Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 121

Thread: Trial By Declaration (How To)

  1. #1

    Trial By Declaration (How To)

    [size=24px]Trial By Declaration (TBD)[/size]

    The following FAQ is based on information I�ve leveraged from the Internet. It should serve as a step by step guide taking your through the process of accepting a ticket, requesting the TBD, and what to spend your money on after you�ve won. I have personally sent in similar declarations and won my cases, so I know the process works.

    Getting a ticket


    Okay, this is the easy part. Go out and commit a moving violation in front of a cop. Go on, you know you want to�. When a cop pulls you over, you need to remember a few things that may help defuse the situation. Most of these are self explanatory.

    1. Signal, then calmly move into a safe parked location.
    2. Turn off your car. Forget about letting your car idle down. Turn it off.
    3. If it�s night time, turn on your dome light so that the cop can see what you�re doing as he approaches the car.
    4. Have your window down and your hands either on the steering wheel or out the window with your keys in hand.
    5. Be polite, but do not admit any guilt. The cop may or may not be a dick. If he/she is, just take it up the ass for now, because it will help you greatly later if he/she does not have something to remember you by (ie your smart ass mouth).

    Okay, you did it! You got a ticket. I hope it was worth it. No lets get you off the hook.

    Requesting a Trial By Declaration

    There are two ways to request a TBD. Depending on where in the world you are located you may want to write into the courts and formally request a TBD. You can download the request forms online. I suggest you send everything certified mail so that you have a record of it. The second, easier way is to wait until you get your summons in the mail, then walk into the court house during off peak hours, find the clerks office and request it in person. He/She will give you everything you need and send you on your way.

    Note: In order to perform a TBD, you will need to pay the bail in full prior to continuing the process. So, if your ticket was for $170.00, you will need to bring in a cash, check or money order either to the clerk�s office or enclosed in your TBD request packet.

    Writing the declaration

    This obviously is the most important part of the TBD. There are a few things to understand first before getting into the meat of the declaration. First, if you had decided to plead not guilty and appear in court in person, officers are paid overtime to appear in court against you. So obviously they are motivated to do so. Also if you are appearing in court, the officer and judge may already have a repore that may work against you. Also a number of other things can obviously go wrong if you show up in person. With a TBD, on the other hand, the police are not paid anything extra. In fact, it�s just more paperwork for them. There are smart cops as well as dumb ones as you may have guess. But none of them are lawyers. My point here is that if/when they write in their side of the story; they may not be as well spoken as you. All of this will ultimately work in your favor. Do you no speaka de ingliss good? That will no longer be a problem, just use on of the examples at the end of the FAQ. You�ll need to change the names, case number and some other misc. information, but by far, these should be versatile enough for most of your scenarios.

    Once you�ve got all your paperwork together, you can walk it in to the court or mail it in. If you choose to mail the documents in, I again advise that you do so by certified mail.

    The Waiting Game

    Now that everything is set in motion, it�s time to wait. The officer is given notice of your intent to conduct a TBD and he�s given ample time to respond. You will be notified of the court date (don�t worry you don�t have to appear) when the declarations will be reviewed. Following that you�ll be notified several weeks later of the outcome. Following that, you�ll wait another 60-90 days to receive your check from the state refunding your bail.

    What if the cop is a genius and I loose

    Yeah right.

    Okay, let�s say you ignore the examples and choose to write the declaration in Egyptian Hieroglyphics and using a purple crayon (un sharpened). It�s not the end of the world. Fortunately you will be given a second chance.
    40902. (d) If the defendant is dissatisfied with a decision of the court in a proceeding pursuant to this section, the defendant shall be granted a trial de novo.
    To request a trial de novo you need to submit (in person or by mail) a Form TR-220. This is available online as either a blank form or a fillable form.
    The TR-220 must be received by the court within 20 days of the date the clerk mails you the decision.
    Once you have requested a trial de novo, you will need to prepare for your trial (unless you intend to enter a plea of "No Contest" or ask for traffic school).
    Statement of Facts

    Please feel free to use the examples below in your trial by declaration. Obviously you will need to change the names, case number and other key information. However the format and verbiage of at least one of these should be well suited for your needs.



