CA: Informal Discovery Request before Plea?

[BayAreaBMWFan]

Thanks again Carl.
The insight you are providing is very useful.

I agree with you that I did not keep an eye on the speedometer. It is to the best of my knowledge.

As I had written earlier, the problem is the offficer's perception. The car has to come of the block fast when turning otherwise it starts lurching in gear 1. I try to get out of gear 1 as soon as possible. So the officer sees this fancy roadster turning quickly and feels that I am a risky driver. A bigger car would not have looked so bad.

I very much doubt that he got a "reliable" track in the few seconds he had but he had already made up his mind. He had been sent there to discipline people based on complaints (and he has done an excellent job in doing that).

I would hate to plead guilty of speeding on this one. I lose my "get out of DMV points" card if I plead guilty.

I feel my best bet is to talk to the PD and convince them to drop the case. I need all the technical stuff to ensure that it does not become a "his word" against "my word" case. But as you said, the technical stuff requires witnesses acceptable to the court. I have taken advanced graduate courses in Electromagnetics and that was one of the topics in my PhD exam which I topped (but did not pursue).

And I am not cooking this stuff either. I scoured the internet for the past 3 days and nights. I also found an officer training course which talks about the problem with not being in the main lobe.

Police Training Course Slides Look at slides 27-32 which specifically talk about the minimum distance.

The cosine acceleration stuff is taken from:Minimum Range Required to eliminate Cosine Acceleration

However proving my competence to the court is another challenge. ? How do I prove that I am not BSing but using very logical, rational and scientific arguments.

 

[CdwJava]

As I had written earlier, the problem is the offficer's perception. The car has to come of the block fast when turning otherwise it starts lurching in gear 1. I try to get out of gear 1 as soon as possible. So the officer sees this fancy roadster turning quickly and feels that I am a risky driver. A bigger car would not have looked so bad.

Maybe not ... but then you'd have to argue what the officer perceived and there is no way you could know that, thus the argument would probably not be permitted.

I feel my best bet is to talk to the PD and convince them to drop the case.

The police do not put the case forward, so talking to them is not worth the time. You can contact the DA's office and see if they will drop, reduce, or work something out, but don't count on it unless they have a predisposition against radar tickets anyway.

I need all the technical stuff to ensure that it does not become a "his word" against "my word" case. But as you said, the technical stuff requires witnesses acceptable to the court. I have taken advanced graduate courses in Electromagnetics and that was one of the topics in my PhD exam which I topped (but did not pursue).

But, the court would likely have to hold the case over while the state procured their own witnesses ... the officer would not be expected to counter the argument, and chances are good that it will be beyond the scope of the court's knowledge or interest as well.

The court will likely look at a very narrow application of the process: was the officer trained and certified, was the radar properly maintained, was the road properly surveyed, and did the officer operate the radar as trained and instructed by the manufacturer. Outside that limited scope, you will probably just get ignored.

And I am not cooking this stuff either. I scoured the internet for the past 3 days and nights. I also found an officer training course which talks about the problem with not being in the main lobe.

Police Training Course Slides Look at slides 27-32 which specifically talk about the minimum distance.

I'm sure you're not. But, the officer is going to operate within the scope of his training and experience - this will likely be outside that.

And keep in mind that the site you linked seems to be geared toward Florida and not CA. CA legal issues with reagrds to radar may be vastly different than theirs.

However proving my competence to the court is another challenge. ? How do I prove that I am not BSing but using very logical, rational and scientific arguments.

The court may accept it ... but, once again, it's come down to the simple points mentioned earlier. Well, I can't say it WILL come down to those points, but that will almost certainly be the limited scope of the inquiry. You could get lucky and the judge and the officer may look at you with blank stares and shrug saying it's possible the reading was off ... who knows?

- Carl

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

Thanks again Carl.
It seems the dice is stacked against me regardless of what I do.

I do realize that the site I discovered is in Florida. However, the principles by which the radar gun operates should not change from state to state. What I wanted to show was that keeping the target in the main lobe is a part of the basic training.

