Fight Your Traffic Ticket In California - Save Loads Of Money - Tutorial

[bruddakhan]

Hello there fellow BARFers,

I was meandering through some very useful information and figured I would bring it back to BARF for members to read as I find this information to be critical when you receive a ticket (especially if the ticket was not deserved).

THIS CONTENT WAS NOT WRITTEN BY ME - Credit to Jdavidkim from R6-Forum.

AS OF OCTOBER 12, 2014 THIS THREAD IS COMPLETE AND FINISHED. ENJOY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we move on, you should know that people make livings off selling this information for 600$-700$ to do this exact method by promising you to get your ticket dismissed.
I did my own research and found that this method is a lot cheaper, better, effective, and gives you a better peace of mind.


I have won 5 tickets so far and my DMV Driving record is CLEAN like a baby's butt.

Either
The cop doesn't reply with his version of a declaration,
the judge finds me in favor, or
he doesn't show up at trial de novo.



APPLIES TO *([CALIFORNIA])* ROAD LAWS.
-Lingo you should know



Pro Per: Representing yourself in the court of law (Usually used in misdemeanor and felony cases when you decide to go into court without an attorney)


Guilty: Acts as a admission of every fact alleged in an accusation including admission of the criminal intent.


Are you guilty?....Are you?....Really?
Speeding higher than the speed limit says is not against the law.
Surprised?


Trial de Novo: The allowance of the court (that they fail to mention) of simply saying "I don't like the outcome of the case. I want to fight again"











Why should you always fight your traffic ticket?

When you receive a traffic ticket, the court will usually suggest that you must appear twice to contest it: first to appear and plead not guilty and second to stand trial with the officer present. This is not true. You can contest your ticket by mail without making a single court appearance. Contesting your citation through the mail gives you a better chance of winning your case than at a court trial. Even if you seem to be guilty of violating the law, the procedural hassles for the prosecution will often lead to a dismissal. If the prosecution does not submit its version of events in writing to the court by the deadline date, your case will be dismissed regardless of your guilt or innocence. Dismissals due to lack of prosecution are won in approximately 30% of written defenses.

The law allows you to contest any traffic infraction entirely by mail. You can appear via mail through a Written Not Guilty Plea pursuant to CVC 40519(b). In your plea you can request a Trial by Written Declaration pursuant to CVC 40902. In this way you can contest your citation without appearing at all and, for reasons already discussed, will have a better chance of winning than at trial. Further, if you lose your trial by declaration, you have 20 days to request a Trial de Novo (new trial) pursuant to CVC 40902(d). You then can appear in court for the first time for your second chance of winning.

Why doesn't the court inform every defendant of their legal right to appear in court via mail (Written Not Guilty Plea), contest via mail (Trial by Written Declaration), and have a new trial (Trial de Novo) if they are not happy with the outcome of the first trial? Money. Most courtesy notices hardly mention or do not mention these rights at all. Many courtesy notices from California traffic courts begin, "To avoid the inconvenience and long lines associated with a court appearance... pay the bail amount listed above." The justice system uses its own bureaucratic inefficiency to discourage you from seeking justice. Nice.

If they even mention the possibility of contesting a citation, they also mention that this generally requires two court appearances, one to plead not guilty, a second for the actual trial. If you do appear in person to plead not guilty, most courts will make you enter your plea last, inconveniencing you to the maximum. Then it will ask you to return to court for a trial. The two days' pay lost through these two separate appearances amounts to more than the traffic fine for most people. This is why less than 1% of cited motorist ever bother to contest their citation. Ignorant of their legal rights, confused and intimidated by the courts and police, 99% of Californians ticketed simply pay up.

The California Traffic Court System extorts over a billion dollars a year from California citizens by keeping us ignorant of our rights. They confuse and intimidate us with a muddled "courtesy" notice mentioning license suspension and jail as possibilities (these are only possibilities for those who ignore the citation entirely). The courts also benefit from the inherent respect most people have for the police that keeps them from questioning the officers' often-arbitrary decision to issue a citation.

California traffic courts use the formality of the courthouse to further intimidate those brave enough to appear, scaring them into pleading guilty or accepting an assignment to attend traffic school. The court strong-arms the majority of defendants, too busy or too intimidated to appear, to surrender without a fight: we collapse like a piece of IKEA furniture and meekly mail in the protection money hoping these bullies will leave us alone. By sustaining this proctological racket, California traffic courts rake in a small fortune for state, county, and local governments. Al Capone would be proud.

The court has done its best to discourage you from contesting your ticket. My site is designed to expose the not-so-scary Wizard of Oz hiding behind the trappings and formality of the law. You can contest your ticket by mail without a single court appearance. You can win your case with a single letter. You can exercise your right as a citizen to be heard. The state-sponsored car tax via unfair citation can be overcome.




-------------------------------





How to contest your California traffic ticket.


The "courtesy notice" the court sends you after you are cited seems to suggest that you must appear in person twice for a single chance of winning at trial: the first time to plead not guilty, the second to stand trial. This is simply not true. The law allows you to contest your traffic infraction entirely by mail.

You can appear via mail through a Written Not Guilty Plea (pursuant to CVC 40519(b)). In your plea you can request a Trial by Written Declaration (pursuant to CVC 40902). In this way you can contest your citation without appearing at all and will have a better chance of winning than at trial. Further, if you lose your trial by declaration, you have 20 days to request a new trial! (a "Trial de Novo" pursuant to CVC 40902-d). You then can appear in court for the first time for your second chance of winning.

Shareware available on this site contains blank forms, examples, and specific directions for completing a written not guilty plea, trial by written declaration and trial de novo. This shareware is available for a small fee (very small when compared to the cost of your ticket plus the increase in your insurance bill).

Unlike your confusing "courtesy notice," this page explains all of your available options when you receive a traffic citation. Since your "courtesy notice" does such a fine job of exploring the "give up and pay" options, we choose to stress your "fight back and win" options.


-------

RECEIVING A CITATION

Once you've received a citation, you have two options:

1. Plead Guilty (the worst option)

If you plead guilty, the court will typically require you to pay the maximum fine allowed by law and will record a conviction on your public DMV record for five years. A conviction on your record will increase your insurance by an average of $250 per year for three to five years. Clearly, this is the worst possible option to choose.

Sadly, most ticketed motorists grimace, grab their ankles, and pay up. This is why traffic fines have become a gold mine for state, county and local governments, netting over a billion dollars a year in revenue. If you choose to plead guilty, read no further. Go back where you came from, shopping on ebay for old lady's bloomers.



2. Plead Not Guilty and contest--the best option (keep reading...)


CONTESTING A CITATION

This is your only chance for total victory: if you win, you pay no fine and have no conviction recorded on your DMV record.

Only fighting a citation can provide total vindication for an unfairly cited citizen. Amazingly, less than one percent of defendants ever contest their citations. Why? Our traffic courts make contesting your ticket seem too inconvenient and intimidating for most busy Californians.

"Arrest warrant", "license suspension", $250 civil assessment": these are the fascist threats made in your so-called "courtesy notice." The court makes contesting seem difficult and inconvenient and bullies defendants into pleading guilty. The only simple part of this state-sponsored extortion is paying the fine. Most courts now allow you to pay your exorbitant fine with a credit card and have conveniently located ATM machines in the court house.


---

STEPS TO CONTESTING

First step to contesting: Plead Not Guilty

You can plead not guilty in person or by mail. Here are your choices, explained:

Plead Not Guilty In Person: Four Hours of Your Life You'll Never Get Back

Your appearance date is noted at the bottom of your citation. This is the date by which you have promised to appear in court and enter a plea. Most defendants cannot spare the time from their busy lives to wait around in court for three to five hours to enter a "not guilty" plea and set a trial date.

To compound this inconvenience, if you plead "not guilty" the court makes you wait until everyone else in the court pleading guilty is heard. By pleading "not guilty" you get to plead last. Older defendants have died of natural causes before they could proclaim their innocence. People who want to plead "not guilty" often give up under these circumstances and plead "guilty" or request traffic school just to flee the boring hell of traffic court. Going to court is a demoralizing pain in the ass and should be avoided.

Plead Not Guilty By Mail: This is Your Best Option

A written not guilty plea takes 5 minutes or less to write and will save you the time and stress of a court appearance.

Here's how it works: Under section 40519(b) of the Vehicle Code, a defendant is entitled to enter a not guilty plea in writing in lieu of appearing in person in front of a judge. This option allows you to mail a letter to the court pleading not guilty to the charge against you. In this letter, you can request a Trial by Written Declaration, allowing you to contest your citation entirely by mail.

Submitting a Written Not Guilty plea is your legal right (under 40519b), but there is no state approved form for this plea. It seems suspicious that the best and easiest way to contest a traffic ticket is not supported by a state approved pleading form.

Second step to contesting: Choose Your Trial Option (in-person or by mail)

You can have your trial in court in person or by mail. Here are your choices explained:

Court Trial: Smug Cops, Gawking rubes and 720 donuts.

There are many disadvantages to an in-person trial. Most people are too nervous to represent themselves well in court. Also, since most defendants are inexperienced with the law, they tend to lose their cases. This steady stream of "guilty" verdicts may predispose the judge to find you guilty as well, even if your case is well argued.

Another disadvantage to an in-person court trial, is that you are not entitled to a jury. Since 1968, traffic infraction defendants are entitled to a trial decided by a judge alone.

A court trial is a one-shot deal. If you're found guilty, you have no right to a new trial. The citing officer testifies against you and also serves as prosecutor.

Officers usually are called to trial on their days off and receive $200-300 in overtime pay for their brief appearance, enough money to buy him 720 regular donuts or 579 fancy donuts (bear claws, apple fritters, eclairs, etc.). As a result, cops usually make it to court.

Traffic court judges tend to be consistent, if not fair. You may be found guilty with the other defendants, even though you have a solid case for dismissal. Many judges choose to favor the officer in open court, to avoid embarrassing him before a crowd of gawking rubes.

Trial by mail with a written declaration: The Best Option

Requesting a Trial by Written Declaration (CVC 40902) gives you the best chance to win your case. Most people (99% of defendants) never contest their alleged violations due to the inconvenience of making two separate court appearances: the first to plead not guilty (appearance date) and the second to stand trial. In reality, the law permits you to contest an unfair citation with zero court appearances.

You can plead not guilty with a Written Not Guilty Plea (CVC 40519(b)). In this plea you can request a Trial by Written Declaration, a legal right in all traffic infraction cases under CVC 40902. The court will mail the Judicial Council approved Trial by Written Declaration (TR-205) form to you. Examples of completed written declarations for various offences are available in our shareware section (requires registration).

You'll be given three to four weeks to turn in your written declaration. In the written declaration, you can give testimony and present evidence (pictures, diagrams, etc.) to support your case. The officer who cited you will also have the same deadline by which to complete a written declaration describing his justification for citing you.

There are many advantages to contesting by written declaration. The most obvious advantage: the officer gets paid $200-300 to show up in person at a court trial but gets paid NOTHING to complete this declaration paperwork. In my experience, about 30% of police officers fail to submit a response to the court by the deadline. If the officer does not turn in his declaration on time, your case is DISMISSED and your bail is returned. By simply contesting by written declaration, you stand a decent chance of dismissal regardless of your argument.

There are many other advantages to contesting your ticket via Trial by Written Declaration, but they are too numerous to list here. Click here to read other advantages to a trial by written declaration.

Trial by Written Declaration: Judgment

If the citing officer fails to respond by the due date in writing, your case will be dismissed and your bail will be refunded. The Clerk of the Court will inform you of this dismissal in writing.

If the officer returns his declaration by the due date, the judge or commissioner will rule on the case. You will be informed by mail of the verdict via a Trial by Declaration judgment. If you are found not guilty, the charge is dismissed and your bail is refunded.

If you are found guilty, a fine (taken from the bail you sent in with your written declaration) may be imposed. Your bail is usually equivalent to the maximum legal fine for the charge. This fine may be reduced or suspended at the court's discretion. The judge may also assign you to complete a DMV approved Traffic Violator School. When you provide proof of completing traffic school, the court will set aside your conviction and no violation point will be reported to the DMV.

Trial de Novo: A New Trial and Second Chance of Winning Your Case

Section 40902(d) of the Vehicle Code states: If a 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."

If the judge finds you guilty after reading your declaration, you are automatically entitled to a new trial! Nowhere else in criminal law are you entitled to a new trial simply because you are unhappy with the outcome of the first trial. This is only a legal right in traffic infraction cases that begin as a Trial by Written Declaration. This "Trial de Novo" will be an in-person trial in which the judge hears evidence and testimony from yourself and the citing officer.

The legal right to a new trial has a host of advantages. If the officer does not show up at the new trial, your case is dismissed. By the time you get to a trial de novo, three to six months after you were cited, the officer may no longer remember significant facts of your case, leading to a dismissal. If the new judge at your second trial is fairer than the first judge and accepts your argument, he can dismiss the case or find you not guilty. Even if you are found guilty at your second trial, the judge can still reduce your bail and assign you to traffic school.

To request a Trial de Novo, you must submit a form TR-220 (Request for Trial de Novo) to the court postmarked within 20 days of the mailing date of your guilty verdict. This form is available in our Ticket Assassin Shareware section or may be requested from the court.

Summary

Why doesn't the court clearly inform us that we can appear just once in court for two chances of contesting our traffic infractions? Money. Last year the traffic courts in California collected approximately one billion dollars in fines and forfeitures on uncontested traffic tickets. Ignorant of their legal rights, confused and intimidated by the courts and police, 99% of Californians ticketed simply pay up.

Last year, over four million Californians paid their citation without a fight, accepting a conviction on their DMV record. Imagine if only one in four of them exercised their legal right to complete a Trial by Written Declaration. Imagine over one million written statements flooding into California traffic courts every year. Imagine the expressions on the judges faces as bag after bag of mail is unceremoniously dumped on their desks. Let the avalanche begin.

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 (explained at length on our "Put A Hit on Your Ticket" page). 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.

 

[bruddakhan]

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.

Customize your declaration from the examples
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.

Open your favorite word processing program (Word Perfect, Microsoft Word, etc.).

Select the text of the declaration (everything below "Statement of Facts")
Copy the text (control-C for Windows, apple-C for our Mac friends).
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).
Edit the document.
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.
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."

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

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

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE COURT SENDS YOU THE TRIAL BY DECLARATION FORMS.
GO TO : http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/tr205.pdf

I can't stress this enough. This is your driving record that can either be your best friend or reem you up the ass.
DO NOT PROCRASTINATE

 

[bruddakhan]

([[Table of Contents]])
**Bolded Material Regards to SPEEDING TICKETS**
21453: Automated Red-Light Enforcement Ticket
• Example one: calculation shows light still yellow (best for violations of less than one second).
• Example two: illegal speed trap argument (all red-light-camera tickets).
• Example three: Registered owner claims he is not the driver seen in photograph.
• Example four: Ticket arrives in mail 15 days or more after date of violation.

21453: Failure to stop at a red light (police issued)
• Example one.

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

21703: Following too closely (tailgaiting)
• Example one: Following distance was safe (in car lengthgths)
• Example two: Following distance was safe (in feet)

22349(a): Maximum Speed Law (exceeding 65 MPH)
• Example one: Sped up Momentarily to Yield to Tailgater
• Example two: Speed Above 65mph was Safe for Conditions
• Example three: Speed of Traffic Made it Unsafe to Drive at 65mph
• Example four: Aircraft enforced, Illegal Speed Trap from Air.

22350: Basic Speed Law (unsafe speed for conditions)
• Example one: Radar ticket. "Safe & reasonable speed" and "speed trap" argument.
• Example two: Radar ticket. "Radar beam spread" argument (best for tickets of 10mph or less above limit in medium to heavy traffic).
• Example three: Radar ticket in a school zone.

22356: Exceeding Posted Speed of 70 MPH (Aircraft Enforcement)
• Example one: Illegal "Speed Trap" from air. This has been our most successful declaration.

22450: Failure to Stop at Stop Sign
• Example one: Failure to stop "behind" limit line
• Example two: Failure to stop "long enough".

22454: Passing a School Bus (Red Lights Flashing)
• Example one.


21453: Automated Red-Light Enforcement Ticket



21453: Strategy 1
Our Strategy

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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

• Example two: illegal speed trap argument (all red-light-camera tickets).
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 information provided me by the City of San Diego:

1.47 ft. (distance traveled per second for each mile per hour) X speed of your vehicle = DPS (distance per second)
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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

• Example three: Registered owner claims he is not the driver seen in photograph.
21453: Strategy 3
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

 

[bruddakhan]

• Example four: Ticket arrives in mail 15 days or more after date of violation.
21453: Strategy 4
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

 

[bruddakhan]

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

• Example one.

21453: Strategy 1
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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

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

• Example one.
21461: Strategy 1
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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

21703: Following too closely (tailgaiting)



• Example one: Following distance was safe (in car lengthgths)
21703: Strategy 2
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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

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

• Example one: Sped up Momentarily to Yield to Tailgater
22349: Strategy 1
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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

• Example two: Speed Above 65mph was Safe for Conditions

22349: Strategy 2
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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

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

22349: Strategy 3
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 Trial de Novo.

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.

Written Declaration: 22349
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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

22350: Basic Speed Law (unsafe speed for conditions)


• Example one: Radar ticket. "Safe & reasonable speed" and "speed trap" argument.
22350: Strategy 1
Our Strategy

This is the best moving violation to contest. Of the thousands of Basic Speed Law citations I have 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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

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

22350: Strategy 2
Our Strategy

This is the best moving violation to contest. Of the thousands of Basic Speed Law citations I have 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 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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

• Example three: Radar ticket in a school zone.
22350: Strategy 3
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 Trial de Novo.

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



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

• Example one: Illegal "Speed Trap" from air.

22356: Strategy 1
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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

22450: Failure to Stop at Stop Sign

• Example one: Failure to stop "behind" limit line

22450: Strategy 1
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 Trial de Novo.

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".

22450: Strategy 2
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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[bruddakhan]

22454: Passing a School Bus (Red Lights Flashing)

• Example one.

22454: Strategy 1
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 Trial de Novo.

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

 

[Hooli]

How about just not doing stupid shit and avoid getting a ticket in the first place?

:laughing

PS: tl;dr

 

[bruddakhan]

How about just not doing stupid shit and avoid getting a ticket in the first place?

:laughing

PS: tl;dr

Some tickets are inevitable, whether you are guilty or not :/

 

[MikeyRocks]

There's countless websites on the internet with all this information, I'm sure this is copy/pasted from one of those sites, did you really need to post all of this on a thread? :facepalm

Two of the most popular ones:

helpigotaticket.com
ticketassassin.com