    [size=18px]Example 1[/size]

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Simone De Beauvoir
    Case No.: S780824

    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 Sorrento Valley Road on 10-21-99, I was stopped by a SDPD Officer (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 62mph in a 45mph zone based on Radar evidence. I believe that I was driving approximately 50-55mph 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 45mph on Sorrento Valley Road 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 Sorento valley Road 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 Sorrento Valley Road 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:

    Simone De Beauvoir, Defendant in Pro Per


    [size=18px]Example 2[/size]

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Lucas Ridgeston
    Case No.: S780824

    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 west bound on Meade at 0855 on 3-17-99, I was stopped by SDPD Officer Ffrengig (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. Officer Ffrengig has alleged that I was driving approximately 33mph in a 25mph zone based on RADAR evidence. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions at the time of my stop, and was therefore not in violation of the Basic Speed Law.

    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."

    On my citation, the officer fails to note any of these relevant conditions except for traffic, which he correctly notes as "Medium." I can attest that the road was dry with clear visibility at the time of my stop. Officer Ffrengig also fails to note the Safe Speed for Meade in the appropriate space on my Notice to Appear. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions on Meade when I was stopped.

    My assertion that my speed was Safe and Reasonable for conditions is supported by the most recent Traffic and Engineering survey for Meade which gives the Safe Speed (85th percentile speed) as 32 mph, which is just 1mph different than the "approximate" speed Officer Ffrengig noted on my citation. Based on this evidence, I know that I was not in violation of the Basic Speed Law at the time and place of my citation and, pursuant to the common sense spirit of CVC 22350, contest that my speed at the time of my traffic stop was therefore not per se unlawful.

    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 Meade; the presence of these vehicles was properly attested to on my citation by Officer Ffrengig 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 33mph 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.

    Due to this reasonable doubt, and the fact that the Traffic and Engineering Survey for Meade has determined the Safe Speed to be 32mph, approximately the speed the officer claims I was traveling, I ask the Court to dismiss my citation 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:

    Lucas Ridgeston, Defendant in Pro Per


    [size=18px]Example 3[/size]

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Quentin Crisp
    Case No.: S780824

    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 Madera Street in Lemon Grove at 0830 on 10-22-98, I was stopped by Deputy Perchyll (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. Deputy Perchyll has alleged that I was driving 41mph in a 25mph zone based on RADAR evidence. In fact, I was traveling 40mph in a posted 40mph zone.

    Deputy Perchyll asserts that I was driving in a school zone with a temporary prima facie speed limit of 25mph, which is the sole basis of my citation. However, the Deputy did not cite me for driving in a prima facie school zone, CVC 22352(b)(2); he cited me for breaking the Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350. I did not break the Basic Speed Law. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions at the time of my stop, 40mph in a posted 40mph zone.

    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. No persons or property were put at risk by my driving 40mph in a posted 40mph zone. The mere act of passing a school at 40mph in a 40mph zone is not assumed to "endanger the safety of persons or property" under the Basic Speed Law. As such, the Deputy does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law at the time of my stop.

    Further, I believe that a posted speed of 40mph on Madera Street is artificially low, reflecting a possibly out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, the Deputy's use of Radar may constitute a Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(1) (traffic survey more than five years old).

    If the prosecution does not attach proof with its Written Declaration (a certified copy of the speed survey for 1700 Madera Street), to establish as part of its prima facie case, that the road I was cited on was not a Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), Speed Trap Evidence, I trust that the Court will rule the RADAR evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.

    I trust in the Court's fairness and believe that my citation should 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:

    Quentin Crisp, Defendant in Pro Per



    [size=18px]Example 4[/size]

    May 18, 2004
    Superior Court, County of Los Angeles
    1427 West Covina Parkway
    West Covina, CA 91790




    To Whom It May Concern:


    I am writing in regards to my trial by declaration. The bail amount of $111.00 has already been received by Deputy Clerk, Margaret Orban.

    On the night of March 22, 2004, I was traveling on Fullerton Rd, northbound, just south of the 60 freeway. While on Fullerton, I stopped at a traffic light at Diamond Plaza Way, just before the eastbound onramp to the 60 freeway. I was stopped behind a silver 1998-2000 Honda Accord at the time on the far right lane as the light had turned red. As the traffic light turned green, the Accord ahead of me began to accelerate, and as I normally do, I followed. While at the traffic light I also noticed a police unit parked with its parking lights on, at the Shell gas station at the corner of Fullerton and Diamond Plaza Way. As I approached the gas station, I noticed the lights of the police unit turn on and begin moving forward, well before I had passed in front of the police unit. As I passed in front of the police unit, I had noticed that he had pulled to the exit of the gas station, and continued to follow me up the onramp of the 60 freeway heading eastbound. About 500ft up the ramp, the officer turned on his light bar, at which time I pulled to the right to the emergency lane and stopped my vehicle. I was confused as to why I was pulled over, and asked the officer as he approached my vehicle. His response to me was that �Your exhaust is too loud.� After which he requested my license and registration and gave me my citation.