After reading the CVC, I noticed that is is quite clear about what the police can do and what can not. Given the legal activism here, I presume that the procedures are going to be more precise here than in Florida.

Again all this speculation of a tired mind (not much sleep in the last 2-3 nights).

You mentioned contacting the DA office. Can I do that before I plead or does the case does not go to the DA's office till I file my initial plea? It all boils down to whether I can gather the required information before I lose my chance to go to traffic school.

Another reason I am a bit "pi**ed" is that my wife got a ticket in the same car a few months ago. She was going to work on a weekend on 101 N. She was in the 2nd lane from the left. The roadster ride is very firm and at any speed above 60-70 it becomes uncomfortable if the road is not smooth since it becomes very bumpy and noisy. My wife is pregnant and she was not liking the ride at the speed in that lane. So she decided to change from the 2nd to the 3rd lane to get into a slower lane. She gets pulled over as she is creating space to merge safely into the third lane.

The citation does not even say radar but lists her as doing 80 in 65. Knowing the car's characteristics (very noisy and a stiff hard ride), and my wife's condition I know that she would not have been driving at 80. Further she was not leading any pack or driving aggressively. She was in fact trying to get into the slower lane. I think again she got picked because she was driving a roadster. According to the officer he pulled her since she did not slow down while everyone else did after seeing his car. She finished traffic school last week.

We all have our biases. We have had this car since last August and both of have received tickets during the time period though our driving habits have not changed. In fact as we grow older we have become more cautious (becoming a parent and alll). However getting picked on repeatedly has started bugging me.

 

[CdwJava]

Thanks again Carl.
It seems the dice is stacked against me regardless of what I do.

They could be ... I would think so. But, there may be others here and elsewhere that have had different experiences.

One of the great vaguaries of traffic court is that the "judge" is usually a retired judge or attorney that acts as a judge "pro tem" or commissioner (i.e. an acting judge). These individuals have widely varying demeanors, attitudes, opinions, etc. I have seen such judges essentially tell defendants to sit down and shut up, and others that would grasp at any straw to dismiss a radar case. It really depends on your locale.

Here's an idea - sit in on a few traffic court sessions in your area - see how the radar cases are handled. It might give you some idea of what to expect.

I do realize that the site I discovered is in Florida. However, the principles by which the radar gun operates should not change from state to state. What I wanted to show was that keeping the target in the main lobe is a part of the basic training.

While the principles may be the same, legal presumptions are likely different, so what the officer may be trained in and what he may be trained to testify to could be different. So, just be careful when looking at training presentations provided in other states.

After reading the CVC, I noticed that is is quite clear about what the police can do and what can not. Given the legal activism here, I presume that the procedures are going to be more precise here than in Florida.

True. Hence the focus on essentially the three areas I outlined earlier: Training/experience, road speed survey, and maintenance.

Again all this speculation of a tired mind (not much sleep in the last 2-3 nights).

Been there, done that, have the drool-stained pillow from the fourth night.

You mentioned contacting the DA office. Can I do that before I plead or does the case does not go to the DA's office till I file my initial plea? It all boils down to whether I can gather the required information before I lose my chance to go to traffic school.

In MOST counties the cites are initially filed through the DA's office or at least pleas can be handled through their office. The worst that can happen is that the DA's office says it's not up to them.

You might also want to check with your local court on-line and see what information is available there. Chances are that traffic school will be available to you right up to trial. So, you can almost certainly plead not guilty at prelim and then plead guilty or no contest at trial if the officer shows or your confidence waivers, and then seek traffic school. Every county I have ever been in offers traffic school the day of trial for those that want to back out of their trial. Even the court knows that many people go to court seeing if the officers is gonna show ... then they give you a chance to take an easy out.

The roadster ride is very firm and at any speed above 60-70 it becomes uncomfortable if the road is not smooth since it becomes very bumpy and noisy.

101 has been under construction in the Bay Area since I was a child ... it still is!

The citation does not even say radar but lists her as doing 80 in 65. Knowing the car's characteristics (very noisy and a stiff hard ride), and my wife's condition I know that she would not have been driving at 80.

