35mph over the safe speed for eating?

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.
Do you consider 22350 to be an appropriate for the circumstances, as described? If not, what other VC would you consider to be a better fit?
 

Lionel Cosgrove

Well-known member
Do you consider 22350 to be an appropriate for the circumstances, as described? If not, what other VC would you consider to be a better fit?

The officer may have observed something that you are unaware of, which could be why he issued the cite. I’ve written 22350 when the safe speed would have been zero but I can’t really speculate on what other CVC’s would be appropriate since I wasn’t there.
 

bojangle

FN # 40
Staff member
Do you consider 22350 to be an appropriate for the circumstances, as described? If not, what other VC would you consider to be a better fit?

From what you've written, the officer believed he was stopping you for a cell phone violation. When he realized that didn't apply, sounds like 22350 CVC might be all he had. Also from what you described, there is a good chance that the officer will not be able to convince a commissioner that the elements of basic speed law were met. The citation notes you were going the speed limit and you describe ideal driving conditions.

While none of us know what the officer observed and what he might testify to, I think you have a pretty good shot at getting a not guilty verdict on this one.

You can also request discovery ahead of time from the police department. This would include any notes the officer made regarding the citation and any video, if they have that. If dash cam video showed the driving conditions you are describing, that should work in your favor.
 
Last edited:

bojangle

FN # 40
Staff member
Also, we have this format in here...

DISCLAIMER: none of this will be used for court purposes. We are here to help, not get your info and screw you. I expect all the LEO's here to adhere to this disclaimer please.

From now on, and we should have addressed this early on, I would like folks who have questions about tickets to provide minimally the following information.

1. section you were cited for
2. city where you were cited
3. your vehicle info (not required, but helps alot)
4. what the OFFICER TOLD YOU
5. what you TOLD THE OFFICER
6. a brief description of the location (ie...lights, what type of intersection, what type of street, etc.....)

When we have this information it greatly helps us understand the circumstances surrounding your ticket and ways we might help you with it.

brash

But no worries, you posts were fine.
 
From what you've written, the officer believed he was stopping you for a cell phone violation. When he realized that didn't apply, sounds like 22350 CVC might be all he had. Also from what you described, there is a good chance that the officer will not be able to convince a commissioner that the elements of basic speed law were met. The citation notes you were going the speed limit and you describe ideal driving conditions.

While none of us know what the officer observed and what he might testify to, I think yiu have a pretty good shot at getting a not guilty verdict on this one.

You can also request discovery ahead of time from the police department. This would include any notes the officer made regarding the citation and any video, if they have that. If dash cam video showed the driving conditions you are describing, that should work in your favor.
Thanks Dave. I wasn't aware of the ability to request discovery. That would really help me understand the officer's perspective in advance which could help in preparing my defense. The officer was CHP and I didn't specifically observe a body cam and there wasn't the usual audible body cam reminders at any point but will find out during discovery. Same with dash cam.

If the officer's view was limited enough that he mistook food for a cellphone, would that help my defense in that it could demonstrate that he didn't have a clear visual? Or would it be a moot point since I did in fact admit to taking a bite of food when I was trying to clear up the misunderstanding about the cellphone?

The court's website says I can opt for Trial by Written Declaration and if I don't like the TBWD verdict, then I can request a regular trial. This seems like it'd give me two possible chances. Are they any downsides to using the TBWD before a regular court appearance? Can I still request discovery before TBWD?
 

DannoXYZ

Well-known member
What's the going rate for that kind of representation?

Usually costs me between $250-600 depending upon whether they have to go to court.

As standard procedure, attourney will file continuance to put off case for as long as possible to prepare. One of discovery info is officer's vacation times. Rescheduling appearance in middle of vacation is typical tactic.

Even if you are doing TBWD, you should still hire attourney to help you prepare it. Increases chances much, much more.
 
Last edited:

arsenix

Member
Has always seemed like TBWC was a pretty low probability of success.