    I believe that there is reasonable doubt as to Officer Arruda�s judgement in regards to the indicated exhaust violation stated by the CVC code 21750.

    Firstly, I have attached a certification from the State Referee Station in Chaffey College, indicating that the exhaust noise level of my vehicle does meet the legal limit of 95dB. The certificate indicated the exhaust noise level of my vehicle to be at 93dB, below that of the 95dB limit as set by the testing methods indicated by the CCR, Title 13, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 9 in regards to CVC 27150.

    Secondly, I believe that Officer Arruda may have mistaken the exhaust noise he heard from the Accord�s for my car. While at the traffic light, I had noticed the Accord having a large dual exhaust system. I believe that Officer Arruda may have heard the exhaust noise coming from that vehicle, as I noticed him pull his car to the exit of the gas station as the Accord was passing in front of him, and right before I passed in front of him. The modified exhaust on that vehicle was about the same sound volume, if not louder, than mine, and I believe that if Officer Arruda had began to move his vehicle before I had passed him, there is a high probability that he mistook the exhaust noise of the Accord�s as my vehicle�s.

    I have enclosed 3 additional pages I would like admitted as evidence: a copy of the receipt for service at the Chaffey College Referee Station, a copy of the Referee Station Vehicle Inspection Report, and a copy of the Certificate indicating vehicle exhaust noise compliance affixed to the back of the issued Notice to Appear citation.


    Thank you,


    Adam West
    (Mayor)

  2. #2
    Evo Specialist WavMixer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    SGV
    Posts
    3,433
    Cars
    '05 GSR

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    *EDIT*
    The document below was used successfully to fight my case with TBD. I WON!!!


    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am writing in regards to my trial by declaration. The bail amount of $186.00 has already been received by Santa Clarita Court, receipt # xxxxxxxxx on 12/2/05.

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

    On November 11th I was ticketed for allegedly traveling at 69mph in a 50mph zone. I believe that I was driving approximately 55-60mph 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."

    On my citation, the officer fails to note any of these relevant conditions including traffic, which would be correctly described as "Light to Medium." I can attest that the road was dry with clear visibility at the time of my stop. Officer Banks also fails to note the Safe Speed for Sierra Highway in the appropriate space on my Notice to Appear. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions on Sierra Highway when I was stopped. No persons or property were put at risk by my driving. 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 50mph on Sierra Highway 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 Sierra Highway 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. 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 include a certified copy of the speed survey, to establish that Sierra Highway is not an illegal Speed Trap. This is required pursuant to CVC 40803(b).* I trust the court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805 if the prosecution does not provide a certified speed survey for Sierra Highway.

    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." This code confirms that the officer's radar evidence should be inadmissible without verification of the speed survey.

    CVC40802(c)(1)(A) states: When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).

    Further, I believe that the officer's radar may have targeted one of several cars other than mine.
    There was a vehicle passing me as I drove down Sierra Highway, however he suddenly applied his brakes, just before we passed officer Banks in the parked radar unit. As a result of the other cars rapid braking I was going faster when passing the parked patrol car. When I noticed the other car braking hard and saw the parked patrol car ahead of me, I looked at my speedometer and it was reading approximately 56-58. Although I was going above the posted speed limit, I believe that the other car gave triggered the radar reading of 69mph.

    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 80 feet from its source, a police radar beam is typically 20 feet (two lanes) wide. Either of the cars then traveling through the officer's multi-lane wide radar beam might have caused the speed indicated on the officer's unit. I believe that this provides reasonable doubt as to which vehicle was actually targeted going 69mph.

    The officer should provide documentary proof to the court that he successfully completed this radar operator course certified and approved by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. If the officer does not submit proof with his declaration that he successfully completed this minimum 24-hour course in accordance with CVC40802(c)(1)(A), my case should be dismissed. His use of RADAR is not legal without this course, and his RADAR evidence is inadmissible. I urge the court to not accept hearsay testimony in lieu of documentary evidence to verify course completion. If the course was completed, documentary proof should be provided.

