Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: How to Trial By Declaration w/ examples (MODS can we sticky this)

  1. #1

    How to Trial By Declaration w/ examples (MODS can we sticky this)

    Step One: Submit a Written Not Guilty Plea

    To contest your citation without a single court appearance, you must first send the court a Written Not Guilty Plea. This will save the time and hassle of appearing in court to plead not guilty in person. In the Written Not Guilty Plea, you should also request a Trial by Written Declaration to avoid the inconvienence of a court trial.

    Legal Requirements: Written Not Guilty Plea

    You must include the full bail amount indicated on your "courtesy" notice when submitting a Written Not Guilty Plea. If you mail your plea, it must be postmarked at least five days prior to your appearance date via certified or registered mail. This appearance date is indicated on the bottom of your ticket. If you have less than five days left before your appearance date, you can still deliver your Written Not Guilty Plea to the court in person.


    Written Not Guilty Example

    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  2. #2

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    Step Two: Specific Trial By Declaration Examples

    Upon receipt of your Written Not Guilty Plea, the court will send you a blank TR205: Trial By Written Declaration form. Fill this out using the examples below. To maximize your odds of success, FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS CLOSELY.

    These forms are meant to be used as "boilerplates" (templates) to help you quickly and easily assemble your statement of facts. The documents are examples of written declarations that our friends have used to win their case or get a significant fine reduction. You may or may not have the same result. Either way, it's your responsibility to fill out the forms correctly, submit them on time and to the correct address with the proper bail amount. Good luck.
    Step 1
    Open your favorite word processing program (Word Perfect, Microsoft Word, etc.).
    Step 2 On the documents page, find the declaration you want to use, and open up that document.
    Step 3 Select the text of the declaration (everything below "Statement of Facts")
    Step 4 Copy the text (control-C for Windows, apple-C for our Mac friends).
    Step 5 Go to your word processing program, and paste the text into an empty (new) word processing document (control-V for Windows, apple-V for Mac).
    Step 6

    Change the facts of the declaration to fit your case (case number, your name, officer's name, time and date of the citation, the road you were cited on, etc.). In this way, you can customize your declaration to fit the unique circumstances of your case using the example as a template.

    Be sure to remove any details not specific to your case. I repeat: Be sure to remove any details not specific to your case. THIS IS IMPORTANT! You don't want any template facts inadvertently appearing on your declaration. This would seriously undermine your credibility and decrease your chance of success.

    Do not include irrelevant information (i.e. your past good driving, how pissed you are about being cited, your opinions about the cops' "attitude" or anything else that might indicate that you may be abusing prescription drugs). Keep your declaration simple, short, and to the point.

    Proof read your customized declaration aloud. Make sure to include all relevant facts of your unique case. Have a friend read your finished document to catch any errors you may have missed.
    Step 7 Take your blank Trial By Written Declaration form---TR205 (the one the court sent you) and fill all relevant spaces neatly and in print. On the back, under 6."Statement of Facts", write: "Please see attachments."

    Step 8 In the space "Number of pages attached," write the number of pages you are attaching to the TR-205.



    Step 9 Sign and date BOTH the TR205 Trial By Written Declaration form and your attached Statement Of Facts.
    Step 10

    Mail the court your Trial By Written Declaration form and Statement Of Facts. Your full bail should have been submitted with your written not guilty plea. ( Some courts allow your written declaration to count as your written not guilty plea: in these cases, submit bail with your written declaration.) Mail all documents at least five days prior to your due date via certified mail, return receipt requested. Don't forget to ask for a RETURN RECEIPT: this is your proof of delivery.

    Still confused? Get some rest, then read the instructions again. Still baffled? Send us an e-mail here.

    Cross your fingers, rub your rabbit's foot or work those rosary beads, because you have a decent chance of winning. Even if you used the five-second "idiot's" defense, you stand about a 30% chance of having your citation dismissed (30% of the time the officer does not respond, and the case is dismissed for lack of prosecution).

    In a few weeks, the court will mail you a verdict.
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  3. #3

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    If you lose your case:

    If you lose your Trial by Written Declaration case and want to continue the fight, all is not lost. You have twenty days to demand a new trial by sending in a Trial De Novo form. This new trial is a second opportunity to win your case with an in-person court trial. A Trial de Novo is a legal right in Written Declaration cases only.

    If you don't have time for a Trial de Novo, you can still keep your driving record clean by attending traffic school. Upon completion of traffic school, your conviction is set aside and your citation is dismissed.
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  4. #4

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    What is Trial De Novo?

    CVC 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."
    The Basics

    The above law guarantees the defendant in a Trial by Written Declaration a new trial if he is not satisfied with the judges decision (i.e. if he's found Guilty in the Trial by Written Declaration). The trial de novo is an in-person court trial at which both the defendant and citing officer must appear in person. All your Constitutional rights are in effect at the new trial including the right to confront and cross-examine the citing officer and the right to produce witnesses and evidence in your behalf.

    If you did not choose a Trial by Written Declaration when contesting, but instead proceeded directly to a court trial, you are not entitled to a new trial.

    A trial de novo is a legal right only for those defendants that first completed a Trial by Written Declaration. This is the great advantage of doing a Trial by Written Declaration; you are legally entitled to a new trial simply because you are unhappy with the judge's decision. No where else in criminal law is the defendant legally entitled to a new trial simply because he's unhappy about the outcome of the first trial.

    Deadline

    Though the law does not set a specific deadline by which one must submit a request for "trial de novo" (a new trial), most traffic courts have adopted a time limit of 20 days from the mailing date of their decision. Trial by Written Declaration Judgement is Fully Voided

    Demand for a new trial effectively voids the entire Trial by Declaration decision, including parts of the decision you may have liked such as a bail reduction and/or assignment to traffic school. For example: If the judge found you guilty but reduced your bail from $346 to $100, your request for a new trial will reset your bail back to the maximum amount of $346. If your are found guilty at the new trial, the second judge may not choose to reduce your bail. Take this into account before requesting a new trial.

    Trial de Novo: You Must Appear In Person

    You must appear in person for your new trial at the time and place designated by the court. You're trial de novo can not be another mailed Trial by Written Declaration. However, you can simply bring a copy of your original Written Declaration statement to court and read it aloud to the new judge, or hand it to him to read.Continuance on Trial de Novo

    You may request a continuance to postpone your trial date; most courts require at least 10 days notice prior to the trial date to grant a continuance. The arresting officer who cited you must also appear to testify; if he does not appear your case is typically dismissed.

    Send Request Via Certified Mail

    Send your motion for trial de novo via certified mail, return receipt requested. This way the court can not deny having received your request. Since a "failure to appear" is a serious offense that can result in license suspension and even jail time, all correspondence to the court should be via certified mail.Traffic School

    If a "guilty" verdict is rendered without the mention of an assignment to traffic school and you'd like to attend, you may use this motion for a new trial to "negotiate" a traffic school assignment from the court in lieu of continuing to contest. You can request a new trial, then go to court well before the trial date and ask for traffic school. The court may then assign you to traffic school to lighten its case load. Even if you go forward with a new trial and lose, many judges will still assign you to traffic school.

    Example:

    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  5. #5

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    21453: Automated Red-Light Enforcement Ticket

    • Example one: calculation shows light still yellow (best for violations of less than one second).

    OUR STRATEGY: This declaration may look unbelievably complicated, but it really isn't. One of the big problems people have in defending themselves against an automated enforcement ticket is that the underlying math involved seems so difficult, that their brain shuts down and retreats to that lonely stupid place that brains go when confronted with numbers.

    Well kids, its time to strap on a pair of math cajones and figure how hard Lockheed Martin is screwing you with their evil cyclopean robots. Bottom line about all this math: you can trigger the cameras even though you legally crossed the limit line on yellow. How? The embedded sensors that trigger the camera are ahead of the limit line, which can cause a vehicle crossing the line on yellow to still be photographed and cited for crossing the sensors on red. Even the "statement of technology" offered by Big Brother fails to mention that the triggering sensors are ahead of the limit line.

