35mph over the safe speed for eating?

[CRUZer]

Was pulled for suspected cellphone use while driving this morning. I explained to the officer my cellphone was in a briefcase that was inaccessible to me and that he may have misconstrued me taking a bite of food as being on the cellphone. He wrote me up for Unsafe Speed 22350 for going 35 mph in a posted 35 mph zone because the safe speed box on the ticket says 0 mph, as the officer explained that the safe speed for eating is a stationary vehicle.

Will this be treated as the equivalent to me speeding 35 mph over the limit? Any suggestions on the best approach if there is a VC that would be more applicable to the crime? I'm weighing my options but I'm curious if this is indeed the most appropriate CVC for the offense or if a judge would likely knock it down to a lesser offense that is more fitting of the circumstances.

 

[Chill]

opcorn

(couldn't resist)

 

[CRUZer]

Apologies if I broke the forum rules and/or etiquette in some way...

 

[dravnx]

No apologies, you're doing fine.

 

[ABC]

What a dick..

 

[CRUZer]

What a dick..

He was very courteous and professional, as was I during the exchange. I wasn't being defensive and he clearly recognized that cellphone use wasn't possible given its location from me in a briefcase...so I was definitely surprised that he'd come back with a ticket that is several orders of magnitude worse than a cellphone infraction.

 

[NorCalAthlete]

You could try a trial by written declaration, but IMO your better option is to show up in traffic court, plead not guilty and tell them what you just told us. You could also talk to the officer on the morning of the traffic court before you go in, tell him you appreciated his politeness and courtesy during the stop, and ask if he would mind dismissing the ticket in the interest of justice. If he is so inclined, at the beginning of session the judge will ask officers in attendance if there is anything they'd like to dismiss in the interest of justice prior to getting started, at which point he can step forward, give your ticket / case to the judge, and you're good to go.

Then again, you're also typically not really supposed to be eating, putting on makeup, etc while driving, so it'll be at their or the judge's discretion.

VC 23123 covers distracted driving (including cell phone usage). There is no specific clause that I am aware of that says eating while driving is illegal, but reckless driving could be used under 23103. Since you weren't cited for distracted or reckless though, I'm not sure how this one would go - I'll let one of the traffic cops here chime in on that.

 

[novaks47]

Do you know what prompted him to pull you over in the first place? For example, did he say he observed you weaving in your lane, or something of that sort? I'm thinking something happened to get his attention, and from there he just saw something in your hand briefly and assumed it was a phone.

I ask because there is no law here against eating while driving, unless it's clearly causing a distraction to the driver. And that violation you got is a "unsafe speed for conditions" violation, that from what I've read(I'm not a LEO), can be used for distracted driving. I would've thought that there'd be a specific, separate code for that though, maybe I'm just not searching correctly.

 

[CRUZer]

Do you know what prompted him to pull you over in the first place? For example, did he say he observed you weaving in your lane, or something of that sort? I'm thinking something happened to get his attention, and from there he just saw something in your hand briefly and assumed it was a phone.

I ask because there is no law here against eating while driving, unless it's clearly causing a distraction to the driver. And that violation you got is a "unsafe speed for conditions" violation, that from what I've read(I'm not a LEO), can be used for distracted driving. I would've thought that there'd be a specific, separate code for that though, maybe I'm just not searching correctly.

He said he pulled me over because I was using my cellphone. He didn't mention any erratic driving and he noted on the ticket that I was following the speed limit.

 

[CRUZer]

You could try a trial by written declaration, but IMO your better option is to show up in traffic court, plead not guilty and tell them what you just told us. You could also talk to the officer on the morning of the traffic court before you go in, tell him you appreciated his politeness and courtesy during the stop, and ask if he would mind dismissing the ticket in the interest of justice. If he is so inclined, at the beginning of session the judge will ask officers in attendance if there is anything they'd like to dismiss in the interest of justice prior to getting started, at which point he can step forward, give your ticket / case to the judge, and you're good to go.

