The use of aircraft in enforcing speed laws was meant to supplement and aid the officer on the ground in catching speeders. The pilot was meant to act as a spotter for the patrol officer, to help him see the speeders that had not yet reached him. The officer on the ground is still supposed to independently verify the suspect’s speed. However, this original intent has been undermined in practice.
The police pilots gauge your speed by timing you across markers on the road that are visible from the aircraft. Your speed is then determined by calculating how long it took you to cross the know distance between the markers. This method constitutes an illegal speed trap under 40802(a)(1), because it is illegal to calculate a vehicle’s speed using a time-distance calculation.
On aircraft speeding tickets, the names of both officers involved appear on your citation. The pilot’s name must appear on your ticket because he witnessed your vehicle speeding, though he never identified you as the driver. The patrol officer’s name appears on the ticket because he identified you as driver of the car, though he did not witness you speed. As a result, if both officer’s do not submit written declarations, your case must be dismissed for lack of evidence.
In cases where a single officer must submit a written declaration, about 30% of officer’s neglect to do so, leading to a dismissal. In cases where two officers must each submit a written declaration, the dismissal rate is about 50%. Even if both officer’s do submit a declaration, how will they justify their use of an illegal speed trap to the judge?
For directions on how to use this document, click here.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant’s Name: Ken Kesey
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 22349(a).
The facts of my case are as follows: While driving south bound on Interstate 15 at around 1645 on 1-13-00. I was stopped by CHP Officer Mochyn (I.D.#12345) and charged with violating CVC 22349(a), “Exceeding 65 MPH Max Speed Limit.” I saw Officer Mochyn’s vehicle prior to him stopping me and made sure I was driving the posted limit. Officer Mochyn claimed at the traffic stop that he had not seen me speed (a fact attested to by Officer Mochyn on my Notice To Appear when he checked the box “violations not committed in my presence”) but that a pilot had clocked me at approximately 80 mph from an aircraft.
A vehicle very similar to my own passed me at about this speed a minute or so prior to my stop. Since the description of the speeding car given to Officer Mochyn by the Officer in the aircraft (Officer Putain I.D.#12345) may have been similar to mine, I believe Officer Mochyn stopped me by mistake, believing me to be the speeder.
In any case, if Officer Putain does not testify in his statement that he followed my vehicle until the actual stop to ensure Officer Mochyn pulled over the car Putain alleges was speeding, I ask the Court to dismiss this case for lack of sufficient and reliable evidence.
If either Officer Mochyn or Officer Putain fail to submit a Written Declaration, I ask the Court to dismiss this case for lack of evidence.
If Officer Putain testifies that he determined my alleged speed by timing me as I traveled over a predetermined length of road bounded by markers, I ask the Court to dismiss my ticket as this method constitutes an illegal speed trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(1): Speed Trap: “A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, and 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.”
The use of evidence acquired through a speed trap is specifically prohibited by CVC 40801: “..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.”
The testimony of witnesses gained through speed trap evidence is inadmissible as evidence pursuant to CVC 40804(a): “…any officer or other person shall be incompetent as a witness if the testimony is based upon or obtained from the maintenance or use of a speed trap.”
If Officer Putain’s or Officer Mochyn’s testimony suggests that a speed trap was used in determining my alleged speed, I ask the Court to dismiss this case 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 )