-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
115mph in a 65
- Thread starter BigGuy200
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
HighwayMan
Super Secret Senior Member
No, YOU are wasting OUR time by not answering very simple questions you were asked, like what section you were cited for violating.
CTU
Meddlesome Priestess
I'm sorry you don't think driving safely is reasonable; perhaps you ought to permanently relinquish your driving privileges lest you're inadvertently caught up with all that safety/responsibility claptrap.
(That's if the state doesn't save time and do it themselves first)
Section 22348 (b) vc
Thank you...and there is no way for a plea bargain for this?
The officer has no evidence 100%....like me and him weren't even in the same place..it's hard to explain ugh..
I WAS NOT GOING 115....Like maybe his radar could have picked up 90, 95....not over 100.
not2cleverRed
Obvious Observer
Sometimes there are situations where a "reasonable" solution, or at least "reasonable" by the poster's standards does not exist.
That no one is giving you a "reasonable" solution is not a waste of your time - you are being informed that you will have to face reality. This forum is not a support group.
By your own admission you were going over 100 mph in a 65 mph zone. This automatically subjects you to VC 22348(b). You can try to go with technicalities like car color, but face it: you were ticketed, not the car. That you were speeding is what matters, not the car color.
There are various consequences for a VC 22348(b) ticket. You cannot mitigate all of them. No, traffic school is generally not an option for this offense. This is not me being a buzzkill - this is the opinion of CA ticket fighting specialists. (Try google.)
Appear in court, plead not guilty, and hire the best lawyer you can. That's pretty much what you're stuck with. And your lawyer would advise you that saying "I was only going 105 mph and was braking" would not be in your best interests.
Zigner
Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The state has an expert and unbiased witness with training in speed estimation. That expert's testimony is evidence. What evidence do you have to counter that testimony?
FlyingRon
Senior Member
So? Radar works for the rear, the sides, or the front. All he needed was a shot at you and about .3 seconds.
FlyingRon
Senior Member
Now you're changing your story. You said you were likely going 105 before (before you were told that 101 was sufficient). You also said you were going faster, yet you have no idea when he measured your speed or how RADAR even works.
The officer has all the proof he needs: the testimony that he observed his RADAR unit when pointed at your car and locked on read over 100, that and his expert testimony of the visual estimation of your speed is going to be more persuasive than your statement that you were actually guilty but you don't believe the officer RADARd you at the speed you were actually violating the law with.
You cop an attitude, you can also expect a 30 day suspension in addition to your 2 points and large fine.
CdwJava
Senior Member
Very few counties have a prosecutor or city attorney available to handle plea deals for traffic court. Those few that sometimes have someone available rarely do so with any consistency. So, don't count on a plea deal. And while the court SHOULD NOT do it, some courts WILL allow a plea to a lesser offense on the court's own initiative. But, again, don't count on that.
Also, as Flyingron and others have pointed out, the officer's testimony as to his estimate of your speed and any radar reading IS evidence.