HW time! Help me with my TBD Guys! EDIT: I WON!!!

[Fallen86]

Hey guys! this is what i have so far, if you guys have any input please help, i'm very greatful.* I'm submitting this thing soon, so yea. Thanks


To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in regards to my trial by declaration.* I have fully paid the bail amount of $336.00 with receipt # -------- to the Superior Court of California on 04/04/2006.

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.

Statement of facts:* While paying for fuel at a Mobile Gas station on the night of 02/23/06 I was cited by Officer* :police: for allegedly traveling 70 miles per hour in a 40 miles per hour zone.

First, the speed limit on Brookhurst Street where I was allegedly speeding is 45mph, not 40mph as stated on my citation.* The prosecution should make certain of these details to avoid victimizing anyone with false facts.*

Secondly, while issuing my citation, Officer* :police: stated that he saw me speeding while he was driving on the other side of the road, and that he had to make a u-turn in order to follow me.* This fact means that there was no way that the Officer could have estimated my speed by pacing me with his car.

Thirdly, the prosecution had no other form of rating my speed such as a radar or a laser device.* *This is also shown on my citation.

This means that the officer had no legitimate estimation of my speed.

Also, 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."

Contrary to the prosecution’s allegations, I am sure that I was going at or near 50mph at the time of my citation.* According to my personal survey of the conditions and as stated on my citation, there was light traffic, it was clear out, and the road was dry.* This means that I have obeyed the basic speed law, driving at a safe and considerable speed that will lead to no harm.*

Lastly, I would like to state that there were other cars ahead of me; they were loud and they were also going faster than I was.* I believe that I was targeted for seeming like I was driving along with these other cars but in fact I was merely minding my own business and I was only a short distance from my destination.* When I was confronted by officer* :police:, I was getting ready to pay for fuel as I have stated before.* This shows that I had no intentions of speeding or joyriding in any way.*

[OmegaEvo]

WoW.... sucks.... i am gonna agree with you all the way

[speedracer2169]

Hey guys! this is what i have so far, if you guys have any input please help, i'm very greatful. I'm submitting this thing soon, so yea. Thanks


To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in regards to my trial by declaration. I have fully paid the bail amount of $336.00 with receipt # -------- to the Superior Court of California on 04/04/2006.

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.

Statement of facts: While paying for fuel at a Mobile Gas station on the night of 02/23/06 I was cited by Officer :police: for allegedly traveling 70 miles per hour in a 40 miles per hour zone.

First, the speed limit on Brookhurst Street where I was allegedly speeding is 45mph, not 40mph as stated on my citation. The prosecution should make certain of these details to avoid victimizing anyone with false facts.

Secondly, while issuing my citation, Officer :police: stated that he saw me speeding while he was driving on the other side of the road, and that he had to make a u-turn in order to follow me. This fact means that there was no way that the Officer could have estimated my speed by pacing me with his car.

Thirdly, the prosecution had no other form of rating my speed such as a radar or a laser device. This is also shown on my citation.

This means that the officer had no legitimate estimation of my speed.

Also, 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."

Contrary to the prosecution’s allegations, I am sure that I was going at or near 50mph at the time of my citation. According to my personal survey of the conditions and as stated on my citation, there was light traffic, it was clear out, and the road was dry. This means that I have obeyed the basic speed law, driving at a safe and considerable speed that will lead to no harm.

Lastly, I would like to state that there were other cars ahead of me; they were loud and they were also going faster than I was. I believe that I was targeted for seeming like I was driving along with these other cars but in fact I was merely minding my own business and I was only a short distance from my destination. When I was confronted by officer :police:, I was getting ready to pay for fuel as I have stated before. This shows that I had no intentions of speeding or joyriding in any way.