    CVC40802(c)(1)(D) requires that:* The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility.

    The Officer should provide documentary proof that his RADAR meets or exceeds National Highway Traffic Administration Standards in accordance with CVC40802(c)(1)(D). At minimum, the officer should provide documents to the court proving that his RADAR has been calibrated within 3 years by an independent certified testing or calibration facility pursuant to CVC40802(c)(1)(D). If the officer cannot provide this evidence to the court, his RADAR evidence is inadmissible and my case should be dismissed.

    I urge the court to not accept hearsay testimony in lieu of documentary evidence to verify required radar calibration. If the calibration was completed, documentary proof should be provided.* *Further, the officer should prove that the testing facility was certified and independent from the police department.

    Finally, 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.

    This standard is stated clearly in the code, which establishes that a conviction is not warranted unless The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of subparagraph (D). If the officer does not prove this standard, my case should be dismissed.

    The purpose of the strict legal standards in police use of radar is to prevent abuse of this technology through poorly trained operators or defective uncalibrated equipment. These should be considered minimum standards by the court in protecting defendants against the power of the state. I respectfully ask the court to uphold these minimum standards of protection.

    The officer must provide documentary proof to verify the required standards of his radar equipment and operator training. If these legal standards are not each properly and fully documented, I urge the court to dismiss my citation in the interest of justice. Please do not accept hearsay statements in lieu of documentary evidence.

    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.

    _____________________
    Wav Mixer

  3. #3

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)



    [size=18px]Example 5[/size]

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Peter Griffen
    Case No.: 534806EH

    I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 21550A.

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on John F Kennedy Dr. on 12-14-05, I was stopped by a SDPD Officer (I.D.#2963) and was charged with violating CVC 21550A. The Officer has alleged that I had failed to yield in a pedestrian crosswalk. I believe that as I approached the intersection, there were no pedestrians visible.

    CVC 21950 (A) states: "The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter."

    As I approached the intersection, there were no signs of pedestrians entering or waiting to enter the crosswalk. At the time of my stop, the Officer stated that I had not yielded to a pedestrian preparing to enter the crosswalk an indicated the position on the sidewalk. This position however would not have been visible to me as I approached due to an SUV parked at the curb.

    CVC 21950 (B) states: "This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk."

    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: March 16, 2006

    Peter Griffen, Defendant in Pro Per

  4. #4

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    Okay guys, this one is embarassing and amazing at the same time.
    Embarassing, due to how poorly the case was built.
    Amazing that it was actually dismissed!

    A friend of mine made an illegal turn coming off a freeway exit ramp. (one of those no turns on red). Then he turns into a gas station where a cop was, busy picking he nose and dusting donut droppings off his lapel. The cop sites him and that's about the end of it.

    I'm used to writing TBDs for speeding, but I've done one or two other moving violations using a similar format and bits and pieces of facts/clauses that I can find online. <-- I'm not very original.

    So without going into the details of where I found this, I'll just post this TBD for an illegal turn against a traffic control device (more or less).


    [size=18px]Example 6[/size]

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Kakarot
    Case No.: 0U812

    I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22101.

    The facts of my case are as follows: While refueling my vehicle at the Unical station on January 10, 2006, I was approached by a SDPD Officer (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22101. The Officer has alleged that I turned illegally onto National Blvd from the Westbound 10 freeway exit. At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with light traffic. I believe that the turn was made legally and safely for the prevailing conditions.

    CVC 21100(b) states: "Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the following matters:
    (b) Regulating traffic by means of official traffic control devices meeting the requirements of Section 21400."


    CVC 21450 restricts colors used in official traffic control devices to red, yellow, and green only.

    The officer considered a posted sign to qualify as a traffic control device. However in this case, it does not adhere to standards outlined above for this citation. As such, the Officer does not make a credible case that I was in violation of CVC 22101.

    I trust the Court will rule the posted sign does not qualify as a traffic control device as described in the CVC code(s) and dismiss my case.