Well, in all honesty you don't KNOW that, though you can certainly believe it is likely the case.

Further she was not leading any pack or driving aggressively.

Not a requirement for the speed violation, of course.

She was in fact trying to get into the slower lane. I think again she got picked because she was driving a roadster. According to the officer he pulled her since she did not slow down while everyone else did after seeing his car. She finished traffic school last week.

Some cars stand out in the eye more than others ... the ones we REALLY tend to pick out, though, are the ones that say, "I'm a crook!" all over them (beaters with missing parts driven by some tweak with an almost even tattoo-to-tooth ratio) ... these are the cars that we city cops like to get. Maybe not the CHP ... but then, they ARE traffic officers.

We all have our biases. We have had this car since last August and both of have received tickets during the time period though our driving habits have not changed. In fact as we grow older we have become more cautious (becoming a parent and alll). However getting picked on repeatedly has started bugging me.

It coul dbe that your habits have not changed and maybe they were a little aggressive. It could be that enforcement has changed or been enhanced. I know in my town we have responded to citizen complaints for speed in the same way. And we get the argument a lot that this is not what we used to do, and, "I've always driven that way".

Times they a-change, and so do we.

- Carl

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

Go all the way.

You have a 50% chance the officer will not show up. Automatic dismissal.

As CDWJava says, all judges will still let you get school if you ask for it right when you are called forward for your trial. And in my experience, about half of all judges will still give you school even after you have argued your case and lost.

Here is what I would do. I would get a copy of David Brown's Fight Your Ticket, available at every library in CA. Or buy one at any bookstore, on on line at Nolo.com.

I would get a copy of the city's speed survey for the street you were cited on. After you scan Brown's book you will see why you want to get this document. Examine the survey carefully. See if they set the posted speed limit too low. If they did, that equals a speed trap. Automatic dismissal, even if you were radared doing 90.

Good luck.

NACOL



NACOL

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

I have already talked to city PWD. The person there said that the last survey was done in 2001 and the 30mph was the limit determined by that. I have not seen whether the survey was certified by a licensed engineer or whether the 85% threshold was used or not. But the person said that the limit was set based on that survey. Note that this is primarily a residential street (40-50 ft) at this point.

BTW, the officer did say that I could fight the ticket in court, a few times. I was not sure whether he was hinting to me that go there and get rid of it. He did say that he had to be fair to everyone (a somewhat apologetic tone).

I personally have no qualms against the officer. I just feel that there is a significant probability that he made an error here and want to check that.

As long as I can go to traffic school after filing a motion for discovery and finding the anwers I do not mind doing the extra legwork. Perhaps the answers I get, will convince me that I was indeed speeding. Perhaps they will strengthen my case. But not being able to go to school just because I ask for more information somehow sounds unfair to me.

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

Get a copy of the survey, including the field notes made by the surveyor. Those field notes will show the speed of each of the 50 or 100 cars whose speed was surveyed.

NACOL

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

Early today morning I had to drop a visitor to a local train station. I took the route I normally take and tried to time my car. I pushed the car harder than I normally do. Even after that it took me at least 180 ft to reach 40 mph. This corresponds to a 0-60 time of 9.5 seconds which is what I would expect under normal driving conditions. I have repeated this test a few times now and feel confident that the day I got the ticket, I could not have reached 40 mph soon enough for the officer to get an accurate reading. In fact on that day, I saw the officer soon after completing the turn and kept myself in check.

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

More Info!!!!!!

I talked to the officer on the phone!

He said that he caught me doing 41 after I had passed him! He said that he had a hand-held radar and he pointed it to my rear. He said he got the tone and everything. Now all calculations I had earlier are no longer valid.

Now is it possible for the cop to twist around and aim the hand held gun through the car at the back of my vehicle? He also said that he did a visual estimate of my speed.

What is indeed questionable is whether an officer can aim a gun at a car going in an opposite direction and still get an accurate reading!