If you end up going the route of the court appearance, make sure you don't waive your right to a speedy trial. When I got a ticket last, they assign you a hearing date at the first visit. EVERY SINGLE PERSON before me waived their right to a speedy trial even though the next available court date was more than 30 days out. When asked I explicitly refused to waive my right to a speedy trial, was assigned a court date 35 days away... ticket subsequently thrown out.
 

bojangle

FN # 40
Staff member
Has always seemed like TBWC was a pretty low probability of success.

If you end up going the route of the court appearance, make sure you don't waive your right to a speedy trial. When I got a ticket last, they assign you a hearing date at the first visit. EVERY SINGLE PERSON before me waived their right to a speedy trial even though the next available court date was more than 30 days out. When asked I explicitly refused to waive my right to a speedy trial, was assigned a court date 35 days away... ticket subsequently thrown out.

Hmmm, doesn't exactly sound right.

Unless you were in custody, it would be within 45 days, not 30.

1382 PC
(a) The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the action to be dismissed in the following cases:

(1) When a person has been held to answer for a public offense and an information is not filed against that person within 15 days.

(2) In a felony case, when a defendant is not brought to trial within 60 days of the defendant’s arraignment on an indictment or information, or reinstatement of criminal proceedings pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1367) of Title 10 of Part 2, or, in case the cause is to be tried again following a mistrial, an order granting a new trial from which an appeal is not taken, or an appeal from the superior court, within 60 days after the mistrial has been declared, after entry of the order granting the new trial, or after the filing of the remittitur in the trial court, or after the issuance of a writ or order which, in effect, grants a new trial, within 60 days after notice of the writ or order is filed in the trial court and served upon the prosecuting attorney, or within 90 days after notice of the writ or order is filed in the trial court and served upon the prosecuting attorney in any case where the district attorney chooses to resubmit the case for a preliminary examination after an appeal or the issuance of a writ reversing a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty prior to a preliminary hearing. However, an action shall not be dismissed under this paragraph if either of the following circumstances exists:

(A) The defendant enters a general waiver of the 60-day trial requirement. A general waiver of the 60-day trial requirement entitles the superior court to set or continue a trial date without the sanction of dismissal should the case fail to proceed on the date set for trial. If the defendant, after proper notice to all parties, later withdraws, in open court, his or her waiver in the superior court, the defendant shall be brought to trial within 60 days of the date of that withdrawal. Upon the withdrawal of a general time waiver in open court, a trial date shall be set and all parties shall be properly notified of that date. If a general time waiver is not expressly entered, subparagraph (B) shall apply.

(B) The defendant requests or consents to the setting of a trial date beyond the 60-day period. In the absence of an express general time waiver from the defendant, or upon the withdrawal of a general time waiver, the court shall set a trial date. Whenever a case is set for trial beyond the 60-day period by request or consent, expressed or implied, of the defendant without a general waiver, the defendant shall be brought to trial on the date set for trial or within 10 days thereafter.

Whenever a case is set for trial after a defendant enters either a general waiver as to the 60-day trial requirement or requests or consents, expressed or implied, to the setting of a trial date beyond the 60-day period pursuant to this paragraph, the court may not grant a motion of the defendant to vacate the date set for trial and to set an earlier trial date unless all parties are properly noticed and the court finds good cause for granting that motion.

(3) Regardless of when the complaint is filed, when a defendant in a misdemeanor or infraction case is not brought to trial within 30 days after he or she is arraigned or enters his or her plea, whichever occurs later, if the defendant is in custody at the time of arraignment or plea, whichever occurs later, or in all other cases, within 45 days after the defendant’s arraignment or entry of the plea, whichever occurs later, or in case the cause is to be tried again following a mistrial, an order granting a new trial from which no appeal is taken, or an appeal from a judgment in a misdemeanor or infraction case, within 30 days after the mistrial has been declared, after entry of the order granting the new trial, or after the remittitur is filed in the trial court, or within 30 days after the date of the reinstatement of criminal proceedings pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1367). However, an action shall not be dismissed under this subdivision if any of the following circumstances exists:

(A) The defendant enters a general waiver of the 30-day or 45-day trial requirement. A general waiver of the 30-day or 45-day trial requirement entitles the court to set or continue a trial date without the sanction of dismissal should the case fail to proceed on the date set for trial. If the defendant, after proper notice to all parties, later withdraws, in open court, his or her waiver in the superior court, the defendant shall be brought to trial within 30 days of the date of that withdrawal. Upon the withdrawal of a general time waiver in open court, a trial date shall be set and all parties shall be properly notified of that date. If a general time waiver is not expressly entered, subparagraph (B) shall apply.

(B) The defendant requests or consents to the setting of a trial date beyond the 30-day or 45-day period. In the absence of an express general time waiver from the defendant, or upon the withdrawal of a general time waiver the court shall set a trial date. Whenever a case is set for trial beyond the 30-day or 45-day period by request or consent, expressed or implied, of the defendant without a general waiver, the defendant shall be brought to trial on the date set for trial or within 10 days thereafter.

(C) The defendant in a misdemeanor case has been ordered to appear on a case set for hearing prior to trial, but the defendant fails to appear on that date and a bench warrant is issued, or the case is not tried on the date set for trial because of the defendant’s neglect or failure to appear, in which case the defendant shall be deemed to have been arraigned within the meaning of this subdivision on the date of his or her subsequent arraignment on a bench warrant or his or her submission to the court.

(b) Whenever a defendant has been ordered to appear in superior court on a felony case set for trial or set for a hearing prior to trial after being held to answer, if the defendant fails to appear on that date and a bench warrant is issued, the defendant shall be brought to trial within 60 days after the defendant next appears in the superior court unless a trial date previously had been set which is beyond that 60-day period.

(c) If the defendant is not represented by counsel, the defendant shall not be deemed under this section to have consented to the date for the defendant’s trial unless the court has explained to the defendant his or her rights under this section and the effect of his or her consent.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=1382.
 

arsenix

Member
Hmmm, doesn't exactly sound right.

Unless you were in custody, it would be within 45 days, not 30.



https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=1382.

Indeed you are right it is 45 days not 30. In either case, don't waive your rights like every other schmoe if you go to the hearing. No idea how this works during Covid but even a few years ago the courts had a great deal of trouble getting hearing dates scheduled within the deadline. I was the only one who didn't waive and they couldn't do it. I felt like putting a sign outside the courtroom saying "If we all don't waive our right to a speedy trial there is no way the court can schedule the hearings fast enough and almost all of our cases will be thrown out."

Although they make it quite annoying, IMHO it is worth going through the hearing process for any ticket. There is a good chance it will get thrown out on a technicality or the officer doesn't show up.
 

bojangle

FN # 40
Staff member
Indeed you are right it is 45 days not 30. In either case, don't waive your rights like every other schmoe if you go to the hearing. No idea how this works during Covid but even a few years ago the courts had a great deal of trouble getting hearing dates scheduled within the deadline. I was the only one who didn't waive and they couldn't do it. I felt like putting a sign outside the courtroom saying "If we all don't waive our right to a speedy trial there is no way the court can schedule the hearings fast enough and almost all of our cases will be thrown out."

Although they make it quite annoying, IMHO it is worth going through the hearing process for any ticket. There is a good chance it will get thrown out on a technicality or the officer doesn't show up.

Covid has typically extended things out for everything. I'm pretty sure the timeframe considered to be "speedy" can lawfully by increased during a pandemic.
 

arsenix

Member
Covid has typically extended things out for everything. I'm pretty sure the timeframe considered to be "speedy" can lawfully by increased during a pandemic.

Indeed there is a lot of activity around this. Mostly impacting criminal proceedings but probably for things as minor as speeding tickets too:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/03...y-speedy-trial-rules-endorse-remote-hearings/

So the timelines are extended but unless waived you still have a right to a "speedy" trial. Given the current backlog I wonder if minor offenses are more likely to get tossed out at the initial hearing anyway. Worth a shot.
 