    A decent argument can be made that drivers cited for running a red light by 0.2 to 1.0 seconds actually began legally crossing the limit line on yellow but triggered the camera with their back tires as the light turned red.


    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Virginia Woolf
    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 21453(c).

    On 9/8/99 at approximately 11:35, I entered the intersection of Garnet Ave at Mission Bay Drive in Pacific Beach. The light was clearly yellow when I crossed the near side limit line as I entered the intersection. CVC 21453(c) states: A driver facing a steady red arrow... shall stop at a clearly marked limit line... ." The arrow was still yellow when I crossed the limit line; I did not violate this law.

    The automated enforcement notice I received provides two data boxes with information about my alleged offense. The first box is the most important, as it records how long the light was red before my vehicle passed over the embedded sensors in the road. CVC 21453(c) mentions the limit line only: it makes no mention of embedded sensors. I know I crossed the limit line on yellow; the sensors are another issue.

    The embedded sensors are not located under the limit line. If they had been, a picture would have never been taken since I crossed the limit line on yellow, not red. The sensors are located in front of the limit line at the entrance to the intersection. As a result, the first data box is only indicating how long the light was red when I crossed over the sensors, which are well ahead of the limit line: the data does not indicate that the light was red when I crossed the limit line.

    Two formulas are provided in the "statement of technology" issued with the ticket. 1) 1.47ft (distance traveled per second for each mile per hour) X speed of your vehicle = DPS (distance per second). 2) DPS X R (elapsed time at the beginning of the violation) = distance behind the stop bar when the light turned red. The second formula is incorrect in one respect: DPS X R is really the distance behind the embedded sensors when the light turned red. Nowhere on the "statement of technology" is the distance from the sensors to the limit line (i.e. how many feet ahead of the limit line the sensors are located) ever provided. I'll name this distance DSLL (distance from sensors to limit line). This distance from the sensors to the limit line must be subtracted from the DPS X R calculation to get the true "distance behind the stop bar when the light turned red." So the correct formula here would be DPS X R= distance behind sensors when the light turned red - DSLL (distance from sensors to limit line) = true distance behind stop bar when light turned red. Failure to note that DSLL must be subtracted to get the correct distance and failure to provide this vital information in my notice to appear is a clear manipulation of this already confusing data by those charged with ensuring the fairness of this system and should be, in itself, grounds for dismissal of this citation. In my case: 1.47ft X 25mph= 36.75 ft/second (DPS). 2) 36.75ft/sec X .4sec (4/10 of a second, elapsed red time in first data box) = 14.7 ft (distance behind sensors when light turned red). The first photo taken shows my large van almost completely across the limit line. My van itself is almost 15 feet long. If the distance between the sensors and the limit line (DSLL) is more than 14.7 ft, then it is clear that I am innocent of this charge. I am confident that I started across the limit line on yellow and not red.

    The failure of the automated enforcement notice to indicate and subtract DSLL (distance from sensors to limit line) in its calculations, should cast serious doubt on their commitment to fairly and honestly administer this questionable technology and enforcement program. I am not guilty of running a red light; please do not give this questionable ticket the support of the court and the law. 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 under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

    Date:

    Virginia Woolf, Defendant in Pro Per

    21453: Strategy 2

    Our Strategy

    Whether or not you believe you ran a red light as you were blinded by Big Brother's dangerously blinding flash unit, you can contest your case using a strictly legal argument. Automated enforcement is clearly an illegal speed trap under current California law.

    This declaration stipulates the various laws that make automated enforcement illegal and prohibits any judge from rendering a conviction in these cases. Since this argument needs no specific circumstances from the defendant's case, none are included here.

    In California, no "peace office or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating in the arrest, of any person for any alleged violation of this code...(CVC 40801)." Of course "any" violation of this code would certainly include running a red light.

    Automated enforcement systems are illegal speed traps because their sensors measure the speed of your car as you cross a measured distance in the road. A speed trap is defined in 40802(a) (1) 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." So clearly, automated enforcement is an illegal speed trap.

    DON'T COUNT ON JUDGES TO OBEY THE LAW AS WRITTEN: You may still be found guilty when using this dynamite argument..

    Many traffic court judges, though still breathing and cashing their fat paychecks on the public teat, have been legally dead for years. Their sense of duty to the law and their love of justice has been replaced by political expediency in their warped new role as scary fine collectors for the state treasury. This inner death may also kill their conscience-driven duty to honor their judicial oath by upholding the law as written. Still, every driver who submits this argument will force the judge to either dismiss his case or continue to stink up the court with his long dead integrity and decomposing duty to justice.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: William S. Burroughs
    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 21453(a).

    I believe that my citation should be dismissed as the Red Light Camera Automated Enforcement System constitutes an illegal speed trap under 40802(a) of the Vehicle Code. This technology is used to determine a vehicle's speed via a time-distance calculation between sets of embedded sensors in the road. This speed is then used to allegedly determine how far behind the limit line a vehicle was when then light turned red. The use of these time-distance measurements are clearly expressed in the in the information provided me by the City of San Diego:

    1. 1.47 ft. (distance traveled per second for each mile per hour) X speed of your vehicle = DPS (distance per second)
    2. DPS X R (elapsed red time at the beginning of the violation) = distance behind stop bar when light turned red."

    CVC 40801 states: No peace office or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating 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.

    A speed trap is defined in 40802(a) (1) 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."

    Clearly, the speed of my vehicle was determined by a time-distance calculation between embedded sensors on a particular section of highway; clearly the distance between these sensors had to be known to determine my speed.

    As the automated enforcement system constitutes an illegal speed trap, the court is without jurisdiction to render a conviction in this case pursuant to CVC 40805: "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."

    Please dismiss my case 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:

    William S. Burroughs, Defendant in Pro Per
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  6. #6

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    Example three: Registered owner claims he is not the driver seen in photograph.

    Our Strategy


    When you receive an automated enforcement ticket in the mail from Big Brother (the corporate spy's at Lockheed Martin, eroding your liberties one blinding flash at a time) you'll see a grainy black-and-white picture of the driver of the car at the time of the alleged violation.

    What none of these degenerate corporate swine and bought-off whore politicians who have inflicted our democracy with this disease know, for a fact, is who was driving the car. All they know, for a fact, is who was the registered owner of the car on the day the photograph was snapped. They send a citation to the registered owner assuming the owner was the driver.

    If you were not driving the car at the time of the photograph, these cyber-fascists try to intimidate you into identifying the close friend or family member who was driving your car at the time of the citation. Are you going to turn traitor on your mom, dad, brother, or child over a violation they may have not committed? Will you turn on your own blood to slake the greed of these malevolent corporate swine? You are under no moral obligation to do so. In any case, how can you say for sure whether the driver ran a red light or not if you were not there?

    Let's face it friends, it's practically impossible to positively identify anyone from a grainy black-and-white picture. Your inability to identify the driver is quite understandable and common. When I consider all the valets, mechanics, detailers, and others to whom I routinely hand over my car keys, it would be a small wonder if I could remember who was driving my vehicle on a specific day when, weeks later, the grainy photograph arrives with my mail.

    Bottom Line: If you do not believe that the photographed driver is you, the registered owner, you may choose to simply state that as you see below. By avoiding an actual court appearance, you will avoid having the judge and police officer (always present at court trials) intimidate you into testifying against a loved one. Let's face it friends, whether we like it or not our family members look very much like ourselves. By not appearing in person, you will also avoid having the judge think you look close enough like your brother to find you guilty and fine you $346 anyway. Do not give these swine the pleasure of making you squirm. RESIST!


    STATEMENT OF FACTS



    Defendant's Name: Rick Needy
    Case No.: S780824



    I wasn't driving the car at the time of the automated citation.

    Please dismiss my case in the interest of justice.



    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

    Date:

    Rick Needy, Defendant in Pro Per

    Example four: Ticket arrives in mail 15 days or more after date of violation.