WRONG that's the wrong way to do it. Man I'm gonna help you on this one but your gonna owe me big time

[speedracer2169]

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant's Name:

Case No.: SH501413

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 south bound on Jeronimo on 03-01-2006, I was stopped by a Orange County Sheriff Officer R. Mergen (I.D.#2728) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 64mph in a 40mph zone based on Radar evidence. I believe that I was driving approximately 45-50mph 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 medium traffic. On my citation, the officer marks that the traffic was "medium." 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.
I believe that the posted speed of 40mph on Jeronimo 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 Jeronimo 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 Jeronimo is not an illegal Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b). 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."
Further, I believe that the officer's radar may have been tracking one of several cars other than mine. There were cars driving in front of me and also passing me as I proceeded down Jeronimo; the presence of these vehicles was properly attested to on my citation by Sheriff Officer R. Mergen as "Medium" traffic. The typical beam angle (spread) of police radar is 12-16 degrees, resulting in a beam width of 1 foot for every 4 feet of travel of the beam from the antennae. Therefore at 160 feet from its source, a police radar beam is typically 40 feet (four lanes) wide.
The officer noted on my citation that my radar-determined speed was 64mph from 150 feet away, a distance at which any of several cars then traveling through the officer's two-lane wide radar beam might have caused the speed indicated on the officer's unit. Due to the officer's indication of "medium" traffic and his notation that my alleged speed was determined at a 150' distance, it is clear that there is reasonable doubt as to which car's speed his radar unit was indicating.
I trust the Court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.

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.

[speedracer2169]

This is what I used for my wife in 64 in a 40 mph. I won. You just have to omit the Radar detector part. The judge doesn't care that you profiled and that were putting gas in your car. Hope this helps.

[hardcoreracing]

+1 Use speedracer's TBD as a template and fill in your own details. You don't want to say this:


Contrary to the prosecution’s allegations, I am sure that I was going at or near 50mph at the time of my citation. According to my personal survey of the conditions and as stated on my citation, there was light traffic, it was clear out, and the road was dry. This means that I have obeyed the basic speed law, driving at a safe and considerable speed that will lead to no harm.

Because you're admitting that you were exceeding the posted speed limit and in effect, admitting that you're guilty. It's like stating that a cop was telling you that you were doing 100 mph but in fact you were only doing 85. It's still over the limit, although the fine for such may be different.

[speedracer2169]

+1 Use speedracer's TBD as a template and fill in your own details. You don't want to say this:


Contrary to the prosecution’s allegations, I am sure that I was going at or near 50mph at the time of my citation. According to my personal survey of the conditions and as stated on my citation, there was light traffic, it was clear out, and the road was dry. This means that I have obeyed the basic speed law, driving at a safe and considerable speed that will lead to no harm.

Because you're admitting that you were exceeding the posted speed limit and in effect, admitting that you're guilty. It's like stating that a cop was telling you that you were doing 100 mph but in fact you were only doing 85. It's still over the limit, although the fine for such may be different.

Actually there is a formula that is used to determine the speed limit. You can go 52 mph in a 40 and you are not in violation of the basic speed law as long as the conditions allow to do so. That is when the traffic survey comes in handy that the prosecution must provide.
Here is the formula:

Most highways in California are subject to traffic surveys. Traffic surveys are done by the city engineer and are used to determine the "safe" speed of any given road. The speed of thousands of cars are measured across a monitoring device. The safe speed is the average speed that cars travel on a specific stretch of road across this device.
It is not, in itself, illegal to exceed posted limits in California in 30-50mph zones. Posted speed limits of 30-50 mph are "suggested" speeds based upon a speed survey of the road. It is only illegal to exceed these suggested speeds if road conditions make it unsafe to do so.

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."

In these cases, the officer is required to record the road conditions at the time of the stop. If it was pouring rain with heavy traffic, and you were driving 10-15mph above the posted limit, this is not safe at all and the ticket is probably quite justified. However, if the weather was clear and dry with light to medium traffic, it might be completely safe to drive at 10-15 mph above the suggested speed limit. In these cases a Basic Speed Law citation is unjustified, though most officers will write them anyway.

Motorists are easily fooled into believing that they broke the Basic Speed Law . Most officers never mention that they are citing you for driving at an "unsafe speed for conditions." The police will simply state,"You were going 50 in a 40 zone. Sign your ticket." You know that you were driving above 40pmh, so you accept the ticket, assuming that you're guilty. In reality, if your speed of 50 mph in a 40 mph zone was not endangering life and property, then driving at that speed was not illegal.

The posted speed is not the same as the safe speed. The posted speed is a "suggested" speed calculated by multiplying the safe speed by 85%. A measured safe speed of 52mph would be multiplied by 85% to get a suggested speed of 44mph (52mph X 85%= 44mph). This "suggested" speed is then rounded down to a posted speed of 40mph. It is not illegal to go above this suggested speed unless road conditions make it unsafe to do so.