    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:

    Kakarot (SSJ4), Defendant in Pro Per

  5. #5

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    Quote Originally Posted by ultraflip
    can someone please post a TBD for exceeding 100mph??
    cvc 22348?

    regards
    flip
    Cris:

    100+ normally requires an appearance in court, so please check your ticket and the paperwork that comes in the mail. Otherwise, I'll do what I can to help AND/or you should contact Grant/WavMixer as he fought a similar case for his son recently.

  6. #6

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    This is one of my more recent TBDs. It's based on the old one, and is currently being used to fight a ticket involving an aircraft. Thanks to several members for helping me out with this.

    Blaze

    [size=18px]Example 6[/size]


    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Meg Griffen
    Case No.: 93263BV

    I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22349.

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on I5 on 05-04-06, I was stopped by a CHP Officer (I.D.#15353) and was charged with violating CVC 22349. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 85mph in a 65mph zone based on Aircraft evidence. I believe that I was driving approximately 70mph 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. No persons or property were put at risk.

    Further, I believe that the method in which my speed was evaluated is subject to error and, may constitute an illegal Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(2).

    40801. States that “No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.”

    40802. (a) Describes a "speed trap" as “A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.”

    40803. (a) “No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speedtrap.”

    40804. (a) “In any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, any officer or other person shall be incompetent as a witness if the testimony is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speed trap.”

    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."

    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: September 9, 2006

    Meg Griffen
    Defendant in Pro Per

  7. #7

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    Blze, if you don't mind, I'd like to post what the law enforcement officer's declaration looks like. This will give TBDers an idea of what they are up against and to help them how to frame their defenses.

    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/tr235.pdf

  8. #8

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze
    That information would be better if it contained the officer's written declaration.
    I understand they are attending special writing classes now a days....

    See if you can scan the image of the pdf and post THAT. It'd be easier for people to read in case they don't have adobe loaded on their machines.

    Good find,

    Blaze
    I've got one. I don't have a scanner though ... what the hell, I will type it out word for word, officer mistakes bolded and italicized, plus some personal comments:

    December 2, 2004

    Central Justice Center
    P.O. Box 1138
    Santa Ana, California 92702-1138
    ATTN: Alan Slater, Deputy Clerk

    Re: OR 933XXX / Trail by Declaration

    Dear Officer of the Court,

    I, Donald Fatty, am employed by the Orange Police Department as a Police Officer and have been so employed for the last thirteen years. I am currently assigned to the Traffic Division where my duties primarily include the enforcement of the state traffic laws and the investigation of traffic collisions. I have been assigned to the Traffic Division for the last six years.

    On Sat July, 24,2004, at approximately 2:30 p.m., [Ticket said 3:30 p.m.] I was on duty, in uniform and on a marked police motorcycle. I was monitoring traffic speeds for east and westbound traffic for Collins Av approximately 400 feet west of Roberto, in the city limits of Orange. The posted speed limit for this section of roadway is posted at 35 MPH. A City of Orange Roadway Conditions Survey Summary, which was conducted in August 2003, shows the 85th percentile to be 39 MPH and the survey expires in August 2008. While parked on the south side of Collins Ave. I saw a blue colored 2003 Mitsubishi Evol Calif. License 5GESXXX traveling W/B Collins Ave., in the #1 lane of W/B traffic. I made a visual estimation of the vehicles speed of 55 MPH and then activated my vindicator radar gun (serial # 5275) at the subject vehicle, which displayed a speed of 54 MPH.

    From my position of observation, I had a clear and unobstructed view of the vehicle as he continued to travel westbound on Collins Ave., past my position. The Mitsubishi passed another vehicle as it sped past [Nice dramatic effect], I then pulled out from my position after the Mitsubishi, activated my emergency lights, and followed the subject vehicle westbound Collins Ave. Due to the speed of the Mitsubishi I did not catch up with it until after it had turn north on Wanda Rd. [This is cop BS for dramatic effect. He lit me up as I was stopped at a red light at the corner before I turned.] The Mitsubishi finally [Yes, finally! 15 seconds later. LOL] yielded along the east curb line of Wanda Rd, a north/south street, approximately 800 feet north of Collins.

    I contacted the driver of the Mitsubishi, who identified himself as Billy Joe Speeder by his California Driver's License. The registration on the vehicle showed Mr. Speeder as the registered owner of the vehicle.

    July 1, 1999 [LOL. This is the start of page 2. The date sort of proves the officer uses the same template over and over, changing only the details.]

