This is the best moving violation to contest. Of the thousands of Basic Speed Law citations I have reviewed, at least half were improperly issued. More of these citations are dismissed by judges than any other.
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 officers 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 40pmh, 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.
Traffic Survey
Most highways in California are subject to traffic surveys. Traffic surveys are done by the city engineer and are used to determine the “safe” speed of any given road. The speed of thousands of cars are measured across a monitoring device. The safe speed is the average speed that cars travel on a specific stretch of road across this device.
The posted speed is not the same as the safe speed. The posted speed is a “suggested” speed calculated by multiplying the safe speed by 85%. A measured safe speed of 52mph would be multiplied by 85% to get a suggested speed of 44mph (52mph X 85%= 44mph). This “suggested” speed is then rounded down to a posted speed of 40mph. It is not illegal to go above this suggested speed unless road conditions make it unsafe to do so.
In the declaration below, the motorists was cited under 22350, even though he was only traveling 33mph in a 25mph zone. With a safe speed of 32 mph and favorable road conditions, a strong argument can be made that traveling 33mph was not unsafe.
Radar Beam Spread
In our first 22350 sample declaration, we assert the possibility that the use of radar in these cases may constitute an illegal radar speed trap. This argument can be used in any radar citation.
In this example, we bring up the issue of radar beam spread. This example is best used when your citation is for 10mph or less above the posted limit in medium to heavy traffic.
Police radar beams spread at about one foot for every four feet of travel from their source. At only 150 ft from its source, the beam will be 40ft across, covering four lanes of traffic.
The wide spread of police radar will cause it to track several cars at once, but it can only record the speed of a single vehicle. There is no way to know for sure which vehicle’s speed was recorded by the officer’s radar. In medium to heavy traffic, there is reasonable doubt as to which car’s speed was displayed on the officer’s radar.
If your citation was received in medium to heavy traffic, you can assert that your speed was safe and that the speed attributed to you by the citing officer was that of another vehicle.
For directions on how to use this document, click here.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant’s Name: Lucas Ridgeston
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 west bound on Meade at 0855 on 3-17-99, I was stopped by SDPD Officer Ffrengig (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. Officer Ffrengig has alleged that I was driving approximately 33mph in a 25mph zone based on RADAR evidence. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions at the time of my stop, and was therefore not in violation of the Basic Speed Law.
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.”
On my citation, the officer fails to note any of these relevant conditions except for traffic, which he correctly notes as “Medium.” I can attest that the road was dry with clear visibility at the time of my stop. Officer Ffrengig also fails to note the Safe Speed for Meade in the appropriate space on my Notice to Appear. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions on Meade when I was stopped.
My assertion that my speed was Safe and Reasonable for conditions is supported by the most recent Traffic and Engineering survey for Meade which gives the Safe Speed (85th percentile speed) as 32 mph, which is just 1mph different than the “approximate” speed Officer Ffrengig noted on my citation. Based on this evidence, I know that I was not in violation of the Basic Speed Law at the time and place of my citation and, pursuant to the common sense spirit of CVC 22350, contest that my speed at the time of my traffic stop was therefore not per se unlawful.
Further, I believe that the officer’s radar may have been tracking one of several cars other than mine. There were cars driving in front of me and also passing me as I proceeded down Meade; the presence of these vehicles was properly attested to on my citation by Officer Ffrengig as “Medium” traffic. The typical beam angle (spread) of police radar is 12-16 degrees, resulting in a beam width of 1 foot for every 4 feet of travel of the beam from the antennae. Therefore at 160 feet from its source, a police radar beam is typically 40 feet (four lanes) wide.
The officer noted on my citation that my radar-determined speed was 33mph from 150 feet away, a distance at which any of several cars then traveling through the officer’s two-lane wide radar beam might have caused the speed indicated on the officer’s unit. Due to the officer’s indication of “medium” traffic and his notation that my alleged speed was determined at a 150′ distance, it is clear that there is reasonable doubt as to which car’s speed his radar unit was indicating.
Due to this reasonable doubt, and the fact that the Traffic and Engineering Survey for Meade has determined the Safe Speed to be 32mph, approximately the speed the officer claims I was traveling, I ask the Court to dismiss my citation 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 )