    Our Strategy


    When you receive an automated enforcement ticket in the mail from Big Brother (the corporate spies at Lockheed Martin, eroding your liberties one blinding flash at a time) you'll see a grainy black-and-white picture of the driver at the time of the alleged violation.

    When the automated enforcement bill was wending its crooked way through our crooked legislature, there was great concern that drivers might be getting citations many weeks or months after the event due to delays in processing these citations back at KGB headquarters (Lockheed Martin IMS). Clearly this would be unfair. How can you defend yourself against a random event photographed many weeks or months ago? It's pretty damn hard to defend yourself against an event you cannot recall. The automated enforcement bill did not have the votes to pass unless certain "safeguards" were put in place.

    To appease the handful of legislators literate enough to have read 1984, the supporters of automated enforcement agreed to compromise. A 15 day notification deadline was written into the law. An automated enforcement ticket would only be considered a valid complaint if it was mailed to the defendant within 15 days of the alleged violation. With this compromise, the bill was passed and Lockheed Martin's evil robots were able to multiply and spread across California like an unchecked disease.

    CVC 40518 states:Whenever a written notice to appear has been issued by a peace officer or by a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency on a form approved by the Judicial Council for an alleged violation of... Section 21453... recorded by an automated enforcement system pursuant to Section 21455.5 or 22451, and delivered by mail within 15 days of the alleged violation...[this] shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea."

    The actual administration of automated enforcement programs by California cities has ignored the law as written. Many citizens are receiving these complaints 60-90 days after the date of the alleged violation. Most of these people, unable to even remember passing through an intersection, are unable to defend themselves. Intimidated by the threats of license suspension and jail in their "courtesy" notices, they give up in despair and pay a $346 fine.

    Bottom Line: If you do not receive your citation within 15 days of the alleged violation, the late notice you received may not constitute a valid complaint due to undue prosecutorial delay.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Thomas Paine
    Case No.: S780824

    I received this citation in the mail 64 days after the date I allegedly ran a red light. I always drive safely and have no recollection of running a red light over two months ago.

    It is totally unreasonable to expect any person to recall crossing an intersection sixty-four days after the fact. The statute legalizing automated red light enforcement requires the photographed motorists to be informed of the citation within 15 days of the date of the alleged violation.

    CVC 40518 states:Whenever a written notice to appear has been issued by a peace officer or by a qualified employee of a law enforcement agency on a form approved by the Judicial Council for an alleged violation of... Section 21453... recorded by an automated enforcement system... and delivered by mail within 15 days of the alleged violation...[this] shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may enter a plea.

    When the law permitting automated red light enforcement was passed by the state legislature, the specific intent of this 15 day notice was to avoid the impossible situation I find myself in: attempting to defend myself against the charge of running a red light so long ago that I cannot even recall the specific event. I have passed through hundreds of intersections before and after the date of the citation, without incident

    I believe that this absurdly late notice of citation is illegal under 40518. This citation violates both the letter and the spirit of 40518 and, as such, does not constitute a valid criminal complaint. Please dismiss my case in the interest of justice.

    I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

    Date:

    Thomas Paine, Defendant in Pro Per
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  7. #7

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    21453: Failure to stop at a red light (police issued)


    Our Strategy

    This is a basic defense for an alleged red light violation observed by a cop. If the light is still yellow as you begin to cross the limit line, it is legal to enter and cross an intersection under CVC 21453. Here the driver claims that he did begin to cross the limit line on yellow just prior to the light turning red. As he continued, the light changed to red as he safely and legally cleared the intersection.

    The split second between running a red light and legally completing a crossing that began on yellow is often too fleeting for an officer to accurately determine. Since the fine for running a red light was tripled in 1998 to $346, the police should always give you the benefit of the doubt in close calls. Clearly they do not, or you wouldn't be reading this.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS


    Defendant's Name: Ryan Idol
    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 21453(a).

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving southbound on 4th Ave at 0810 on 4-6-00, I noticed the traffic light change from green to yellow as I approached the Ash Street intersection. Since I was less than 20 feet from the intersection, I decided that it was reasonable and prudent to proceed through the intersection with caution; I safely cleared the intersection at the posted speed limit as attested to by Officer Skank on my citation. My vehicle was well over the near side limit line, in accordance with the requirements of CVC 21453(a), prior to the light changing from yellow to red.

    Soon after safely crossing through the intersection, I was stopped by SDPD Officer Skank (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 21453(a) which the officer wrote on my Notice to Appear as "21453(a) CVC Failure to Stop at Red Signal."

    As I've already stated, my car was well over the near side limit line prior to the light changing from yellow to red pursuant to the requirements of CVC 21453(a). CVC 21453(a) states: "A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line...on the near side of the intersection... ."

    From the officer's position on Ash Street, perpendicular to my position as I crossed through the intersection, it would have been impossible for him to see that my light was still yellow (or to see my light at all) when I crossed the near side limit line as I entered the intersection. It is possible that the officer's light on Ash Street changed to green as I exited the intersection, however, this observation would give him no clear idea of the color of my light as I entered the intersection; the officer's light had to be red as I entered since my light was still yellow.

    The officer may misunderstand that it is legal to cautiously enter an intersection (cross the near side limit line) on a yellow light as I did, only entering an intersection on a steady circular red light is forbidden by CVC 21453(a). If Officer Skank's light turned green as I cleared the intersection, he may have incorrectly guessed that my light was red when I entered. Since I cautiously entered the intersection on a yellow light, I am not guilty of violating CVC 21453(a) as charged and 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:

    Ryan Idol, Defendant in Pro Per
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  8. #8

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    21461(a): Failure to obey official traffic control devices (aka: Violation of sign)

    Our Strategy

    The sign says "No U-turn" and you make one anyway. The sign says "No Left Turn" but there you go, making a safe left turn when traffic is clear. It would seem that these sort of actions would be the most cut-and-dry for the police to cite you. The guilt in these cases seems obvious. Not always. Because these type of violations are less common, officers often forget the exact code that applies. To avoid writing an improper code (which would guarantee a dismissal to the savvy ticket consumer) they instead cite you under a generic sign code, CVC 21461(a).

    Failure to obey a sign or signal, 21461(a), is perhaps the most vague moving violation in the entire vehicle code. This charge is used by police as a "catch-all" when they cannot remember a specific charge for which to cite you.

    CVC 21461(a), Disobedience to Official Traffic Control Devices, states:"It shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to fail to obey any sign or signal erected or maintained to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or any local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance."

    The text of 21461(a) indicates that this code can not stand alone as an enforceable traffic offense; some other vehicle code provision or local traffic ordinance must have been violated for you to be guilty of violating 21461(a).

    Here we contest that the code or ordinance that the sign allegedly enforces may not exist and that your actions may have been legal. If the officer can not recall the "referent" law that the sign is meant to make you obey, your case should be dismissed.


    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Rick Donovan
    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 21461(a).

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving eastbound on Broadway at 1745 on 3-24-99, I safely executed a left turn onto 5th Avenue pursuant to CVC 21801 which states: "The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left...shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn can be made with reasonable safety."

    Despite my safe left turn, I was stopped by SDPD Officer Porcine (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 21461(a). Officer Porcine has alleged that my safe turn was illegal due to a small "No Left Turn" symbol hanging approximately 20 ft above the intersection, well out of the normal range of vision of a safe driver turning at an intersection. The officer pointed out this sign at my stop. My attention during my safe left turn was focused on avoiding potential conflicts with oncoming traffic, traffic moving at street level, not at a small sign 20 feet overhead well out of sight.

    CVC 21461(a) states: "It shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to fail to obey any sign or signal erected or maintained to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or any local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance."

    The text of 21461(a) indicates that this code can not stand alone as an enforceable traffic offense; some other vehicle code provision or local traffic ordinance must be proven to have been violated for a person to be guilty of violating 21461(a). The hard-to-see sign is not enough; there must be some other law that makes the movement I made onto 5th avenue illegal and thus make the sign itself based on some enforceable code section or local ordinance.