    I asked Mr. Speeder if he knew why I had stopped him and he said "no." I asked if he knew what the speed limit on Collins was he said, "45." [Blatant lie. What I said was "Yes I do."]

    I subsequently issued Mr. Speeder citation # ORC 933XXX for the violation of CVC 22350: Unsafe Speed. Mr Speeder signed the respective citation, promising to appear in court, and I gave him a copy.

    This declaration and the statements herein are true to the best of my knowledge, having in mind the laws of the State of California, and the sworn oath of the Court.[This statement obviously means nothing. The cop lied for effect.]

    Respectfully Submitted,

    Corporal Donald E. Fatty #9XX
    Police Officer

    ****************************
    I lost this Trial By Declaration, despite the judge having a copy of the ticket with the time discrepancy, and despite the officer writing and punctuating like a moron. As you can see, the officers will lie and use dramatic effect to sway the judge.

    The Trial De Novo was a different story, as I used this very declaration against him in court. It was humiliating for the officer, to say the least.

    Remember, their declarations are public record, so you can always get them for use in your Trial De Novo

    -nurb2-

  9. #9
    Evo Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    SFV
    Posts
    5,571
    Cars
    Audi S4

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    Quote Originally Posted by lost0138
    its hard to use CVC 40802(a)(2) for me .. the cop said he paced me . i guess my only argument is that i was withen the basic speed law. lol any ideas on this one? i am going to try to type it out tonight.
    I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22349(a).
    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving northbound on Interstate 395, just south of CA-203., in moderate traffic on 1/12/2007 at approximately 10:15PM, I was stopped by Officer Baumann (Serial# 812) from the Sheriff’s Department and charged with violating CVC 22349(a), 80+ MPH in a 65mph zone.
    I know that I was not traveling 80+mph and that my speed was safe and reasonable for conditions. I asked Officer Baumann if I could see his radar gun to see if I was traveling above 80+MPH, but Officer Baumann says he did not have a radar gun in his vehicle and he said that he had paced me. As such, I know that the officer’s paced guess was inaccurate. Also, there were several cars that passed me within minutes of my being stopped. At night, the officer could have easily mistaken any one of these speeders for my vehicle after they passed me, then switched into my lane, blocking the officer's view. It is possible he spotted another car from a distance, but lost sight of it in traffic as he sped up. This would be quite possible in the reduced visibility of night. There were certainly several cars that passed me in the minutes prior to the officer stopping me.
    As a method of determining speed, pacing is notoriously inaccurate. Close pacing over an extended distance is the only reasonable way to mitigate the inaccuracies of pacing. I don't believe the officer's alleged "pace" is anything more that his speed of acceleration in coming up from behind me. He certainly was not behind me for long. At about 1/4 mile back, I saw him approach me rapidly and checked my speedometer. My speed was approximately 65 mph and I maintained my speed and lane to allow him to pass.
    I know the number he cited is at least 15mph faster than I was driving. I expect the officer to provide proof of recent speedometer calibration for the court to even consider his speedometer reading as evidence. Please dismiss my case outright if the officer does not provide recent speedometer calibration data for the patrol vehicle Officer Baumann was driving on the night I was stopped. Without valid verification of speedometer calibration of the patrol vehicle used to stop me, my case should be dismissed for lack of evidence.
    Ultimately, whatever the accuracy of his speedometer, his pace is still nothing more than the speed he was traveling. The relation of his speed to my speed is speculative, and in this case, quite inaccurate.
    The officer failed to verify his speculation about my speed with any direct evidence, like radar. I know that my speed was approximately 65 when he was close behind me.
    The officer’s case is based on multiple guesses. The officer’s first guess about my speed is based upon his own speed, possibly skewed higher by his acceleration. His second guess was that it was my vehicle he saw speeding from a distance. In traffic with low visibility due to darkness, it would be quite easy to lose sight of his initial target and confuse my car with the vehicle he first sighted. Considered together, the officer’s guesses cast far too much doubt on the accuracy of his evidence.
    I don't believe that the officer's evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Please dismiss my citation 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 that this statement is true and correct.
    Graphic/Interior Design,Branding &amp;amp; Identities, Invitations <br />www.nomadic-nomads.com

  10. #10

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    thanks :) that one helped me out, i was kinda stumped at the moment , hope this works.

    heres what i am going to try. i will let you guys know if it worked, i took a little bit from different letters to put this one togethor. thanks for the help
    john doe
    Case No.: 1234

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am writing in regards to my trial by declaration.

