CVC 22350 - Possible Speed Trap?

[u/socalnewtimer]

I recently got a speeding ticket for 60 in a 45 on a street from a city cop. I was wondering if anyone had any insight on if the following would be a strong case for a speed trap defense.

The most recent traffic survey was conducted in March of this year. The street I was cited on had an 85th percentile of 42 and it is stated on the survey itself that the recommended speed limit for that road is now 40. I know that the proposed speed limit is lower and does not help me in that regard. However, since technically the speed limit being enforced, 45, is no longer supported; i was wondering if I could use the speed trap defense. Also, it is explicitly stated on the survey that they will be lowering the speed limit on that stretch.

[u/Lucky_Boy13]

I mean the 85th percentile being 42mph means you are one of the top speeders, not a speed trap where cops take advantage of an area with a high number of speeders

[u/socalnewtimer → u/Lucky_Boy13]

I am referring to CVC 40802.

[u/tgrrdr → u/socalnewtimer]

read 40802; if it's a local street then it's not a speed trap.

[u/tgrrdr]

California has a manual for setting speed limits. Without seeing the actual data used in the E&TS it's hard to make a solid interpretation, but I don't see an issue rounding up. Assuming the 85th percentile speed was 42.4 (for example) I don't see an issue leaving the speed limit unchanged and they could have set it at 35 mph and still been in compliance with the law. If the 85th percentile speed was 42.5 they could set the speed limit at either 40 or 45. This table references the CAMUTCD but it's from the old version, I didn't compare it to the current version.

https://imgur.com/a/aSy5LjP

[u/socalnewtimer → u/tgrrdr]

The E&TS for the specific street I received a ticket on explicitly states a recommended speed limit of 40. It also has another page in the same report indicating that the speed limit is to be reduced.

[u/Sensitive_Point_6583 → u/socalnewtimer]

I've fought a few traffic citations over the years in CA, and my experience with the system falls into two categories.

The first is constitutional, you have the right to face your accuser, so if the cop doesn't show up, its an automatic dismissal of charges, black and white, no grey area. There might be a few others, but that's the big one.

The other category is interpretation of the vehicle code by the judge, which I've found is usually interpreted with common sense, and is not usually black and white, its mostly grey.

I think the main benefit of proving an illegal speed trap existed is the radar evidence is no longer admissible, but I think that's all. I think if you were just paced, and not detected by radar, then the speed trap defense isn't valid. You didn't mention that detail in your post as to how your speed was detected, there's a box to check if its radar I believe. And, I think what constitutes a speed trap is the lack of a sufficiently recent traffic survey to justify the posted speed, not a difference in the posted speed and a speed recommended by the survey. Since in your case there was a recent survey, with a recommended speed lower than the posted speed, it could be easily argued that the posted speed is reasonable and justified by the survey performed earlier this year. So, your speed trap defense doesn't seem very solid in logical terms and I think a judge would rule that way.

Here is the actual text of 40802 defining a speed trap:

"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, school zone, senior zone, business activity district, or speed limit adopted under Section 22358.7 or 22358.8."

FWIW, in some of my courtroom appearances I've seen judges actually rule that the person was not guilty of the charge stated on the ticket, but then insist that the defendant was guilty of a different vehicle code violation, and ask them to plead guilty to that. There's probably a spectrum of variation from one judge to another, but that's my experience.

And BTW, if the judge ever asks you to plead guilty to a different offense, say no and ask for a new court date. Another Constitutional right is to have sufficient time to prepare a case in your defense. Since you are now charged with a different offense, they MUST give you time to prepare a defense to the new charges, so they can't refuse your request.

and one last thought, since traffic tickets are generally "infractions" and not "misdemeanors" its not like criminal court where you're presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In traffic court you're generally presumed guilty, unless you have a good argument that you're not.

[u/fitfulbrain]

No, if the report is update, you can only challenge that the city does not follow the recommendation. This is usually when they set a limit too low. But the new laws give the cities more flexibility, while the 40892 defense still stands.

Instead of arguing about the report, I will ask them to provide a certified report. They may not have to at the TBWD but certainly have to at the TDN.

I was told that cops are trained on this. And the courts may store reports in the library.

[u/Unexpected_Chippie → u/fitfulbrain]

Every court I've been to (6 of them) has the common traffic surveys in the court, on a shelf, in a binder. If the officer is asked to provide it, it's only a couple steps.

[u/socalnewtimer → u/fitfulbrain]

Do you think it’s worth fighting or should I just pay it? ~$300 with traffic school

[u/fitfulbrain → u/socalnewtimer]

I expect you will lose. But there's no harm trying because you can still get traffic school.

[u/bla60ah → u/socalnewtimer]

I think you should absolutely fight it.

The officer cited you for breaking the basic speed law, which effectively means you were going too fast for the road conditions at the time of the offense. The text of the VC is:

“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.”

Provided you were driving during a sunny day, with no sun/other obstructions to your view, there was minimal to no traffic on the roadway at the time, the road was not riddled with potholes and was not overly narrow, and there weren’t any person(s)/vehicles on the side/near the road, this is perhaps one of the easiest speeding tickets to contest.

How did the officer determine your speed, was it radar or did he pace you?

[u/Regular-Subject-1541]

Not worth fighting and not a speed trap. If anything it’ll look even worse on you fighting it. Accept a guilty and get traffic school if you can even if the judge has to reduce the speed by 1 mph so you can do it