    I believe that it is clear that a mere referral on his part to a sign, which refers to 21461(a), which itself refers to one of many "provisions of this code or local traffic ordinances" should not be enough to sustain a conviction in this case. Without the officer providing the Court the specific code section or local ordinance he believes I allegedly violated, a conviction in this case is not supported by the law.

    Officer Porcine did not indicate on my citation which provision of the California Vehicle Code or which local traffic ordinance or resolution I might have violated by turning left onto 5th Ave. My research failed to find any local ordinance that restricts a driver from making a safe left turn onto 5th Ave from Broadway as I did pursuant to CVC 21801. If Officer Porcine does not indicate on his Written Declaration the specific Vehicle Code section or local traffic ordinance that he believes I violated by turning left on 5th Ave, 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:

    Rick Donovan, Defendant in Pro Per
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  9. #9

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    21703: Following too closely (tailgaiting)


    Example one: Following distance was safe (in car lengthgths)

    Our Strategy

    This is a declaration for a "tailgating" ticket. Though the officer here cites the driver for not following at a specific number of car lengths, there is no specific safe following distance mandated in the law. Most officers assume a specific following distance, in feet or car lengths, that the motorist should have been observing. This declaration exploits these false assumptions.

    We also point out here that the officer did not note the speed of the car being followed. Police note your speed on the ticket but almost never note the speed of the car you were following, an essential element in determining a safe following distance.

    For example, if you are two car length back and are driving faster than the car in front of you, this could be very unsafe since you would be moving even closer to him. If you are two car length back and are driving at the same speed of the car in front, this may or may not be unsafe since you are maintaining a steady distance. If you are are two car length back and the car in front is driving faster than you, this is not unsafe at all since he is pulling away from you. An officer's failure to note the speed of the car you were following casts great doubt on his assertion that your were following too closely.

    Some cops write up motorist under CVC 21703 as a "replacement" ticket . An officer may stop a motorist for going just a few miles above the speed limit on the freeway as a pretext to see what else they might be up to (drinking, drugs, smuggling ferrets, etc.). When the officer finds no drugs, booze or ferret poop, he cites the motorist under this very subjective code in order to justify the unnecessary stop.

    The vast majority of these tickets are written by the CHP on the freeway during morning and afternoon rush hours. In heavy rush hour traffic it can be virtually impossible to maintain a large following distance from the car in front of you. If you do so, several other cars will spot this "daylight" and scoot in front of you, again shortening your following distance.

    Since the traffic itself can prevent the constant maintenance of an ideal following distance, the police should reserve these citations for the true tailgaters who attempt to intimidate other drivers to move over or to speed up.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Mark E. De Sade
    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 21703.

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on the 405 Freeway on 1-4-99 I was stopped by CHP Officer Choade (I.D.#1234) and charged with violating CVC 21703, Following Too Closely. The officer told me that I was not speeding but alleged that I was following the car in front of me "too closely."

    The officer told me that I should keep 7-8 car lengths between myself and the car in front of me when traveling on the highway (I was approximately 4 car lengths behind). I had always been taught that I should stay 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of me since a "car length" is never a specific distance and is therefore meaningless as a measurement (The California Driver Handbook advises motorist to use this "three-second rule" to determine a safe "Following Distance.") I was following the car in front of me at a safe distance with approximately a 3 second "space cushion" as advised by the DMV.

    I reviewed the California Vehicle Code to see if Officer Choade's definition of a safe following distance of "7-8 car lengths" corresponded with the actual law. CVC 21703 Following Too Closely states: "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway."

    The officer neglected to note the relevant conditions upon my citation of 1) traffic upon the road , 2) condition of the road, and most importantly, 3) the speed of the vehicle I was following. I can state that traffic at the time of my stop was light to medium, road conditions were good, and the vehicle I was following was traveling slightly faster than I and was therefore pulling away from me. As such, I believe that I was following at a safe and prudent distance.

    Officer Choade's "7-8 car length" rule-of-thumb has no specific correspondence to the actual verbiage or intent of CVC 21703, and seems to be his own somewhat inaccurate interpretation of this law. The California Vehicle Code contains no definition of how long a "car length" is, probably due to the obvious fact that there is no standard "car length" This fact, combined with the officer's failure to note the actual road conditions (including the speed of the vehicle I was following) would seem to cast reasonable doubt on his assertion that I was following "too closely."

    I believe that a reasonable interpretation of CVC 21703 proves my innocence in this case and 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:

    Mark E. De Sade, Defendant in Pro Per


    Example two: Following distance was safe (in feet)

    Our Strategy

    This is a declaration for a "tailgating" ticket. Though the officer here cites the driver for not following at a specific number of feet, there is no specific safe following distance mandated in the law. Most officers assume a specific following distance, in feet or car lengths, that the motorist should have been observing. This declaration exploits these false assumptions.

    We also point out here that the officer did not note the speed of the car being followed. Police note your speed on the ticket but almost never note the speed of the car you were following, an essential element in determining a safe following distance.

    For example, if you are two car lengths back and are driving faster than the car in front of you, this could be very unsafe since you would be moving even closer to him. If you are two car length back and are driving at the same speed of the car in front, this may or may not be unsafe since you are maintaining a steady distance. If you are are two car length back and the car in front is driving faster than you, this is not unsafe at all since he is pulling away from you. An officer's failure to note the speed of the car you were following casts great doubt on his assertion that your were following too closely.

    Some cops write up motorist under CVC 21703 as a "replacement" ticket . An officer may stop a motorist for going just a few miles above the speed limit on the freeway as a pretext to see what else they might be up to (drinking, drugs, smuggling ferrets, etc.). When the officer finds no drugs, booze or ferret poop, he cites the motorist under this very subjective code in order to justify the unnecessary stop.

    The vast majority of these tickets are written by the CHP on the freeway during morning and afternoon rush hours. In heavy rush hour traffic it can be virtually impossible to maintain a large following distance from the car in front of you. If you do so, several other cars will spot this "daylight" and scoot in front of you, again shortening your following distance.

    Since the traffic itself can prevent the constant maintenance of an ideal following distance, the police should reserve these citations for the true tailgaters who attempt to intimidate other drivers to move over or to speed up.


    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Jack Keroac
    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 21703.

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on the 8 Freeway on 10-7-99 I was stopped by CHP Officer Carnitas (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 21703, Following Too Closely. The officer told me that I was not speeding but alleged that I was following the car in front of me "too closely." At no point did the officer specify what "too closely" might be, though he did note on my citation that I was 50-75 feet behind the car I was allegedly following "too closely."

    I was following a car safely at the time of my stop, several car-lengths back (the officer's guess of 75 feet supports my assertion that I was indeed several car-lengths back.) I had always been taught that I should stay 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of me. (The California Driver Handbook advises motorist to use this "three-second rule" to determine a safe "Following Distance.") I was following the car in front of me at a safe distance with approximately a 2-3 second "space cushion" as advised by the DMV.

    CVC 21703 Following Too Closely states: "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway."

    The officer neglected to note the relevant conditions upon my citation of 1) traffic upon the road , 2) condition of the road, and most importantly, 3) the speed of the vehicle I was following. I can state that traffic at the time of my stop was light to medium, road conditions were good, and the vehicle I was following was traveling slightly faster than I and was therefore pulling away from me. As such, I believe that I was following at a safe and prudent distance.

    The officer notes a following distance of 75 feet, which seems to support my argument that I was following at a safe distance for conditions. This fact, combined with the officer's failure to note the actual road conditions (including the speed of the vehicle I was following) would seem to cast reasonable doubt on his assertion that I was following "too closely."