    I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.
    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.Officer Barslund also fails to note the Safe Speed for Imperial Highway in the appropriate space on my Notice to Appear. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions on Imperial Highway when I was stopped.

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving southbound on Imperial Hwy, just south of Placentia Ave, In light traffic on 3/05/2007 at approximately 2:01 AM .I was stopped by Officer Barslund (Serial# 1569) from the Brea Police Department and charged with violating CVC 22350 65 MPH in a 45mph zone.I know that I was not traveling 65mph and that my speed was safe and reasonable for conditions. I asked Officer Barslund if I could see his radar gun to see if I was traveling above 65MPH, but Officer Barslund says he did not have a radar gun in his vehicle and he said that he had paced me. As such, I know that the officer’s paced guess was inaccurate. Also, I don't believe the officer's alleged "pace" is anything more that his speed of acceleration in coming up from behind me. He certainly was not behind me for long. At about 1/4 mile back , I saw him approach me rapidly and checked my speedometer. My speed was approximately 45mph and I maintained my speed and lane to allow him to pass.I know the number he cited is at least 20mph faster than I was driving. I expect the officer to provide proof of recent speedometer calibration for the court to even consider his speedometer reading as evidence. Please dismiss my case outright if the officer does not provide recent speedometer calibration data for the patrol vehicle Officer Barslund was driving on the night I was stopped. Without valid verification of speedometer calibration of the patrol vehicle used to stop me, my case should be dismissed for lack of evidence .Ultimately, whatever the accuracy of his speedometer, his pace is still nothing more than the speed he was traveling. The relation of his speed to my speed is speculative, and in this case, quite inaccurate. The officer failed to verify his speculation about my speed with any direct evidence, like radar. I know that my speed was approximately 45 when he was close behind me.The officer’s case is based on multiple guesses. The officer’s first guess about my speed is based upon his own speed, possibly skewed higher by his acceleration. His second guess was that it was my vehicle he saw speeding from a distance. In traffic alhough light but low visibility due to darkness, it would be quite easy to lose sight of his initial target and confuse my car with the vehicle he first sighted. Considered together, the officer’s guesses cast far too much doubt on the accuracy of his evidence.I don't believe that the officer's evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Please dismiss my citation 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 that this statement is true and correct.
    www.myspace.com/lostos<br />

  11. #11
    Evo Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    SFV
    Posts
    5,571
    Cars
    Audi S4

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    HOW TO: FIGHT A PARKING TICKET WHEN NO PARKING SIGN IS NOT POSTED IN A "CONSPICUOUS PLACE"

    Applies to City of Los Angeles, but could apply to other cities/agencies:

    http://www.lacity-parking.org/laopm/contest.htm

    Service: Contesting a Ticket
    Description: Contesting a ticket is a three-step process
    Administrative Review
    Administrative Hearing
    Appeal

    Telephone: Please call the number below to request an Administrative Review.

    or
    Mail: Please send a letter to the address below to request an Administrative Review. Please state the grounds upon which you are contesting the ticket. Write the citation number on the letter or refrence the received citation.
    You MUST contest your citation within 21 days of the date the ticket was issued, or 14 days from the date on the first overdue notice.

    Phone (866)561-9742
    TTY: (213)623-7046
    Mail Correspondence: City of Los Angeles
    P.O. Box 30247
    Los Angeles, CA. 90030-0968



    My Administrative Review i wrote thru the mail:

    August 1, 2008
    Attachment: 1
    City of Los Angeles-Parking Violations Bureau Initial Review Request

    For defendant:
    Skiracer
    1111 Crenshaw Blvd.
    Los Angeles, CA
    Citation# 123456789

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I am contesting the citation number listed above which I received on 8/1/2008 at 8:03AM which my car was parked at or near “X2405 Crenshaw Blvd.” according to the citation.

    Attached photograph A shows a sign 30-40 feet East of my parking location stating “No Parking 8 to 12 Noon Thursdays Only Street Sweeping”, but the sign is obscured by tree branches and leaves and was not in a “conspicuous” location as CVC 22507.6 states below and can only be read when you move the tree branches and leaves.

