guy just gave me a warning (made an obnoxiously fast eastward turn on to Woodside Road getting off of 280 North), but if I ever get a ticket and there's *any* room for debate, I'm asking you about it. 
-mikey
-mikey