    I believe that a reasonable interpretation of CVC 21703 proves my innocence in this case and 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:

    Jack Keroac, Defendant in Pro Per
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  10. #10

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    22349(a): Maximum Speed Law (exceeding 65 MPH)


    Example one: Sped up Momentarily to Yield to Tailgater


    Our Strategy

    Here we try to justify our speed above 65 MPH by noting specific circumstances and laws that made this speed momentarily necessary and legal. We contest that we should not be cited for breaking one law in order to obey another.

    The maximum speed law, CVC 22349(a), is very simple. It states that it is illegal to travel above 65mph on any California highway (with the exception of highways posted at 70mph). So technically, if you drive at 66mph you are just as guilty as if you drive 100mph. However, you are also bound by a host of other laws such as the the basic speed law, CVC 22350, when you drive on any highway.

    This basic speed law states that you must always drive a safe speed for conditions. These conditions include: weather, visibility, traffic, and the surface and width of the highway. If these safe conditions permit us to drive slightly above the posted maximum, we argue here that it was not illegal to do so. If this seems like a tenuous argument, it is. But CVC 22351 Speed Law Violations, supports this argument:"The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits...or established as authorized in this code (includes the 65mph max speed limit) 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." Since our speed was not unsafe for the conditions, we use this law to justify that our traveling above the 65mph limit was not, in itself, unlawful.

    We also mention here that we needed to speed up momentarily to pass a car that had flashed it's lights at us. CVC 21753 "Yielding for Passing" requires that "the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal or the momentary flash of headlights by the overtaking vehicle...." In speeding up to clear traffic and move to the right to allow an overtaking vehicle to pass, we further insist that other laws may momentarily require us to exceed the posted maximum.


    STATEMENT OF FACTS


    Defendant's Name: Vladimir Nobokov
    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 22349(a).

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving northbound on Interstate 5, just north of Sorrento Valley Rd., at around 2300 on 3-12-99, I noticed an overtaking car in my lane flash its lights at me. The overtaking vehicle was following very closely, creating an unsafe situation. Since I could not move to the right immediately due to traffic, I accelerated somewhat to pass this traffic so that I could yield to the right of the overtaking vehicle and alleviate this developing unsafe situation. Soon after I safely yielded to the right to the overtaking vehicle , I was stopped by CHP Officer Putain (I.D.#12345) and charged with violating CVC 22349(a).

    CVC 21753 "Yielding for Passing" requires that "the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal or the momentary flash of headlights by the overtaking vehicle...." I do not think it is fair to convict me for momentarily breaking one law in my attempt to obey another and relieve an unsafe situation caused by an impatient driver.

    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."

    Where I was stopped, Interstate 5 is a well-maintained multi-lane freeway, quite safe to travel on at a speed slightly above the 65mph maximum limit with the favorable weather (clear and dry) and road conditions that existed at the time of my stop. Since I was required for safety to momentarily accelerate to allow the car overtaking and tailgating me to pass, I contest that my speed in excess of 65mph was necessary, reasonable, and prudent pursuant to the Basic Speed Law.

    Section (b) of Speed Law Violations, CVC 22351, states: "The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits...or established as authorized in this code (includes the 65mph max speed limit) 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."

    The favorable road and weather conditions existing at the time and place of my stop combined with the necessity to momentarily accelerate to alleviate an unsafe situation with a speeding tailgater, made the speed I was traveling at the time of my stop Safe and Reasonable for conditions. As such, I know that I was not in violation of the basic speed law at the time and place of my citation and, pursuant to CVC 22351(b), contest that my speed at the time of my traffic stop was therefore not per se unlawful.

    I trust in the Court's fairness in this matter 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:

    Vladimir Nobokov, Defendant in Pro Per



    Example two: Speed Above 65mph was Safe for Conditions



    Our Strategy

    This is another variation of our Maximum Speed Law defense. In cases like these, where violation of the letter of the law is not in dispute, we bring up other laws that might mitigate or nullify the citation in question. In this case, we use the Basic Speed Law in attempting to nullify the Maximum Speed Law charge.

    Here we try to justify our speed above 65 MPH by noting specific circumstances and laws that made this speed momentarily necessary and legal. We contest that we should not be cited for breaking one law in order to obey another.

    The maximum speed law, CVC 22349(a), is very simple. It states that it is illegal to travel above 65mph on any California highway (with the exception of highways posted at 70mph). So technically, if you drive at 66mph you are just as guilty as if you drive 100mph. However, you are also bound by a host of other laws such as the the basic speed law, CVC 22350, when you drive on any highway.

    This basic speed law states that you must always drive a safe speed for conditions. These conditions include: weather, visibility, traffic, and the surface and width of the highway. If these safe conditions permit us to drive slightly above the posted maximum, we argue here that it was not illegal to do so. If this seems like a tenuous argument, it is. But CVC 22351 Speed Law Violations, supports it:"The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits...or established as authorized in this code (includes the 65mph max speed limit) 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."

    Since our speed here was just a few miles above the posted limit, we use CVC 22351 to justify that our traveling above the 65mph limit was not, in itself, unlawful.


    STATEMENT OF FACTS


    Defendant's Name: Brendan Behan
    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 22349(a).

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving northbound on I-5 at 1045 on 11-10-96, I was stopped by SDPD Officer Carnitas (I.D.#12345) and was charged with violating CVC 22349(a). Though Officer Carnitas has alleged that I was driving 75mph in a 65mph zone, I believe that I was driving no faster than 70 mph.

    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 noted that the road was dry and clear with light traffic. Where I was stopped, Interstate 5 is a well-maintained four lane freeway, quite safe to travel on at approximately 70 mph with favorable weather and road conditions.

    Section (b) of Speed Law Violations, CVC 22351(b), states: "The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits...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."

    The conditions existing at the time and place of my stop (favorable conditions attested to by Officer Carnitas in my citation) were favorable and made the speed I was traveling Safe and Reasonable under these conditions. As such, I know that I was not in violation of the basic speed law at the time and place of my citation and, pursuant to CVC 22351(b), contest that my speed at the time of my traffic stop was therefore not prima facie unlawful.

    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:

    Brendan Behan, Defendant in Pro Per
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  11. #11

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    Example three: Speed of Traffic Made it Unsafe to Drive at 65mph


    Our Strategy

    This is another variation of our Maximum Speed Law defense. In cases like these, where violation of the letter of the law is not in dispute, we bring up other laws that might mitigate or nullify the citation in question. In this case, we use the Basic Speed Law and Minimum Speed Law in attempting to nullify the Maximum Speed Law charge.

    Here we try to justify our speed above 65 MPH by noting specific circumstances and laws that made this speed momentarily necessary and legal. We contest that we should not be cited for breaking one law in order to obey another.

    The maximum speed law, CVC 22349(a), is very simple. It states that it is illegal to travel above 65mph on any California highway (with the exception of highways posted at 70mph). So technically, if you drive at 66mph you are just as guilty as if you drive 100mph. However, you are also bound by a host of other laws such as the the Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350, and the Minimum Speed Law, CVC 22400 when you drive on any California highway.

    The Minimum Speed Law states:"No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic...."

    If the normal movement of traffic on a freeway is 80mph and you are traveling at 65mph or less, clearly you are impeding the movement of traffic and creating a hazard. In this situation, it is safer to obey the Minimum Speed Law, by matching your speed to the traffic flow, then to follow the Maximum Speed Law and cause a hazard by driving at 65mph or slower.

    The Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350, states that you must always drive a safe speed for conditions. These conditions include: weather, visibility, traffic, and the surface and width of the highway. If traffic is moving at 80 mph, it is not safe to drive 15-20 mph slower than this speed. To match the speed of traffic in this situation does violate the Maximum Speed Law. However, it may be necessary to travel above 65mph to obey the Basic Speed Law and to avoid being rear-ended by some speed-addict towing a dirt bike trailer at 85mph with his SUV death machine.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Joey Stephano
    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 22349(a).

