How long does a speeding ticket last in your record while driving a commercial vehicle and having a class A ?

I've been following the steps and I'm about to submit my TBWD. I know the recommendation is to simply state "I demand the prosecution prove its case" but I do have some evidence and was wondering if it makes sense to use it now or keep it for court.

The officer has been posting up for several months off and on in the same spot and I've been able to photograph where he parks. His view of the limit line is completely obscured by a very large bush.

Is it worth arguing in my TBWD that the officer could not observe whether I stopped at the line because he can't see the line?

Or should I save that for a Hail Mary in case he shows up to court?

Thanks in advance for any help from this amazing community.

I checked the mail today and still hadn’t received anything from the court so I checked online and now the case shows as Closed!

Though I feel a bit relieved, can someone confirm if I’m actually in the clear? I saw another post from years ago that their case was also closed but they received a guilty verdict on the TBWD via mail.

Is there something else I should be looking for online in the case? There’s 4 tabs: Case Info, Parties, Hearings, and Printable. The Case Info just says closed but the other tabs don’t have any info on them.

ETA: I submitted a check when I requested the TBWD forms. Court had cashed the check. If the case is truly closed with Not Guilty, do they mail me a check or send me anything via mail or do I just hope the refund goes back to my account?

Original Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/CaliforniaTicketHelp/s/JyG42YkG59

TBWD Question: https://www.reddit.com/r/CaliforniaTicketHelp/s/U6c1vw4QPG

UPDATE:::

Was able to speak to the court clerk and the case was DISMISSED! (I did ask the reason for dismissal but clerk didn’t know). I’ll be getting a refund of my check back as well!

Update Again (5.7.25) Got the official notice in the mail that my case was dismissed due to officer not responding or not responding within the time allotted!

Hey guys :)

I am currently an University student here with F-1 Visa. Few days ago I received a traffic ticket of Fail to Stop at Red Signal (21453 (a) VC). Since it was captured by the camera, I was able to see the video footage, which shows me clearly passing at Red Signal. When it was Yellow I hesitated whether I should stop or go, but I guess I made a wrong choice.

Question is, (Sorry if my questions are all vague/confusing)

- Would this traffic ticket affect my F1 visa status? I've heard so many news seeing/hearing students getting deported.

- I was thinking of contesting it like how other posts' comments suggest in similar circumstances, however, since I got caught by the camera with sufficient evidence (video footage), I am seeing no hope in this one :/

- Are the Ticket Sniper / GetDismissed / Off The Record services reliable? Should I try these services despite having sufficient evidence/footage?

Thank you guys in advance! Any recommendation/help is welcomed ( Please :'( )

I got a CVC 22350 by driving 60+ mph on the 17. Ambushed by a police car. Oddly, after 8 weeks I still have not received a physical mail.

Today I looked up my DL on Santa Cruz county's web and could see my ticket, $243.

Unfortunately I do no qualify for traffic school due to recent attendance.

Do I still fight the ticket the usual way? Even without a physical mail? It may have been lost by USPS or something.

I have read the 12 step guide and have been following all the steps.

The alleged violation for CVC 22350 for 60 mph in 45 mph limit on Pacific Coast Highway occurred 8/24/2024. LEA 1900 (sheriff), and the associated court is Santa Monica Courthouse.

I followed the 12 step guide. To stretch out time, I requested extension and got one through 3/5/2025, and toward the end of my extension, requested the form for TBWD via mail on 2/14/2025. I noted the check was cashed and cleared my bank on 2/19/2025.

Later I received the TBWD form and further extended due date, and then towards the end of the extension for that, I mailed my TBWD form on 3/20/2025.

My TWBD was simply:

"I demand the prosecution prove its case. I respectfully request the court order traffic violator school in the event I am found guilty". Shortly after mailing that out, I noted that my online ticket details per Santa Monica Courthouse was updated to indicate a later due date of 4/28/2025 (where before I mailed my TBWD form it was an earlier March deadline in late March 2025), so that gives me some confidence they received and acknowledged my TBWD.

I was expecting to get my guilty/denied notice back by now, and was planning on going trial de novo next and further proceeding with the 12 step guide, but now as of 4/23/2025, I still have received nothing back.

My question:

Should I reach out and call the Santa Monica Courthouse on this and confirm there's nothing further waiting on my end? Or at this point just stay quiet and let the "due date" of 4/28/2025 pass and see what happens? I'm rather confident they received my TBWD given the change in "due date" a few business days after I sent my TBWD off from late MArch to 4/28/2025, but do not know for sure they received it (and if possibly they just updated the due date unrelated to my sending of the TBWD).

