So, in moving traffic violations, you have the option to have what’s called a “Trial by Declaration,” where you write out your case, and the judge decides the case based on the written evidence. In this case, I attempted to show the judge how the officer observed me in a “speed trap,” as defined in the California Vehicle Code.

CVC § 40802:

(a) A “speed trap” is either of the following:
(1) 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.
(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed 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. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

So, basically, in order for you to be caught in a “speed trap,” the following must be true:

• The road must have a prima facie speed limit (ie, not above 65mph or 25mph in a school zone)
• The road cannot be a “local road,” defined as:
  • Road not more than 40 feet wide
  • Not more than 1/2 mile of uninterrupted length
  • Not more than one lane in each direction.
• There must be a valid Engineering and Traffic Survey conducted within 5 years that justifies the posted speed limit.

So, what I pointed in my written case was the following:

• The road did have a prima facie speed limit (posted as 45mph)
• The road was not a local road (two lanes in each direction)
• The latest Engineering and Traffic Survey was conducted on April 21, 2004, which is more than 5 years prior to the date I was cited (May 7, 2009)

Now, if you can justify that you were indeed observed in a “speed trap,” there a couple awesome things that the California Vehicle Code states:

CVC § 40801:

No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting 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.

CVC § 40803:

(a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speedtrap.

CVC § 40803:

(a) In any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, an officer or other person shall be incompetent as a witness if the testimony is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speed trap.

CVC § 40805:

Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction against any person for a 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.

So basically, if the officer cites you in a “speed trap,” it is illegal, he cannot submit radar or laser evidence into court, and he is considered “incompetent as a witness,” and the court does not have “jurisdiction to a judgement of conviction.”  Isn’t the law wonderful? :D

Well, after typing this up and including written evidence justifying how I was indeed observed in a speed trap (according to the out-of-date traffic survey), the judge still found me guilty. Jerk… He ignored the law… Let’s just say I was not happy about this decision.

One thing I forgot to mention about a Trial by Declaration: the CVC states that if the defendant is “dissatisfied with the decision of the court,” he can request a “Trial de Novo,” which is basically a fresh start, a brand new trial. I decided to opt for a Trial de Novo. :)

(to be continued…)

See all posts in this series.

Well, let’s see.  It was a Thursday afternoon, May 5th of 2009 to be specific.  I had a meeting at school at 4 and, of course, I had taken a nap and woken up late.  This was an important meeting too… I jumped in my truck and headed off to school.  Of course, on the one day I am in a hurry, there happens to be an officer of the law on my route.  Not paying attention, I coasted down Fairmont Blvd at (apparently) 60 miles per hour.  Coming down Fairmont Blvd from Bastanchury, I noticed Officer Conner parked right about…

…there with a laser gun in his hand pointed right at, well, …me. >:(  Great, exactly what I needed… A speeding ticket and a reason to be even later… I pulled over to the side of the road, put on my puppy-dog face and then spoke with Officer Conner. He informed me of my speed, and I kinda just took it, whatever, I didn’t care. I drove off after frustrated, but I absolutely made sure to obey all traffic laws for a while.

When I got home, I put the ticket in my desk and tried to forget about it for a while…

(to be continued…)

See all posts in this series.

For the next few days, maybe week or so, I’m gonna be describing my most recent brush with the law.  Stick around, the story should be pretty interesting.  I’ll even tell you how I was caught going 60 mph in a 45 mph zone and yet, according to a judge, I was not breaking the law. :)

Stick around for more updates!

Updates:

• Part 1: The Afternoon of May 5th
• Part 2: Trial by Declaration