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving northbound on Interstate 5 past Camp Pendleton, just north of Las Pulgas Rd., at around 1:00PM on 3-12-00. I was stopped by CHP Officer Flan (I.D.#12345) and charged with violating CVC 22349(a) for traveling a speed of 75mph. I do not deny traveling at this speed but submit that my citation should be dismissed, as my speed was necessary in compliance with the Basic Speed Law and the Minimum Speed Law.

    The traffic was heavy and moving at an average speed of 80 mph. At first, I tried to obey the posted maximum of 65 mph, even though the other vehicles were going 10-15mph faster. Due to the heavy, fast moving traffic, I was constantly being tailgated and was almost rear-ended by several cars. Motorists honked their horns at me and made obscene hand gestures. My attempt to obey the letter of the law by maintaining a speed of 65mph was causing a hazardous situation for myself and others.

    CVC 22400, "The Minimum Speed Law," requires that "No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic...." By driving at 65 mph, I was certainly impeding the normal flow of traffic: 80mph at the time of my stop. In this situation, it was safer to obey the Minimum Speed Law, by matching my speed to the traffic flow, then to follow the Maximum Speed Law and cause a hazard by driving at 65mph or slower.

    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." If traffic is moving at 80 mph, it is not safe to drive 15-20 mph slower than this speed. To match the speed of traffic in this situation does violate the Maximum Speed Law. However, my situation required me to travel above 65mph to obey the Basic Speed Law and to avoid being rear-ended by faster moving traffic.

    Where I was stopped, Interstate 5 is a well-maintained multi-lane freeway, quite safe to travel on at a speed above the 65mph maximum limit with favorable weather and road conditions. Since I was required for safety to accelerate to match the speed of traffic, I contest that my speed in excess of 65mph was necessary, reasonable, and prudent pursuant to the Basic Speed Law and Minimum Speed Law.

    I trust in the Court's fairness in this matter 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:

    Joey Stephano, Defendant in Pro Per



    Example four: Aircraft enforced, Illegal Speed Trap from Air.



    Our Strategy

    The use of aircraft in enforcing speed laws was meant to supplement and aid the officer on the ground in catching speeders. The pilot was meant to act as a spotter for the patrol officer, to help him see the speeders that had not yet reached him. The officer on the ground is still supposed to independently verify the suspect's speed. However, this original intent has been undermined in practice.

    The police pilots gauge your speed by timing you across markers on the road that are visible from the aircraft. Your speed is then determined by calculating how long it took you to cross the know distance between the markers. This method constitutes an illegal speed trap under 40802(a)(1), because it is illegal to calculate a vehicle's speed using a time-distance calculation.

    On aircraft speeding tickets, the names of both officers involved appear on your citation. The pilot's name must appear on your ticket because he witnessed your vehicle speeding, though he never identified you as the driver. The patrol officer's name appears on the ticket because he identified you as driver of the car, though he did not witness you speed. As a result, if both officer's do not submit written declarations, your case must be dismissed for lack of evidence.

    In cases where a single officer must submit a written declaration, about 30% of officer's neglect to do so, leading to a dismissal. In cases where two officers must each submit a written declaration, the dismissal rate is about 50%. Even if both officer's do submit a declaration, how will they justify their use of an illegal speed trap to the judge?


    STATEMENT OF FACTS


    Defendant's Name: Ken Kesey
    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 22349(a).

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving south bound on Interstate 15 at around 1645 on 1-13-00. I was stopped by CHP Officer Mochyn (I.D.#12345) and charged with violating CVC 22349(a), "Exceeding 65 MPH Max Speed Limit." I saw Officer Mochyn's vehicle prior to him stopping me and made sure I was driving the posted limit. Officer Mochyn claimed at the traffic stop that he had not seen me speed (a fact attested to by Officer Mochyn on my Notice To Appear when he checked the box "violations not committed in my presence") but that a pilot had clocked me at approximately 80 mph from an aircraft.

    A vehicle very similar to my own passed me at about this speed a minute or so prior to my stop. Since the description of the speeding car given to Officer Mochyn by the Officer in the aircraft (Officer Putain I.D.#12345) may have been similar to mine, I believe Officer Mochyn stopped me by mistake, believing me to be the speeder.

    In any case, if Officer Putain does not testify in his statement that he followed my vehicle until the actual stop to ensure Officer Mochyn pulled over the car Putain alleges was speeding, I ask the Court to dismiss this case for lack of sufficient and reliable evidence.

    If either Officer Mochyn or Officer Putain fail to submit a Written Declaration, I ask the Court to dismiss this case for lack of evidence.

    If Officer Putain testifies that he determined my alleged speed by timing me as I traveled over a predetermined length of road bounded by markers, I ask the Court to dismiss my ticket as this method constitutes an illegal speed trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(1): Speed Trap: "A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, and 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."

    The use of evidence acquired through a speed trap is specifically prohibited by CVC 40801: "..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."

    The testimony of witnesses gained through speed trap evidence is inadmissible as evidence pursuant to CVC 40804(a): "...any officer or other person shall be incompetent as a witness if the testimony is based upon or obtained from the maintenance or use of a speed trap."

    If Officer Putain's or Officer Mochyn's testimony suggests that a speed trap was used in determining my alleged speed, I ask the Court to dismiss this case 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:

    Ken Kesey, Defendant in Pro Per
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  12. #12

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    22350: Basic Speed Law (unsafe speed for conditions)


    Example one: Radar ticket. "Safe & reasonable speed" and "speed trap" argument.


    Our Strategy

    This is the best moving violation to contest. Of the thousands of Basic Speed Law citations reviewed, at least half were improperly issued. More of these citations are dismissed by judges than any other.

    Safe Speed for Conditions

    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 officer's 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 40 mph, 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.

    Radar Speed Traps

    In most Basic Speed Law citations, police radar is used to determine your speed. The legal use of this technology is restricted by law. The use of police radar to determine your speed is only legal if a traffic survey was conducted within five years on the road where you were stopped.

    CVC 40802(a)(2) defines a 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."

    Another very useful code, CVC 40803(b), requires the police to prove that the radar evidence was not a speed trap by submitting a copy of the traffic survey with their declaration. Only such a survey conducted within five years would prove that the road you were stopped on was not a speed trap. If the officer does not prove in his declaration that the road we were cited on was not a speed trap (pursuant to 40802(a)(2)), then the radar evidence is illegal and the case must be dismissed pursuant to 40803(b).

    Bottom Line:We assert here that we believe that the road is a speed trap due to an out-of-date survey. If the officer does not submit a valid survey with his declaration to refute this assertion, the judge must dismiss the case. Since most cops don't expect the average motorist to know these evidence codes, few bother to submit a copy of the current survey.

    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 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:

    Simone De Beauvoir, Defendant in Pro Per

    Example two: Radar ticket. "Radar beam spread" argument (best for tickets of 10mph or less above limit in medium to heavy traffic).

    Our Strategy

    Safe Speed for Conditions

    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.

    Traffic Survey

    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.

    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.

    Radar Beam Spread

    In our first 22350 sample declaration, we assert the possibility that the use of radar in these cases may constitute an illegal radar speed trap. This argument can be used in any radar citation.

    In this example, we bring up the issue of radar beam spread. This example is best used when your citation is for 10mph or less above the posted limit in medium to heavy traffic.

    Police radar beams spread at about one foot for every four feet of travel from their source. At only 150 ft from its source, the beam will be 40ft across, covering four lanes of traffic.

    The wide spread of police radar will cause it to track several cars at once, but it can only record the speed of a single vehicle. There is no way to know for sure which vehicle's speed was recorded by the officer's radar. In medium to heavy traffic, there is reasonable doubt as to which car's speed was displayed on the officer's radar.

    If your citation was received in medium to heavy traffic, you can assert that your speed was safe and that the speed attributed to you by the citing officer was that of another vehicle.


    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
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  13. #13

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    Example three: Radar ticket in a school zone.


    Our Strategy


    This statement insists that the driver's speed was "safe for conditions" while also suggesting the possibility of a radar speed trap.