Then again, you're also typically not really supposed to be eating, putting on makeup, etc while driving, so it'll be at their or the judge's discretion.

VC 23123 covers distracted driving (including cell phone usage). There is no specific clause that I am aware of that says eating while driving is illegal, but reckless driving could be used under 23103. Since you weren't cited for distracted or reckless though, I'm not sure how this one would go - I'll let one of the traffic cops here chime in on that.

Valid points. It seems like distracted driving would be more applicable than unsafe speed or reckless driving. I would assume 23123 wouldn't be nearly as severe as 22350 Unsafe Speed with 35 over the "safe speed"?

 

[CRUZer]

You could try a trial by written declaration, but IMO your better option is to show up in traffic court, plead not guilty and tell them what you just told us. You could also talk to the officer on the morning of the traffic court before you go in, tell him you appreciated his politeness and courtesy during the stop, and ask if he would mind dismissing the ticket in the interest of justice. If he is so inclined, at the beginning of session the judge will ask officers in attendance if there is anything they'd like to dismiss in the interest of justice prior to getting started, at which point he can step forward, give your ticket / case to the judge, and you're good to go.

Do all of the ticket issuing officers hang out in front of the doors to the courtroom with the accused parties? If so, it seems like the officers would be talking amongst themselves and it would be a spectacle for an accused to approach the officer and unlikely the officer would "back down" in front of his peers in that kind of situation. That said, I know nothing about courtroom dynamics in CA since I've never received a ticket in the 16 years I've been driving here.

 

[NorCalAthlete]

Depends entirely on the officer, venue, etc. Sometimes the officer may not even show up...

 

[CRUZer]

Depends entirely on the officer, venue, etc. Sometimes the officer may not even show up...

I wonder if packed traffic courtrooms are even allowed these days or is traffic court held via Zoom?

Edit: looked it up and Santa Cruz County traffic court is allowing remote arraignments via Zoom. So I guess that means the actual trial will be in person.

 

[DannoXYZ]

I hire an attourney to fight every single ticket I get. They know ins & outs of courtroom way better than me. They know how judges think and how the systems works. Definitely worth his weight in gold (and he's big guy!) for all time saved as well as hassle of higher insurance rates and suspended licenses.

 

[CRUZer]

I hire an attourney to fight every single ticket I get. They know ins & outs of courtroom way better than me. They know how judges think and how the systems works. Definitely worth his weight in gold (and he's big guy!) for all time saved as well as hassle of higher insurance rates and suspended licenses.

What's the going rate for that kind of representation?

 

[tgrrdr]

someone correct me if I'm wrong but I assume the officer will need to articulate in court why your driving was unsafe and the judge commissioner will need to agree with him.

 

[budman]

The going rate is worth it.

Between fines and insurance bumps a grand is worth it.

 

[Lionel Cosgrove]

someone correct me if I'm wrong but I assume the officer will need to articulate in court why your driving was unsafe and the judge will need to agree with him.

Correct. The type of citation the OP got has held up in court but the officer will have to explain traffic conditions, roadway geometry, other factors not readily apparent, etc in order to satisfy the commissioner.

 

[CRUZer]

Correct. The type of citation the OP got has held up in court but the officer will have to explain traffic conditions, roadway geometry, other factors not readily apparent, etc in order to satisfy the commissioner.

Thanks for your input. It was a straight section of road, no traffic, no pedestrians, broad daylight, vehicle in good operating condition, within 2 miles of home so high degree of familiarity with road, driver with no prior accidents...what other factors would be relevant? How relevant is the type of food that was being eaten?

 

[Lionel Cosgrove]

Thanks for your input. It was a straight section of road, no traffic, no pedestrians, broad daylight, vehicle in good operating condition, within 2 miles of home so high degree of familiarity with road, driver with no prior accidents...what other factors would be relevant? How relevant is the type of food that was being eaten?

Your familiarity with the road or proximity to home is irrelevant, but the other things you noted will be. If the type of food you were eating required the use of both hands that might be a relevant factor but otherwise not so much.