In the declaration below, the motorists was cited under 22350, even though he was only traveling 33mph in a 25mph zone. With a safe speed of 32 mph and favorable road conditions, a strong argument can be made that traveling 33mph was not unsafe.

[Fallen86]

Wow for sure, thanks guys, anything else that seems weak on my part?

[909Evo]

Your sorta both right.

22348. (a) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 22351, a person shall not drive a vehicle upon a highway with a speed limit established pursuant to Section 22349 or 22356 at a speed greater than that speed limit

(b) The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.

Basically its up to YOU to prove that you were not violating basic 22350, not the cops.

HOWEVER since he charged you with 22350, and not 22348, because he was stupid, your off the hook if you can prove it is an out of date survey.

[Fallen86]

Another TBD SUCCESS Story boys! I WON! Thanks to everyone that helped my out up there! ^^

[SpdyEvo02]

Another TBD SUCCESS Story boys! I WON!

congrats

[Fallen86]

thanks man!

[BlueBooster]

Another TBD SUCCESS Story boys! I WON! Thanks to everyone that helped my out up there! ^^
Way to go!! O0

[theycallmebruce]

Hey Fallen, can you post what you finally wrote for your TBD? I am sort of confused as to why this would work if it states on the ticket that radar was not used. So did you just write you weren't breaking the basic speed law, etc. etc.?

[Fallen86]

Defendant’s Name: Fallen86
Case No.:XXXXXXXX

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in regards to my trial by declaration.* I have fully paid the bail amount of $336.00 with receipt # XXXXXXX to the Superior Court of California on 04/04/2006.

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.

Statement of facts:* While paying for fuel at a Mobile Gas station on the night of 02/23/06 I was cited by Officer XXXXX for allegedly traveling 70mph in a 40mph zone.

First, the speed limit on Brookhurst Street where I was allegedly speeding is 45mph (refer to attached pictures), not 40mph as stated on my citation.* The prosecution should make certain of these details to avoid victimizing anyone with false facts.*

Secondly, while issuing my citation, Officer XXXXX stated that he saw me speeding while he was driving on the other side of the road, and that he had to make a u-turn in order to follow me.* However, by the time he had made his u-turn I was already in the gas station.* This fact means that there was no way that the Officer could have estimated my speed by pacing me with his car.

Thirdly, as shown on my citation, the prosecution had no other form of rating my speed such as a radar or a laser device.* This means that the officer had no legitimate estimation of my speed.

Also, 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."

Contrary to the prosecution’s allegations, I am sure that I was going at or below 50mph at the time of my citation.* According to my personal survey of the conditions and as stated on my citation, there was light traffic, it was clear out, and the road was dry.* This constitutes that I have obeyed the basic speed law, driving at a safe and considerable speed that will lead to no harm.* As such, the Officer does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law.

Lastly, I would like to state that there were other cars ahead of me; they were loud and they were also going faster than I was. I was driving on the outer (right most) lane while they were closer to the center. At the same time, there are trees and signs in the middle of the road, and it was dark, possibly obstructing the Officer’s view of my side of the road (refer to attached pictures).* *I believe that I was targeted for seeming like I was speeding with these other cars but in fact I was merely minding my own business and I was only a short distance from my destination.

Due to this reasonable doubt, and the fact that the Officer does not have any legitimate means of determining my speed, I ask the Court to dismiss my citation in the interest of justice.

Otherwise, the prosecution should provide documentary proof of his use of a radar or laser device and the officer must prove, pursuant to 40802 (c)(1)(C)(i) that he established prior to issuing my citation that his radar was properly calibrated within three years to NTHSA standards.

Further, when using radar evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar is not an illegal speed trap. CVC 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."

The prosecution must also include a certified copy of the speed survey, to establish that Brookhurst Street is not an illegal Speed Trap. This is required pursuant to CVC 40803(b).* I trust the court will rule the radar evidence (if provided) inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805 if the prosecution does not provide a certified speed survey for Brookhurst Street.

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.

Enclosed are several pictures depicting what I have described regarding Brookhurst Street, where I was allegedly speeding.

Date:* April 16, 2006

Fallen86 , Defendant in Pro Per

[Fallen86]

not the greatest but it won the case!