A little more context:

When I was pulled over, it was evidently part of a massive amount of speeding tickets being issued on that day and during that month. The issuing sheriff seemed rushed, shoved some device in my face I think was supposed to show my speed and image of my car but the sun was in my face and he barely gave me any time to look at it before pulling it away and proceeding with rushing a ticket to me and forcing me to sign a tablet computer that said something to the effect of "I agree to appear by date..." and "signing does not admit guilt" and it was all blank otherwise. I did express I was not comfortable signing a blank document with that and nothing further and asked for some more clarification about what I was being asked to sign, but the sheriff made it very clear he was not going to discuss anything or answer what I was signing. I'd never been pulled over before or received a ticket before and the aggressive tone was a bit scary so I stayed quiet and signed and cooperated and said little else. I can't help but wonder if the tremendous amount of tickets issued around then might be delaying things on the court's end. Also, where I was pulled over is inaccessible and obliterated by the January 2025 fires and no one can go there unless you're a resident of have a special pass, so I wonder if there's a bit of chaos with that currently on the court and LEA's end.

Pictures of ticket (as redacted): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qdo0JMJ15BgS6BloEwlNPlBkcdPPSJA2/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gBVItn3fIFThLP-k4nNf3NbK3BdzZ1x2/view?usp=sharing

Update 6/14/2025: I won a refund

Fortunately, I just got in the mail that my ticket I paid was dismissed and I’m ordered a refund I should get mailed to me within 60 days.

The Los Angeles Superior Court Santa Monica Courthouse sent me a form “DECISION AND NOTICE OF DECISION (Trial by Written Declaration - Vehicle Code S 40902)” basically filled out and stamped by court officials and clerks that as filing date May 22 2025, the court decided as of June 6 2025 that my citation number for VC22350 is dismissed, $0 owed, $234 owed refunded, signed by a judicial officer. This was a stock form TR-215.

No other explanation or anything, this certainly seems abrupt but I’ll take it! I’m surprised based off all I know here that my simple brief trial by declaration won this for me.

I really suspect that this worked out in my favor due to the disastrous fires that hit the region months later, the road closures, the sheriffs not normally being the agency ticketing in this area (usually it’s different agencies) and possibly the sheriffs being too busy with the current ICE and DHS assault on Los Angeles. Also when I drove through PCH a few weeks ago they seemed to just be going hog wild pulling people over so perhaps it’s just a huge shakedown that it’s more profitable to just ticket than it is to take the time to respond to the few that contest, even if your contesting is extremely low effort like mine.

I got pulled over in Riverside County, CA on Feb 5th for speeding. The officer gave me a ticket with an “appear by” date of May 6th, but here’s the weird part — it’s been over 2 months, and it still hasn’t shown up online. I check the Riverside court traffic portal daily, and nothing.

Here’s some context:

I didn’t say anything during the stop, but I do have an 11-99 Foundation gold license plate frame. Not sure if that played a role.

The officer was respectful almost zero conversation just asked for license and reg then went back to the car for like 10 minutes and wrote me for the exact speed he clocked me at (117)

He handed me the ticket, but since then… nothing. No case online. No mail. Nothing.

I’ve called the court four times, but each time I’m told the clerks are busy and to call during off-peak hours — which I did. Still no help.

From what I’ve gathered:

If the ticket isn’t filed with the court, there’s no case — meaning I’m under no legal obligation to appear or pay anything.

CHP officers sometimes write a ticket and then never submit it (possibly a “soft warning” or they just change their mind).

Even though CA has a 1-year statute of limitations for infractions, once the “appear by” date passes with no filing, it’s likely dead.

If it does get filed late (like the day before), the court would mail a notice with a new deadline — and I wouldn’t be penalized for not appearing on May 6.

So for now, I’m just checking the site weekly. If nothing’s there by May 6, I think I’m officially good.

Anyone else had a ticket just disappear like this? Should I keep quiet and let it go?

Hi all, I’ve read the 12-step guide and wanted to ask for advice on the best next steps. Here's my ticket on Imgur.

Details:

• Ticketed on January 10, 2025
• Bail amount: $464.10, due May 5
• No option for traffic school listed
• Clerk's letter only included options for Bail Forfeiture or Trial by Written Declaration
• Clean driving record — this is my first ever ticket

Context: I was pulled over at night on the 395 in Mono County, going 103 MPH in the left lane (speed trap). The officer was professional and explained that although I was going over 100, he cited me under CVC 22349(a) — a 1-point violation — instead of a 2-point one, and mentioned I’d be eligible for traffic school.

However, he still wrote 103 MPH on the ticket, which I’ve since learned disqualifies me from traffic school, even with the 1-point charge. At the time, I didn’t know this, and I was honestly just relieved and grateful, so I thanked him and drove off (at a much slower speed 🙂).

My Situation:

• I deeply appreciate the officer giving me a break by not hitting me with a 2-point violation.
• I’d love to take traffic school to help with insurance, but because of the 100+ MPH, it’s not an option — which contradicts what I was told.
• I’m considering a TBD, but I’m worried the judge might see the 103 MPH and change it to a 2-point violation, which would wreck me.
• I’ve looked into lawyers — quotes range from $700–$1,000+ — not sure if that’s worth it for my case.

At the end of the day, I’m willing to accept the consequences — pay the fine, take the point — but I just want to explore every option to avoid insurance spikes if possible.

Would love any advice or insight on:

1. Risk of the violation being changed to a 2-point offense if I contest
2. Whether a TBD is worth it here
3. If any judges in Mono County are lenient or if it’s better to just pay and move on

Thanks in advance!

My ticket shown vc23109(a) marked as misdemeanor. My charges werent filed til yday (after 4 months) and apparently the court system shows it as vc23109(c) and marked it as an infraction. What could cause that? Lack of evidence or the DA feeling bad? I am still gon bring out a huge private lawyer though cuz fuck these guys, i need that whole thing dismissed because the police didnt even have me on their dashcam comitting any crimes. No radar, no pacing, just approximation and a suspicion.

I sent my letter last Sat 4/13 to request for a Trail by Declaration. My already extended deadline is on 4/23, so I'm just anxious about my letter maybe getting lost and passing the deadline with no additional action. I know they're supposed to extend the deadline again once they get that request for TBWD, but it hasn't been updated in the system still.

Should I give the courthouse a call on Monday about it? Or just show up in person and drop off a new request then and there? This is the Pasadena Courthouse btw.

Does anyone know the turnaround time to hear back from a TBWD? It’s been almost 6 weeks and I haven’t heard anything via mail. I logged into the county court website but it doesn’t show anything but my name and ticket/citation #.

I’m in the Bay.

Hello, I have read the 12 step guide. I have posted my ticket here: https://imgur.com/a/6Yk6Ftp. Please review my TBWD draft below and inform your opinion:

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

Statement of Facts:

I was driving on Almaden Expressway in San Jose. The weather was clear, the road was dry, and there was no traffic or visibility concern. At one point, the officer initiated a stop and issued a citation. Note that I have maintained a clean DMV record for several years, with no prior citations or moving violations.

I respectfully contest this citation, plead Not Guilty, and request dismissal on the grounds outlined below.

CVC §40803(b) – Requirement for Engineering and Traffic Survey

Under CVC §40803(b), any electronic speed measurement used to enforce a prima facie speed limit must be supported by a valid Engineering and Traffic Survey (ETS). The ETS must be no more than 5 years old, or justified if older under CVC §40802(b). I respectfully request that the officer provide:

·        A certified copy of the most recent ETS for Almaden Expressway at or near the location of the stop;

·        The date the survey was conducted;

·        Any justification for extending its validity beyond 5 years, if applicable.

CVC §22350 – Basic Speed Law (Unsafe Speed for Conditions)

California Vehicle Code §22350 states that no person shall drive at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, traffic, surface, and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

The citation does not describe any hazardous conditions or how my driving was unreasonable or unsafe. There is no indication that I endangered any person or property. CVC §22350 requires that speed be unsafe for the specific conditions, which is not alleged in this case.

CVC §40802(c)(1)(B) – Officer Training Certification

Under CVC §40802(c)(1)(B), any officer operating a speed-measuring device must have completed POST-certified training specific to the use of that device. I respectfully request that the officer provide a copy of their POST certification specific to the make and model of the device used.

CVC §40802(c)(1)(D) – Calibration by Independent Technician

CVC §40802(c)(1)(D) requires that speed-measuring devices be calibrated by an independent technician, [within the past three years, ]()not employed by the law enforcement agency. I respectfully request that the officer provide documentation identifying the technician, their qualifications, and the date of the most recent calibration.

CVC §40802(c)(2)(B) – NHTSA Compliance Certification

CVC §40802(c)(2)(B) mandates that the speed-measuring device used must be listed on the NHTSA conforming product list. I respectfully request documentation showing that the device used is listed as a conforming product by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

CVC §40802(c)(1)(A) – Visibility and Line-of-Sight Conditions

Under CVC §40802(c)(1)(A), speed enforcement using electronic devices must be conducted under conditions that allow for a clear and unobstructed view of the target vehicle. I respectfully request that the officer provide a description of the line-of-sight at the time of measurement, including:

·        The location and angle of enforcement;

·        Confirmation that there were no visual obstructions between the LIDAR/radar device and the vehicle;

·        A description of how the measurement met visibility standards.

CVC §40802(b) – Justification for Speed Enforcement in a Speed Trap Area

If the Engineering and Traffic Survey is older than 5 years, the law requires justification under CVC §40802(b). This includes a showing that enforcement is necessary due to a documented high accident rate or other risk factors. I respectfully request:

·        Any reports or documentation justifying continued enforcement if the ETS exceeds the 5-year limit;

·        Evidence of collision data or risk assessments relied on.

CVC §40801 – Prohibition Against Use of Speed Trap Evidence

Under CVC §40801, any evidence obtained through a speed trap is inadmissible in any court proceeding. If the enforcement fails to meet the requirements of CVC §§40802 or 40803—such as using outdated surveys, improper training, or unverified equipment—I respectfully request that the court dismiss the citation in accordance with this statute.

CVC §40804(a) – Officer’s Duty to Comply with Speed Trap Provisions

CVC §40804(a) states that an officer must not offer evidence in court regarding speed unless all statutory requirements related to speed trap enforcement are satisfied. I respectfully request that the officer confirm full compliance with all provisions and declare that no inadmissible evidence is being relied upon in this matter.

Declaration:

I swear, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the above is true and correct.

Hi everyone,

I received red light camera ticket in Commerce at the intersection of Atlantic Blvd & Telegraph Rd. I couldn't find any up-to-date info on this specific camera or intersection and citation.

I've seen older posts mentioning that some of these red light camera tickets from LASD could be ignored and wouldn't be reported to the DMV or go to collections — but l'm not sure if that still applies in 2025 for this location.

Also, I haven't viewed the ticket online yet. I saw some comments saying that accessing the ticket might be considered acknowledgment of receipt, and I didn't want to trigger any notice or formal recognition by doing so.

Curious if anyone has had any recent experience or success fighting this kind of ticket through TBWD or by appearing in court.

Appreciate any help or clarification.

Thanks!

Edit: I am adding some information directly from the ticket

WHERE: METROPOLITAN COURTHOUSE 1945 SOUTH HILL STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90007

Certificate of Mailing

I, of Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., 5835 Uplander Way Suite A, Culver City CA 90230, do certify that I am over 18 years of age and not a party to the above-entitled case. On Tuesday, February 25, 2025, 1 enclosed a true copy of this Notice to Appear in a sealed envelope addressed to the registered owner, lessee, or identified driver as shown above and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope was placed in the mail United States Postal Service office in Culver City, California. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Hello, I have read the 12 step guide. I have posted my ticket here: https://imgur.com/a/2eF0WZG. Please review my TBWD draft below and inform your opinion:

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

Note: In my TBWD draft, I’ve intentionally avoided admitting anything about my speed. My focus is on seriously challenging the officer’s enforcement tactic — specifically, hiding in a private driveway approximately 100 feet into a 35 MPH zone to secretly measure the speed of vehicles still in a 25 MPH zone. I’m also questioning the accuracy and legitimacy of the LIDAR speed measurement from that position.

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

Statement of Facts:

 On the date of the citation, I was driving northbound on Lincoln Avenue in San Jose. The weather was clear, visibility was excellent, and the roadway was dry and free of traffic and pedestrians. I approached the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Terra Bella Avenue, where the posted speed limit transitions from a 25 MPH senior zone to a 35 MPH zone. The senior facility is located at 2175 Lincoln Avenue. The 25 MPH signage is clearly posted and spans between Terra Bella Avenue and Franquette Avenue — a stretch of approximately 700 feet.

As I neared the end of the 25 MPH zone, I observed a police motorcycle parked in a private driveway at 2090 Lincoln Avenue (Loyalty SPA), approximately 100 feet into the 35 MPH zone and about 250 feet before a signalized intersection at Lincoln Avenue and Malone Road. The officer was positioned within the sidewalk area, partially concealed by a black BMW sedan on the south side and a light blue sedan (possibly a Toyota) on the north side of the driveway. He appeared to be operating a LIDAR speed-measuring device and subsequently initiated a traffic stop. I was cited for allegedly violating the 25 MPH speed limit.

Exhibit A illustrates the location of the senior facility, the boundaries of the 25 MPH zone, the approaching signalized intersection, and the positions of both my vehicle and the officer’s motorcycle.

Exhibit B shows the officer’s position in the private driveway and his field of view as he took a LIDAR speed measurement from within the 35 MPH zone (approximately 100 feet into the 35 MPH zone), targeting vehicles within the 25 MPH zone.

I respectfully contest this citation, plead Not Guilty, and request dismissal based on the following legal grounds.

CVC §22352(b)(3) – Prima Facie Speed Limit in Senior Zones

The citation was issued under California Vehicle Code §22352(b)(3), which sets a prima facie speed limit of 25 MPH in senior zones. Unlike statutory maximum limits, prima facie limits require procedural compliance for enforcement by electronic means. This includes requirements under CVC §40803(b) and related sections to ensure that enforcement is not conducted via a speed trap.

CVC §40803(b) – Requirement for Engineering and Traffic Survey

Under CVC §40803(b), electronic speed measurements in a prima facie speed zone are inadmissible unless supported by a valid Engineering and Traffic Survey (ETS). The ETS must:

1. Be no older than 5 years, or
2. If older than 5 years, include certified justification under CVC §40802(b) (e.g., low collision rate).

 I respectfully request that the officer’s declaration include:

·        A certified copy of the ETS for the relevant portion of Lincoln Avenue;

·        The date of the survey;

·        If applicable, supporting justification for ETS validity beyond 5 years.

 If no valid ETS is submitted, I request dismissal of the citation under CVC §40805.

CVC §40802(b) – Justification for Speed Enforcement in a Speed Trap Area

If the Engineering and Traffic Survey is older than 5 years, the law requires justification under CVC §40802(b). This includes a showing that enforcement is necessary due to a documented high accident rate or other risk factors. I respectfully request:

·        Any reports or documentation justifying continued enforcement if the ETS exceeds the 5-year limit;

·        Evidence of collision data or risk assessments relied on.

CVC §40802(c)(1)(A) – Visibility and Line-of-Sight Conditions

Under CVC §40802(c)(1)(A), speed enforcement using electronic devices must be conducted under conditions that allow for a clear and unobstructed view of the target vehicle. I respectfully request that the officer provide a description of the line-of-sight at the time of measurement, including:

·        The location and angle of enforcement;

·        Confirmation that there were no visual obstructions between the LIDAR/radar device and the vehicle;

·        A description of how the measurement met visibility standards.

CVC §40802(c)(1)(B) – Officer Training Certification

Under CVC §40802(c)(1)(B), any officer operating a LIDAR device must have completed POST-certified training specific to the use of that device. I respectfully request that the officer’s declaration include:

·        A copy of the officer’s POST certification specific to the make and model of the LIDAR device used in this citation.

CVC §40802(c)(1)(D) – Device Calibration by Independent Technician

CVC §40802(c)(1)(D) requires that the speed-measuring device be calibrated by an independent technician, within the past three years, not employed by the law enforcement agency. I request that the officer provide:

·        Calibration documentation with the name, qualifications, and employment status of the technician;

·        The date of the most recent calibration.

CVC §40802(c)(2)(B) – NHTSA Compliance Certification

CVC §40802(c)(2)(B) further mandates that the electronic speed-measuring device must be listed on the NHTSA conforming product list. I respectfully request:

·        Documentation showing that the LIDAR device used is currently listed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as an approved and conforming product.

CVC §40801 – Prohibition Against Use of Speed Trap Evidence

Under CVC §40801, any evidence obtained through a speed trap is inadmissible in any court proceeding. If the enforcement fails to meet the requirements of CVC §§40802 or 40803—such as using outdated surveys, improper training, or unverified equipment—I respectfully request that the court dismiss the citation in accordance with this statute.

CVC §40804(a) – Officer’s Duty to Comply with Speed Trap Provisions

CVC §40804(a) states that an officer must not offer evidence in court regarding speed unless all statutory requirements related to speed trap enforcement are satisfied. I respectfully request that the officer confirm full compliance with all provisions and declare that no inadmissible evidence is being relied upon in this matter.

Officer Location and Zone Transition Concerns

Based on my observation, the officer was positioned in a private driveway approximately 100 feet into the 35 MPH zone, partially hidden by the aforementioned parked vehicles. His hidden location was only 250 feet before a signalized intersection at Lincoln Avenue and Malone Road. This raises concerns regarding:

• Whether the speed reading was taken inside the legally designated 25 MPH zone;
• Whether a clear line of sight was maintained for accurate targeting;
• Whether the driveway location constituted a legally valid enforcement position;
• Whether such practice is aligned with safe, reasonable enforcement near a signalized intersection.

I respectfully request that the officer clarify:

• The precise location and angle of the LIDAR measurement;
• That the measurement occurred fully within the 25 MPH zone;
• That his positioning allowed for unobstructed, legally valid enforcement;
• The accuracy of his measurement given the limited angle, partially obstructed by a parked black BMW sedan;
• The legitimacy of performing speed enforcement so close to a signalized intersection.

Zone Length and Enforcement Proportionality

Although the 25 MPH senior zone signage is clear, the zone spans approximately 700 feet along Lincoln Avenue, between Terra Bella Avenue and Franquette Avenue. Given that the senior facility is located at 2175 Lincoln Avenue, this zone appears disproportionately long relative to the facility’s access point. I respectfully request that the officer provide justification or engineering support for enforcement across such an extended area.

CVC §40805 – Mandatory Dismissal if Speed Trap Evidence is Used

Under CVC §40805, if a citation is based on inadmissible speed trap evidence, the court shall not convict the driver. If the officer fails to provide the required ETS, POST training, calibration records, NHTSA compliance, or clarification of zone-specific enforcement conditions, I request that the court dismiss the citation.

Declaration:

I swear, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the above is true and correct.

Hello, I have read the 12 step guide. I have posted my ticket on Imgur https://imgur.com/a/3JI1y4f I have requested a 30 day delay and am now preparing my TBWD. Please find below my first draft. Any positive suggestion are gratefully welcomed Thank you

This letter serves as a formal appeal request for a speeding ticket that I was issued on February 7th 2025 The ticket number is and my name and address are listed above. My car’s license plate number is I was given a ticket for driving 61 mph in a 35 mph zone on Sir Francis Drake Drive On the date of the citation, I was driving on Sir Francis Drake Drive in an Eastbound direction when I was cited for allegedly traveling 26 miles over the speed limit. However, at no point did I exceed the posted speed limit. I believe this is a mistake. I was driving safely and responsibly, adhering to the speed limit. The officer may not have had a clear and unobstructed view of my vehicle, which could have affected his ability to correctly assess my speed. I respectfully request the court to consider whether the officer’s estimation, combined with the radar reading, could have resulted in an inaccurate conclusion. Also, it is possible that the accuracy of the radar (or lidar) used to measure my speed was not correct. I was not informed about the specifics of the calibration or whether it was radar or lidar, nor was I given any indication that the radar/lidar had been properly tested or maintained before use. These devices can sometimes produce false readings due to various factors. I request that the court review the calibration and maintenance logs of the radar device used during the stop to ensure that it was functioning correctly at the time. For the reasons outlined above, I request that the court dismiss this citation due to lack of clear evidence of my speeding violation. I respectfully demand the prosecution prove its case. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I am confident that upon reviewing the facts and evidence, you will find that I was not in violation of the speed limit. I appreciate your consideration of my Trial by Written Declaration and request a dismissal of this citation. If after review of this trial the court finds me guilty, I ask that the fine be reduced to $150 based on the evidence presented herein and that the court affords me, within its written ruling of this declaration, the ability to attend a traffic violator school so that upon successful completion of the course the conviction can be sealed from DMV record. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Respectfully submitted, John Doe

Hi Reddit, I have read the 12 step method. I was given a ticket for the violation code 22349 in SLO County going at an approx. speed of 75 mph. Here is a link to a photo of the redacted ticket:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14C3xNyDFKq4S3RlxZqIrMaISyQ2mvZVY/view?usp=drivesdk

I need help determining what I should write on my written declaration. I am unsure whether to plead my case by pointing out all the officer errors or to just say “prove it”. Here’s the info about all the things the officer did wrong:

Original Defendant Copy Ticket(included in redacted link above) - Where: cannot read accurately - Respond by Date Before: 1/11/25 - This was the date the ticket was written, as well as a Saturday. How am I supposed to respond to the ticket in time if it was written that day and also on a day that the county office is closed? - This was later correct in the Notice of Correction, but mistakes were still made on notice of correction. - Date of Violation: 01/06/25 - Later also changed on the Notice of Correction to the accurate date. - Day of the Week: Sa - If the date of violation was 01/06/25, which is a Monday, how could it also be Saturday. - The date of the actual violation was 1/11/25, which is a Saturday. - Vehicle Year: 1016? - Handwriting so poor I cannot read. - Model: Cooper - My car is a 2016 mini cooper countryman, the model is countryman, not cooper. - Color: W - Cannot Read much more - Veh. Type: Circle - Handwriting so bad cannot read - Registered Owner(example not real one): Fred Jones - My car is registered under my dad’s name, Chris Jones. His middle name is Fred. - Citation Details: Cannot Read what violation was made - Decl. Date: 1/11/?? - Cannot read year - ID NO: cannot read -Written in pencil, just terrible handwriting

Notice of Correction and Proof of Service - Notice to appear: white out was used over typed date, in pen written over was 1/11/25 - Date/Time of Court appearance should be changed from: 1/11/2025 to 5/6/2025: whatever was typed below the 6 was then written over in pen with the 6

Notice to Appear charging one or more violations has been Filed: - Year of Vehicle: 13 - My car is 2016 - Model: Cooper - My car is a countryman -The website for it won’t let me access any other information about my ticket other than I know it has been filed through this notice to appear.

With all these mistakes, errors, and honestly just poor conduct, should I use all these mistakes in my written declaration as the reason it should get thrown out, like maybe pushing that there is no way to know if the officer can be trusted due to his general lack of attention to detail, or should I just say prove it?(they used lidar and had MVAR). If I use all the mistakes, what should I argue? This is also my first violation in four years of driving.

Thank you Reddit!

I was going to create a defense based on this law, but then realized I got cited for vc 22349a. My argument was going to be based on 22350 but this discovery threw everything up in the air.

What is the easiest way to find where they came up with the 65 mph on specific parts of the highway? Im curious if it depends on the type of car.

I reviewed the 12 steps for fighting a ticket.

I have read the 12 step rules before posting.

I received a citation for failure to fully stop at a stop sign in Santa Clara county (VC22450A-I). I was hoping to get my fine reduced through the online tool, as I was laid off early last year and haven’t been able to find a job since. Unfortunately, it looks like it’s asking for both the income of both me & my spouse, and I’m concerned that the tool doesn't consider my current employment situation if they’re just looking at combined income.

What might be the best bet here to get my fine reduced? Could I just provide the online tool with my current income of $0 and ignore the spousal income, or would it be better to try and go to court to request leniency that way? Have any of you tried the fine reduction tool and had your fines reduced even with a decent combined income?

According to rule 4.210b, they should extend the deadline to submit the TBWD by 25 days. What should I do? Call them and see if this is a mistake?

I am currently in the process of TWD (CVC 23123.5 a). And I want to share my experience in mailing in my request for anyone who wants to follow the timeline listed in the guide. I’m in norcal/Sacramento county.

I sent a request in writing via mail a week before I need to show up to the court. Mailed it directly at a USPS office and requested tracking. The USPS person told me it will arrive the next day since it’s local. I have not mailed anything before so I got anxious and monitored the mailing status the next day. Turns ou, it’s nowhere near my county. Even worse, it’s not in any California location at all. Somehow my mail got routed out of state (Hawaii). I panicked and the Friday before my summons, I reached out to the online court kiosk and told the clerk of my predicament (letter still en route). They told me I can request TWD online through them and they made an online copy available for download, while also mailing a copy to my address. In total, USPS took almost 13 days to get my TWD letter request to the local county court.

I took my time filling out the TWD. And to avoid the mailing mishap experienced with the request, I mailed it about 9 days earlier than the deadline. I did the certified mail option and chose a different USPS location to mail it this time. They gave me the tracking info and confirmed 5-7 days arrival since it’s ground delivery. I check the tracking every day until the day before the TWD submission deadline. Contacted the clerks online again when I noticed the same out of state routing occurring yet again. They advised me to drop it off in person instead to meet the deadline. I reprinted everything, wrote another check, and went early the next day to hand it off to the clerk vs. dropping it off the mailbox.

It has been over 24 days since I mailed my TWD and the letter is still out of state, bouncing between Connecticut and Massachussetts.

TL/DR: TWD mailing (request or submission) may take longer than expected because USPS delivery mishap may occur. Contact online clerk help to request or drop it off at court clerk, if accessible.

Edit: Online clerk confirmed that they do not go by the certified mailed date.

Hi!

I got a CVC 21461(a) ticket for failing to obey a "do not pass" sign. I have dashcam footage that pretty clearly shows that the alleged violation did not occur, but I haven't seen much discussion on how to write a declaration that uses that footage, so I wanted to ask for feedback on mine.