W800

Noob
I strongly support LE, but I think what happened to you sucks.

Was there any other reason that the officer might have pulled you over? For example, is your vehicle noticeable in some way? Do you fit any profiles? Was the time of day odd? Have you had any problems with LE in the past? Do you have any associates who might be targeted somehow?

To me, just intuitively - this feels like some sort of fishing.

ETA: this was on 9/11. There are always a lot of LE out on 9/11 for obvious reasons. I am going to go way out on a limb and speculate that you might have somehow piqued interest. Just theory. Could also be random.
 
Last edited:
I strongly support LE, but I think what happened to you sucks.

Was there any other reason that the officer might have pulled you over? For example, is your vehicle noticeable in some way? Do you fit any profiles? Was the time of day odd? Have you had any problems with LE in the past? Do you have any associates who might be targeted somehow?

To me, just intuitively - this feels like some sort of fishing.

ETA: this was on 9/11. There are always a lot of LE out on 9/11 for obvious reasons. I am going to go way out on a limb and speculate that you might have somehow piqued interest. Just theory. Could also be random.
White guy driving a Prius with no bumper stickers at 9am. He was parked in a strategic spot that was obviously intended to monitor for cellphone infractions. I saw him in advance but had no concerns since I wasn't speeding or using a phone. I'm still at a loss a month later. Can't make sense of it.
 

W800

Noob
White guy driving a Prius with no bumper stickers at 9am. He was parked in a strategic spot that was obviously intended to monitor for cellphone infractions. I saw him in advance but had no concerns since I wasn't speeding or using a phone. I'm still at a loss a month later. Can't make sense of it.

Interesting. Sounds like he really wanted to give you a cell phone ticket, then just kind of made something up when he realized he could not do that. I almost ALWAYS see police *after* I pass their strategic positions, so I know the feeling!

Weirdly enough, I have been having this thing recently where I will ride slow and think to myself "why am I riding slow?" Then I will see LE. Happened yesterday. I merged onto 80 on my way to work, but instead of getting in #1 like I normally do, I stayed in #2 and flowed with the cars.

Right after that a bike CHP passed me. I figured he was likely watching me merge and was waiting to zoom in!!! So glad I didn't just jet into #1 like I normally do.

I have no explanation, other than luck or maybe intuition.

I have been doing some research into how our brain works, and the pre-conscious part appears to be key here. Our brain has the information, but isn't feeding it directly to our cortex. It just sits in the back of our brain and we perceive it as intuition. I probably saw him when I did my head check, and it just didn't register. So that's how I got the intuition.

Another way to see:

Yesterday a car swerved into my lane. But there was no delay between when they swerved and when I swerved. My reaction was unconscious. They moved, and I moved at same time. Had my brain tried to process this the normal way, I would have had a slight delay. Sorry for digression.
 

DannoXYZ

Well-known member
Look into research on athletes and starter-guns. Given time for brain to receive and process auditory-data about starter-gun firing, and time for brain to send signal to muscles to run, the initiation of muscular sequence must start before gun actually goes off.
 

W800

Noob
Look into research on athletes and starter-guns. Given time for brain to receive and process auditory-data about starter-gun firing, and time for brain to send signal to muscles to run, the initiation of muscular sequence must start before gun actually goes off.

Interesting - found this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361923009000616?via=ihub - looks like a lot of other studies too.

There's also a book entitled "Thinking Fast and Slow" that talks about all this stuff too.

I came to this by studying Zen. Not as a Zen person, rather just as someone who is a fan of Zen. I got to THAT by being interested in the Samurai. They figured out that their minds were their real weapons.

This is good reading:

https://terebess.hu/zen/UnfetteredMind.pdf
 

Attachments

  • hair.jpg
    hair.jpg
    100.2 KB · Views: 15
Top