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.
For directions on how to use this document, click here.
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 )
( signature )
( name typed out )