    CVC 22507.6 states, “Local authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit or restrict the parking or standing of vehicles on designated streets or highways, or portions thereof, for the purpose of street sweeping…No such ordinance or resolution shall be effective until the street or highway, or portion thereof, has been sign-posted in accordance with the uniform standards and specifications of the Department of
    Transportation, or local authorities have caused to be posted in a CONSPICUOUS place at each entrance to the street a notice not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size, with lettering not less than one inch in height, setting forth the day or days and hours parking
    is prohibited.”

    Attached photograph B shows a close up shot of the No Parking sign covered by tree branches and leaves and is clearly not in a conspicuous location.

    The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word “conspicuous” as:
    1 : obvious to the eye or mind <conspicuous changes>
    2 : attracting attention : striking <a conspicuous success>
    3 : marked by a noticeable violation of good taste
    Synonyms: see Noticeable
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspicuous

    I am requesting my ticket be dismissed on the grounds that the No Parking Sign was not in a conspicuous/obvious location per CVC 22507.6 and not clearly visible from the street due to tree branches and leaves obscuring the visibility of the sign.

    Regards,





    Skiracer







    Graphic/Interior Design,Branding &amp;amp; Identities, Invitations <br />www.nomadic-nomads.com

  12. #12

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    can i send in a TBD before i recieve a courtesy notice or must i wait until i recieve one (to know the amount of bail to include with the TBD)?

  13. #13

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    Quote Originally Posted by lakerraider
    can i send in a TBD before i recieve a courtesy notice or must i wait until i recieve one (to know the amount of bail to include with the TBD)?
    It's best if you wait.

    If you send in the paperwork or walk into the clerks office before the department has submitted their paperwork, the courts will have no record of you. If the TBD is not paired with a case, it could be discarded. Eventually this would lead to your FTA (failure to appear) and a bench warrant.

  14. #14

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    So guys... I got a ticket going 55mph in a 45mph zone . He didnt get me on radar, so i am basically fighting his judgement of his visual estimation of my traveling speed. He also mention that traffic was medium, but it was actually super light cuz it was 1am. Gimme some idea....thanks
    400+whp Subie Power

  15. #15
    Experienced kungfudevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    105
    Cars
    '08 X GSR

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    Anyone got one of these for a speeding ticket that was caught with a laser gun? :?
    Do-Luck status

  16. #16
    Canyon Racer
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lynwood, CA
    Posts
    1,601
    Cars
    2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX, 1985 Toyota Corolla SR5, 2002 Mitsubishi Lancer LS, 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan SE

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    i think im gonna need help Blaze!!!
    Freddy Penaloza
    Follow me on Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram!

  17. #17
    Canyon Racer
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Riverside, California, United States
    Posts
    2,186

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    freddy ive fought every ticket by TBD n won all except one, but in my opinion i didnt win that one becuz i submitted 2 TBD for different infractions in the same day and they were both read by the same judge....ftmfl....but yea let me know if u need any help
    I&#039;M HERE FOR A GOOD TIME, NOT A LONG TIME.

  18. #18
    Canyon Racer
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lynwood, CA
    Posts
    1,601
    Cars
    2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX, 1985 Toyota Corolla SR5, 2002 Mitsubishi Lancer LS, 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan SE

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    fo sho, im expected to show up on 10/1/09 for it. i wanna get started on it early.
    Freddy Penaloza
    Follow me on Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram!

  19. #19
    Canyon Racer
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Riverside, California, United States
    Posts
    2,186

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    first thing freddy if u plan to fight it by TBD, by time on ur court case, go to the court about 2 weeks prior to the day and say u need to get an extension, i believe ur allowed 1 or 2 2 month extensions....n then use in this law enforcement section on how to write one, change all the info to ur specific case....n change some wording around that be it....but with TBD u need to pay ur bail amount in full then ull get a letter in the mail shortly after the judge read both sides as to the verdict, now even if u lose in the TBD u can request to go to traffic school if u lose, then that way ur good....
    let me know if u need any more help big homie
    I&#039;M HERE FOR A GOOD TIME, NOT A LONG TIME.

  20. #20
    Canyon Racer
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lynwood, CA
    Posts
    1,601
    Cars
    2006 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IX, 1985 Toyota Corolla SR5, 2002 Mitsubishi Lancer LS, 2018 Volkswagen Tiguan SE

    Re: Trial By Declaration (How To)

    thanks son. that info helps alot
    Freddy Penaloza
    Follow me on Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram!

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •