yup, got a ticket...

[deathbug74]

1. section you were cited for: 22349(b) Exceeding 55mph; ticket states 70mph in 55, radar/lidar box checked, officer was CHP.
2. city where you were cited: between cities, 2 lane rural highway (SR41)
3. your vehicle info (not required, but helps alot): Honda Accord sedan (gf's car)
4. what the OFFICER TOLD YOU: I stopped you for your speed, where are you coming from and headed? have you had any alcohol? Please step out (sobriety tested), please sign here, not admitting guilt..
5. what you TOLD THE OFFICER: headed from home to the casino for eats, no alcohol.
6. a brief description of the location : 2:45am, running on high beams. 2 lane rural highway, well out of town. officer was parked in the low point between two hills

The only real out i see (besides fighting it, and the officer not showing up), is IF a survey is even required on a stretch like this, and there isn't one.

thoughts?

 

[Burning1]

A survey is never required for a 22349. You might be able to contest it on an unqualified radar operator, miscalibrated radar unit, etc., but you aren't going to win on a speed survey.

 

[Tharkûn]

A survey is never required for a 22349. You might be able to contest it on an unqualified radar operator, miscalibrated radar unit, etc., but you aren't going to win on a speed survey.

Yup.

 

[NorCalBusa]

Not seeing in your initial post that radar or Lidar was used...?

 

[deathbug74]

Not seeing in your initial post that radar or Lidar was used...?

I'll edit, but yes, the radar/lidar box is checked, but neither is circled to indicate which it was.

 

[CABilly]

A long shot, but you might be able to argue that the signage is "unreasonable". If you can prove that you didn't see any speed limit signs indicating 55 mph from the time you got on the highway.

22349 (c) It is the intent of the Legislature that there be reasonable signing on affected two-lane, undivided highways described in subdivision (b) in continuing the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit, including placing signs at county boundaries to the extent possible, and at other appropriate locations.

 

[Burning1]

A long shot, but you might be able to argue that the signage is "unreasonable". If you can prove that you didn't see any speed limit signs indicating 55 mph from the time you got on the highway.

It's not going to matter. The purpose of that law is to direct local counties: 'even though 55 miles per hour is the speed limit for a highway, you should still post up signs indicating that this is the limit.'

Lack of signage will not justify a VC 22349 violation. At best, this falls under the category of 'ignorance of the law.'

The only possible situation I could see it making a difference is when a freeway ends into a highway and the limit is not properly posted. Even then, it would be at the judges discretion.

 

[JPM]

Considering that you are supposed to know the laws, there actually doesn’t have to be signs posted unless the speed is either raised or lowered from what is listed in these two sections:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22352.htm

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22349.htm

 

[deathbug74]

Well, thanks for the input.

Looks like the only (unlikely) shots I have are requesting calibration on the radar and the officer's training, or the officer not showing up.

I've already used up my traffic school allotment for awhile (ticket was in sept, i think; did traffic school in december).

 

[limey]

Don't forget currency of officer training also.

Since CHP is primarily enforcing traffic code I'd expect the officer and equipment to be properly certified though.

Hope that the day of court is his wife's birthday or something ;-).