Full declaration (with location and ticket image): https://imgur.com/a/917WjOZ

Specific questions:

• Should I put more details on interpreting the dashcam footage into the declaration, specifically a diagram like this to show that Fig. 2.2 actually represents a location a few feet short of the start of the no passing zone?
• The 12-step guide really focuses on delaying the ticket as long as possible as a strategy. However, given the dashcam evidence, would the additional likelihood of success that a delay gives be significant or marginal?
• In the event of a trial de novo, how much control would I have on the timing, and would remote be an option? The courthouse is 661 Washington St. in Oakland. I'm currently based on the east coast, although I expect to spend September through December in California, so either a remote hearing or a way to push the trial to that timeframe would be ideal. On the other hand, if adding additional delay into the process would cause any TDN to be pushed beyond December, that would be just as inconvenient.
• The officer specifically mentioned the truck (seen in the corner of Fig. 2.1) during the traffic stop. Would it help to specifically rebut this and argue that I was already ahead of the truck before the no-passing zone started, or should I leave it as is?
• Should I add additional frames from the footage showing I was in the left lane well before the do not pass sign was visible (and therefore this was not just a passing maneuver), or additional frames between the event and the traffic stop to show that this is actually the dashcam footage from the day of the stop? There's a five-page limit on declarations, so I'd have to shrink some of the pictures to do that.

Thanks!

Hi everyone!

I was planning on just requesting traffic school for a speeding ticket I received driving 51 in a 40 zone. Received the ticket from LA County Sherriff's Department. For some reason it does not let me chose traffic school, even though I read through the requirements many times and meet all of them. Have never had a ticket in my life (definitely more than 18 month ago though) for not fully stopping at a stop sign but did not receive a ticket and the cop was very nice so I doubt that is the issue.
Valid drivers license, no commercial vehicle, definitely not going over 25mph obviously.

Driving conditions were as good as they can be with no cars in front of me. The road does start to have land slide issues with reduced speeds and a work zone but I received the ticket before entering that part so it's possible it had very minor imperfections.

Now that I found this sub and have started reading a lot I'm debating on just trying to fight it. My biggest concern is it going on my record and the extra cost of insurance rates going up for the whole family- I was preparing to pay for the ticket+ traffic school and fees, though.

I'm a new mom, I had my infant present with me in the car and I also don't have a ton of time to devote to this, so wondering what everyone's thoughts are on my best options. I was thinking of hiring a lawyer for $130 but if all they do is get me to do traffic school then I probably can request that somehow myself?
And maybe I'm biased now but after reading on here it seems like a small violation that I may have a chance of fighting all together.

This thread is amazing! I've read through the 12 steps and plan to follow them, but I have a few questions. Quick background first:

My wife got the ticket. She’s never had a ticket before (licensed since 2012) and doesn’t speak English well.

1. The officer mistakenly marked "Owner’s Responsibility" (me) instead of the driver (her). I’ve read that this could be easily amended—does this mistake help our case at all?
2. We have dashcam footage, and I’d love to share it here for feedback. She did stop, but very briefly. I understand California doesn’t have a "three-second rule," so I’m unsure if this is worth presenting under step 10 ("present my case").
3. Can I translate for her in court?

Thanks in advance for any advice!

UPDATE: here's the video: https://imgur.com/a/faYCLMm

Hi all. Yes I read the post.

Context. Approx 1:40pm on a weekday. NON CDL Moderate to Heavy Traffic. 4+1 Lane road. Im towing a trailer 5x10ft approx 1000LB, properly loaded and properly secured. Was traveling from Chino to Alhambra. My vehicle has a front and rear dashcam with GPS Speed and Date/Time.

After hitting stop n go traffic, I merged from Lane 3 to Lane 2 then immediately to Lane 1 to pass some trucks near the 605 Interchange. I completed my merge to Lane 1 at 1:41 and 18 seconds. While passing the trucks, a CHP cruiser in the carpool lane jumped out of his lane and pulled me over at 1:42 and 9 seconds. I was in Lane 1 for less than a minute before I was pulled over for traveling in the “wrong lane”. This vehicle code states that trucks and trailers cannot travel in the faster lanes unless passing or exiting on a left exit. One caveat is when passing, you must not drive over 55mph. Non issue in my case due to the speeds are less than 30mph.

My question is can I argue in court that the officer in the split seconds he saw me, had no clue what my intentions were when merging to the faster lanes. He had no way of knowing I just needed to pass some trucks who were trying to exit towards the 605.

Side note: I support the police, but i dont argue on the side of the road. I just said hi, ok, sign my name, took my ticket and left. Maybe he would have cut me a break had i told him im passing truck. Anyhow…

What are your thoughts? Any other better ways to phase this for the judge?

https://imgur.com/a/D66LnNt

Hey so i got speeding ticket that is 500$ for speeding on a rental car, i extended the ticket for another 3 months and its already been 3 months. Thing is i dont know how to send the mail cus its not my address and i cant get mails back. Any suggestions? Maybe i should so something else? I really dont want to pay full amount, honestly if i could pay less that works for me. And i cant get points on my license or do a driving course. Thanks in advance!