    Basic Speed Law Citation in a School Zone:

    This motorist was cited under 22350 in an enforced "school" zone. Driving above 25mph in a school zone is a violation of 22352, the Prima Facie Speed Limit. However, since most speeding tickets on residential and city streets are issued under 22350, most cops fall into the habit of citing under the same basic speed law instead of the more precise code, 22352.

    The prima facie speed limit makes it illegal in itself to exceed 25mph in a school zone. Under the basic speed law, it is only illegal to exceed a posted limit if it's unsafe to do so.

    Here the officer failed to cite the motorist under 22352 for speeding in an enforceable school zone . If he had cited under 22352, he would only have to prove that the driver was traveling in excess of 25mph. Since the officer cited under 22350, he now must prove that whatever speed the motorists was traveling was, in itself, unsafe for conditions.

    Safe Speed for Conditions

    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 officer's 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 40 mph, 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.

    Radar Speed Traps

    In most Basic Speed Law citations, police radar is used to determine your speed. The legal use of this technology is restricted by law. The use of police radar to determine your speed is only legal if a traffic survey was conducted within five years on the road where you were stopped.

    CVC 40802(a)(2) defines a 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."

    Another very useful code, CVC 40803(b), requires the police to prove that the radar evidence was not a speed trap by submitting a copy of the traffic survey with their declaration. Only such a survey conducted within five years would prove that the road you were stopped on was not a speed trap. If the officer does not prove in his declaration that the road we were cited on was not a speed trap (pursuant to 40802(a)(2)), then the radar evidence is illegal and the case must be dismissed pursuant to 40803(b).

    Bottom Line:We assert here that we believe that the road is a speed trap due to an out-of-date survey. If the officer does not submit a valid survey with his declaration to refute this assertion, the judge must dismiss the case. Since most cops don't expect the average motorist to know these evidence codes, few bother to submit a copy of the current survey.


    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
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  14. #14

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    22356: Exceeding Posted Speed of 70 MPH (Aircraft Enforcement)


    Example one: Illegal "Speed Trap" from air. This has been our most successful declaration.


    Our Strategy


    The use of aircraft in enforcing speed laws was meant to supplement and aid the officer on the ground in catching speeders. The pilot was meant to act as a spotter for the patrol officer, to help him see the speeders that had not yet reached him. The officer on the ground is still supposed to independently verify the suspect's speed. However, this original intent has been undermined in practice.

    The police pilots gauge your speed by timing you across markers on the road that are visible from the aircraft. Your speed is then determined by calculating how long it took you to cross the know distance between the markers. This method constitutes an illegal speed trap under 40802(a)(1), because it is illegal to calculate a vehicle's speed using a time-distance calculation.

    On aircraft speeding tickets, the names of both officers involved appear on your citation. The pilot's name must appear on your ticket because he witnessed your vehicle speeding, though he never identified you as the driver. The patrol officer's name appears on the ticket because he identified you as driver of the car, though he did not witness you speed. As a result, if both officer's do not submit written declarations, your case must be dismissed for lack of evidence.

    In cases where a single officer must submit a written declaration, about 30% of officer's neglect to do so, leading to a dismissal. In cases where two officers must each submit a written declaration, the dismissal rate is about 50%. Even if both officer's do submit a declaration, how will they justify their use of an illegal speed trap to the judge?

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Ken Kesey
    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 22356(b).

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving south bound on Interstate 15 at around 1645 on 1-13-98. I was stopped by CHP Officer Mochyn (I.D.#12345) and charged with violating CVC 22356(b), "Exceeding 70 MPH Max Speed Limit." I saw Officer Mochyn's vehicle prior to him stopping me and made sure I was driving the posted limit.

    Officer Mochyn claimed at the traffic stop that he had not seen me speed (a fact he attested to on my Notice To Appear when he checked the box "violations not committed in my presence") but that a pilot had clocked me at approximately 80 mph from an aircraft.

    A vehicle very similar to my own passed me at about this speed a minute or so prior to my stop. Since the description of the speeding car given to Officer Mochyn by the Officer in the aircraft (Officer Putain I.D.#12345) may have been similar to mine, I believe Officer Mochyn stopped me by mistake, believing me to be the speeder.

    In any case, if Officer Putain does not testify in his statement that he followed my vehicle until the actual stop to ensure Officer Mochyn pulled over the car Putain alleges was speeding, I ask the Court to dismiss this case for lack of sufficient and reliable evidence.

    If either Officer Mochyn or Officer Putain fail to submit a Written Declaration, I ask the Court to dismiss this case for lack of evidence.

    If Officer Putain testifies that he determined my alleged speed by timing me as I traveled over a predetermined length of road bounded by markers, I ask the Court to dismiss my ticket as this method constitutes an illegal speed trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(1): Speed Trap: "A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, and 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."

    The use of evidence acquired through a speed trap is specifically prohibited by CVC 40801: "..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."

    The testimony of witnesses gained through speed trap evidence is inadmissible as evidence pursuant to CVC 40804(a): "...any officer or other person shall be incompetent as a witness if the testimony is based upon or obtained from the maintenance or use of a speed trap."

    If Officer Putain's testimony suggests that a speed trap was used in determining my alleged speed, I ask the Court to dismiss this case 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:

    Ken Kesey, Defendant in Pro Per
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  15. #15

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    22450: Failure to Stop at Stop Sign


    Example one: Failure to stop "behind" limit line


    Our Strategy

    The police will often will cite you for running a stop sign, even when it is clear to them that you did stop. Many drivers are cited for not stopping "behind" the limit line. However, 22450 states that you must stop "at" the limit line, not "behind" the limit line as some officer's insist.

    CVC 22450(a) states: "The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection, shall stop at a limit line, if marked....If there is no limit line...the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway."

    It might be necessary to stop over or on top of the limit line to see into the intersection. It is not illegal to stop over the limit line, as long as you do not enter the crosswalk or intersection.


    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: William B. Yeats
    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 22450(a).

    The facts of my case are as follows: I came to a complete stop at a stop sign on Hardy Street on the San Diego State University campus and proceeded when it was safe. I was soon stopped by SDSU Police Officer Porchellu (I.D.#1234) and charged with violating CVC 22450(a).

    The officer told me: "When you stopped, your front tires were 8 inches over the limit line." The officer gave this as the reason for writing my citation, the fact that my front tires were not behind the limit line.

    With my front tires only 8 inches over the limit line, I was not even close to the entrance of the intersection; my stop was completely safe. Despite the fact that I stopped safely, I decided that I would consult the California Vehicle Code to determine if the law required me to stop behind the limit line, as the officer seemed to believe. I discovered that the law does not require a motorist to stop behind the limit line; one must stop at the limit line.

    CVC 22450(a) states: "The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection, shall stop at a limit line, if marked....If there is no limit line...the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway."

    As attested to by the officer, I most certainly did stop at the limit line. This law does not require a driver to stop behind the limit line but at the line. CVC 22450(a) gives no specific guidance as to where "at" the limit line specifically might be, but since it does tell the driver where to stop in the absence of a limit line ("at the entrance to the intersecting roadway") one can reasonably infer that "at" the limit line is any part of the line that does not place one's vehicle beyond the entrance to the intersection.

    With my front tires only 8 inches over the limit line, I was at least 2 feet from the entrance to the intersection since the limit line at Hardy Street is set back at least 3 feet from the intersecting roadway.

    I believe that a reasonable interpretation of CVC 22450(a) proves my innocence in this case and 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:

    William B. Yeats, Defendant in Pro Per


    Example two: Failure to stop "long enough".


    Our Strategy

    The police will often will cite you for not stopping long enough at a stop sign. However the stop sign code, CVC 22450, does not require you to stop for any specific period of time. It merely requires that a driver actually "stop."

    A "stop" is defined in CVC 587 Stop or Stopping: "Stop or stopping... shall mean any cessation of movement of a vehicle."