Due to the cosine effect, my car has to be at least 20-30 ft away for the actual reading to be any way close. So he has to aim the gun at an angle of at least 45 degree negative. Further he does not know what he is aiming at.

He can either twist to the right and aim it down the road through his rear window or twist to the left and aim it through the driver's side window.

The best part is that there were trees behind the officer's car so he could not have aimed it through the rear window. He must have aimed through the side window.

I think he never got a radar reading

Now all I need is a copy of his report.

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

Get the survey, and look at Brown's book. Without both your sole chance of success will be if the officer does not show up for the trial.

When I refer to "the survey" I am not referring to some report written by the citing officer. I am referring to a speed survey done by the DPW.

NACOL

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

NACOL:

The first thing I did was to call the PWD to get information about the traffic survey. They gave me a date of 2001 and said that the speeds were set according to the survey. I will look it up to confirm

 

[CdwJava]

A lot will depend on the device used. The handheld my agency uses can be used versus oncoming or away traffic. Not knowing the placement of the cars involved, I really couldn't say whether his reading was valid or not.

And while I think NACOL's 50% estimate for a no show is on the high side, it might still be in your best interest to go to trial and wait to see if the officer shows. if he shows, and you don't feel confident enough to win at trial, you can still likely plead nolo or guilty and take traffic school.

In my experience, the visual estimation tends to go a long way. But it depends on the court. I was never certified in radar, but I made quite a number of speeding cases on visual estimation in spite of no formal training in that area. It really depends on the judge.

- Carl

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

Repeat this back to me...

To BMW Fan -

Are you a teenager or something?

Repeat this back to me.

"I will go to the DPW and obtain a paper copy of the complete speed survey. I will go to the library and check out a copy of Fight Your Ticket. I will then retire to my abode where I will examine the survey closely, using Fight Your Ticket as a guide."

And...

Visual estimation, schizzle estimation. If the officer used radar and the survey does not justify the speed limit posted on the street, then it was a speed trap. And the speed trap law says that if it's a speed trap, ALL of the officer's evidence, including any visual estimation, is poisoned and cannot be used.

So get the survey, will ya?

Thank you.

NACOL

 

[BayAreaBMWFan]

A lot will depend on the device used. The handheld my agency uses can be used versus oncoming or away traffic. Not knowing the placement of the cars involved, I really couldn't say whether his reading was valid or not.

----
In my experience, the visual estimation tends to go a long way. But it depends on the court. I was never certified in radar, but I made quite a number of speeding cases on visual estimation in spite of no formal training in that area. It really depends on the judge.

- Carl

Carl. Thanks a lot again.

As I had written, there was a 20 ft lateral distance between his car and my direction of motion. The view through the rear view was obstructed due to hedges. If he took aim through the side window, he needs to aim at a very sharp angle to get me within 30 degrees and reduce the cosine error to less than 12%. Even at 30degrees his stated reading of 40 mph will correspond to an actual velocity of 47 mph, which would lead to a 7mph difference between his visual estimate.

Further it is not easy to aim a 7-9 inch long device backwards at such a sharp angle. Try aiming something of that size (perhaps your sidearm) through the side window at a sharp angle to get a perspective. Perhaps a fellow radar officer might be able to help.

As you can probably guess by now, my goal at this point is to get the bottom of this thing. I know that the officer was enforcing the will of the people (he was very polite). But I also feel that he may erred in this case.

If he got the reading it was perhaps false; and if he did not he perhaps was a bit over-zealous. I have dropped in a letter to the PD over the weekend so if they respond I will have more answers.

 

[CdwJava]

Visual estimation, schizzle estimation. If the officer used radar and the survey does not justify the speed limit posted on the street, then it was a speed trap. And the speed trap law says that if it's a speed trap, ALL of the officer's evidence, including any visual estimation, is poisoned and cannot be used.

Of course, CVC 22350 can still be argued regardless of the posted limit ... one can be unsafe even if BELOW the limit. While it's not likely the case here, it is simply not true - in general - that without a survey that safe speed laws cannot be enforced.

- Carl