    Most officer's will state that you should stop for 3-5 seconds, but a "stop" is defined in the vehicle code as "any cessation of movement;" no specific time period is specified. If you stop for a brief moment, the law recognizes this as a stop.

    Many cops will site you because they did not see you stop. This is also why they tell you to stop for 3-5 seconds, to give them time to look and verify that you stopped. This is bullshit. The law clearly states that "any" cessation of mom event constitutes a stop. Cops should only cite you if they see you "not stop."

    Many cops guess that you didn't stop from their concealed position around the corner at an intersection. Since they know that 80% of drivers do not stop at an uncontested intersection, they will assume that you also did not stop, even if it is impossible to see this from their position. In this way many drivers who do stop are cited based on a false assumption on the officer's part.


    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: James Joyce
    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 22450(a).

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving down Robinson avenue with a friend on 8-9-99 at approximately 10:30pm, I came to a brief stop at a stop sign at the intersection of Robinson and 10th Avenue. After my stop, I proceeded through the intersection. Shortly thereafter, I was stopped by SDPD officer Puerco (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22450(a) which the officer wrote on my Notice to Appear as "22450(a) VC Fail to stop for stop sign."

    I told the officer that I had stopped at the limit line as required. The Officer agreed and said: "You stopped, but you didn't stop long enough." The officer seemed to indicate in this statement that he wanted me to stop for a longer period of time than I actually had.

    In the California Vehicle Code, the required length of time for a stop is defined in CVC 587 Stop or Stopping: "Stop or stopping... shall mean any cessation of movement of a vehicle."

    I believe that "any" cessation of movement would certainly include the brief stop I made. Officer Puerco, by his statement to me, seems to believe that a set time period for a stop is required though no such set time length is actually provided for in the law.

    Since many drivers do not stop at all at an uncontested stop, Officer Puerco may have not had time to perceive my brief stop from his vantage point and, looking up as I entered the intersection after I stopped, may have assumed that I did not stop. Certainly, the lack of visibility at night in this poorly lit intersection could only have made my stop more difficult for the officer to see. Had I stopped for a longer period of time as the Officer wanted me to, I believe that he would have been more likely to have perceived that I did, in fact, stop. However, since the law does not require me to stop for longer than I actually did ("any" cessation of movement) and since Officer Puerco may have cited me under the false assumption that a specific length of time must pass to constitute a "stop" (though none is provided for in the law) 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:

    James Joyce, Defendant in Pro Per
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  16. #16

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    22454: Passing a School Bus (Red Lights Flashing)


    Our Strategy

    Several years ago, parents and teachers demanded stricter enforcement of CVC 22454, the law that regulates passing a school bus. Starting in 1998, they got their wish and thousands of parents and teachers were cited and fined $510 for passing a school bus while dropping off their kids or driving to work. Be careful what you wish for.

    It is only illegal to pass a school bus if all three of the following conditions exist: the bus' red lights are flashing, the bus is stopped to load or unload children, and the bus' stop sign arm is extended. Most parents and teachers cited under this law did pass a school bus whose red lights were flashing. However, in many cases the bus was still moving or its stop sign was not yet extended. A fine of $510 is especially steep when you did not actually break the law.


    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Fred Nietzsche
    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 22454.

    The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on Chatsworth by Point Loma High at 0730 on 10-7-98, I was stopped by SDPD Officer Mochyn (ID 1614) and was charged with violating CVC 22454. Officer Mochyn (I.D.#1234) wrote on my citation that I was "Passing School Bus w/Red Lights Flashing." I had just dropped off my boys at school and was proceeding down the hill (west) on Chatsworth as the school bus approached in the opposite lane coming up the hill (east) on Chatsworth.

    As I passed the bus it was still driving up the hill and the driver had turned on the flashing lights, as the officer stated, but the bus' stop sign was not extended so I reasonably assumed that it was safe to pass and did so. I always look out for the stop sign and always stop when it is extended. Also, since the bus was still moving when I passed it, it was clear to me that no child would be put at risk since passengers do not generally alight from a moving vehicle. It is clear to me that I endangered no one. After reading the statute I was charged with violating in the California Vehicle Code, it is also clear to me that I committed no offense.

    CVC 22454 School bus.: "Meeting and Passing: The driver of any vehicle, upon meeting or overtaking, from either direction any school bus. equipped with signs as required in this code, that is stopped for the purpose of loading or unloading any schoolchildren and displays a flashing red signal and stop arm, if equipped with a stop signal arm, visible from front or rear, shall bring the vehicle to a stop immediately before passing the schoolbus...."

    The bus I passed was equipped with a stop signal arm that was not being displayed as I passed. On my citation, the Officer correctly mentions that only the red flashing lights were flashing as I passed the bus. Based on this undisputed fact alone, I am clearly not in violation of this law. Also, the bus was still moving when I passed it. The code specifically applies to a bus "stopped for the purpose of loading or unloading schoolchildren." The fact that the bus was not stopped when I passed it also, in itself, exonerates me in this case.

    Having children myself, I would never endanger a child and know that I did not do so in this case. Upon reading the Vehicle Code, I also realized I had not violated the law and wondered if the police were required to even read the code before citing innocent parents like myself with an onerous $406 citation.

    Though I now know that the Officer was wrong in citing me in this case, 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:

    Fred Nietzsche, Defendant in Pro Per
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  17. #17

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration (DO NOT POST IN HERE TIL I'm Finished)

    The "Idiot's" Five-Second Declaration for all violations


    Our Strategy

    This is a simple assertion of innocence that can be used for any alleged violation. Police officers earn $200 to $300 in overtime pay to appear in court on their day off. However, officers are paid nothing to write up their version of events when you request a trial by written declaration. In approximately 30% of these cases, they fail to return a declaration of facts, resulting in a dismissal.

    The success of such a simplistic declaration hinges solely on the possibility that the citing officer will fail to return his declaration by the deadline. Use of this declaration should be limited to the truly busy and truly lazy. Some also use this declaration because they think their argument stinks but still want to roll the dice for a possible dismissal.

    Understand that if the officer does manage to return a declaration by the deadline, this declaration will most surely fail. However, the judge may pity your seeming semi-literacy and drastically reduce your fine.


    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Defendant's Name: Rick Needy
    Case No.: S780824



    I'm not guilty.

    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:

    Rick Needy, Defendant in Pro Per
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

  18. #18

    Need HELP Trial By Declaration-22350: Basic Speed Law (unsafe speed for conditi

    HELP PLEASE!!!

    I was cited for violating CVC 22350: Basic Speed Law (unsafe speed for conditions).Â* I'm going to do Trial By Written Declaration, but don't know what information I should write and if I should provide the police report, if i should talk about the police report, or if I will even win the case..please help..

    I got into an accident and the cops were called out. i didn't even know until i saw the police report that the cop was citing me for going at an unsafe speed.

    Here's what happened...

    I stopped at a red light.Â* The light turned green and the car in front of me began to move his vehicle therefore, I began to step on my gas when he suddenly braked I hit him.Â* I was going at least 5miles.Â* The guy in the car that I hit was claiming injury so he called a cop to come to the scene.Â* The crazy thing is, in the police report the cop said it was dark and cloudy when it was sunny and dry!!! >

    What can I use as an argument?

  19. #19

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration w/ examples (MODS can we sticky this)

    so.....ban for necro-bumping
    ban for failing to read an existing sticky?
    ban for failing to search?
    or ban for failing to read the this thread which also had examples and you necro-bumped anyway??

    I mean I dunno....maybe I'm just missing something?

  20. #20

    Re: How to Trial By Declaration w/ examples (MODS can we sticky this)

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze
    so.....ban for necro-bumping
    ban for failing to read an existing sticky?
    ban for failing to search?
    or ban for failing to read the this thread which also had examples and you necro-bumped anyway??

    I mean I dunno....maybe I'm just missing something?
    I vote for option 4 lol.
    Jesse Sez: If you're ever in a midget-tossing contest, always go for the happy midget. It is definitely much harder to toss them when they're unhappy

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •