Northern California Lexus Club We are the Northern California Lexus Owners' Club.
This forum is sponsored by Exact Motorsports

Ticketed.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-03-08, 05:06 PM
  #16  
rominl
exclusive matchup

iTrader: (4)
 
rominl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Lovely OC
Posts: 81,673
Received 190 Likes on 148 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CthruIS350
dont tell me u drive < 65 all the time henry... .. do u? haha
lol, when did i say i do everything legal?
Old 04-03-08, 07:26 PM
  #17  
TAMR_GUS98
Lexus Champion
 
TAMR_GUS98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

Cops can be such ******.

Yeah, they don't have quotas either.
Old 04-03-08, 08:57 PM
  #18  
rominl
exclusive matchup

iTrader: (4)
 
rominl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Lovely OC
Posts: 81,673
Received 190 Likes on 148 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by TAMR_GUS98
Cops can be such ******.

Yeah, they don't have quotas either.
must be tough to explain where on 3/30 and 3/31 i saw so many freaking cops on the road (so did couple of my coworkers and friends).

i bet they need money to pay for their income tax
Old 04-03-08, 10:31 PM
  #19  
flipside909
Lexus Connoisseur
 
flipside909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 19,801
Received 533 Likes on 282 Posts
Default

I dunno, CHP presence has been ramped up everywhere in CA. I've noticed a heavy presence of both motorcycle and cruisers sitting completely perpendicular to traffic as of late. That's a sure sign they're shooting Lidar at you.
Old 04-03-08, 10:33 PM
  #20  
LMoney4o8
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (2)
 
LMoney4o8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

never speed the couple first days of each month haha. yeah sucks to hear about that Johnson =\ i just went to court for 2 tickets in 1 month haha, fremont had the nicer judge and let me do 10 hours of community service for going 90 + on a 65.
Old 04-03-08, 11:24 PM
  #21  
tfz_hebe89
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (1)
 
tfz_hebe89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 2,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

whaa what kind of community service did u do?

after doing that, is your record erased?
Old 04-04-08, 01:33 AM
  #22  
LMoney4o8
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (2)
 
LMoney4o8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: CA
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tfz_hebe89
whaa what kind of community service did u do?

after doing that, is your record erased?
any that is non-profit.

well this was my first offense so im going to take traffic school along with community service. In SJ the judge let me off easy too, only pay 150, going 78 on 65
Old 04-04-08, 09:10 AM
  #23  
ocean350
Driver
 
ocean350's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: California
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

well, there is no 'absoulte reasons' for getting a ticket.
heck...just not your day.

but, u can make the cop do more work rather than a 5-minute write-up.
if u think u can attend the court during the office hour, u can contest the ticket by mail. that way that cop is forced to show up at court.
if the cop cant show up for any reason, U R free to go.
if the cop does show up, ur case will be review before a judge.
what do u got to lose?
i would do it, just to get back at the cop.

however, u should watch ur speed...that's the bottom line.
i doubt if u would get a ticket if u r below 75.
i know people do whatever and they did not get any ticket...
but, if you are over 65, a cop CAN give u a ticket by the book.

anyhow.
cheer up. there are other things more important than this 'tiny ticket'.
Old 04-04-08, 10:53 AM
  #24  
Debonair
iModerate
 
Debonair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 408 NOR CAL
Posts: 3,397
Received 40 Likes on 28 Posts
Default

Just an FYI kind of on this subject. I seen two unmarked CHP (or some Law Enforcement) vehicles pull over a pick-up truck on 87 @ Taylor yesterday. It was a Blue/Turquoise 2000ish Dodge Caravan and a Black/Dark Ford Excursion. They both had red and blues mounted inside the front and rear windows and also behind the grille. I think they were also both tinted so you could not see the driver in attempt to disguise the Law enforcement patches on their shoulders. Just FYI for those of us who have a habit of "spirited" driving in and around San Jose.
Old 04-04-08, 11:14 PM
  #25  
iialcii
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (3)
 
iialcii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: BayArea-CA
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

man some cops are just annoying out ruining people's days. sorry to hear what happend. cops look for almost anything to pull you over, usually chp goes after tint. The Local cops bother
Old 04-05-08, 12:06 AM
  #26  
RVN
Rookie
 
RVN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: bay area
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

What about those cops with the blue and reds lights on the inside and no longer on top of the roof. Got to keep eyes pealed for those sneaky ones too.
Old 04-05-08, 01:22 PM
  #27  
shiwen
Rookie
 
shiwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Lotsa cops out today

I saw 3 cops pulling people over today on a 30 minute drive from Walnut Creek to Berkeley. Seemed like a lot for one stretch but after reading this thread I'm thinking the CHP is just cracking down.
Old 04-05-08, 01:29 PM
  #28  
ExTrEmE99
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (6)
 
ExTrEmE99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SoCal/NorCal
Posts: 3,452
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

driving last night on 880 and 280 i saw at least 2 cops pulling people over.
Old 04-05-08, 07:32 PM
  #29  
ProfesrLEX
Lead Lap
iTrader: (2)
 
ProfesrLEX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cali (925)(408)
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

It sucks driving a lex sometimes tho, i got ticketed once going with the speed of other traffic and got singled out. It was the rims, tint, and luxury car for sure.

But yeah. ****ing cops everywhere. I usually see the most cops on 680 around the 580 junction. I saw about 3 ppl pulled over last night on my way home from san jose. I drive between san jose and the walnut creek area on 680 a few times a week and usually do 80-85mph in the fast lane. I have been ticketed twice (at the same place; 580 junction) and won both tickets. How u ask? Contesting by mail. Statsitically you have a better chance of winning this way. The first time i won my written declaration, the second time i submitted my written declaration and lost, but came to the pleasanton courthouse in person and the cop didnt show. You should remember that if your not satisfied by the first trial, you can have a second one! Almost sounds too good to be true. Thats about about $800 plus insurance rates i dont have to worry about. If you want more info lookup ticketassassin, its a great resource. Good luck
Old 04-06-08, 06:17 AM
  #30  
sherman178
Driver School Candidate
 
sherman178's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Some info for you if you want to fight your ticket.

Note that in the file below I refer to the Cal Trans State Traffic Manual. This manual has now fallen and has been superseded by the MUTCD, partially due to battles fought by TicketKiller. We currently have an Orange County case pending in which some ignoramus judge is trying to squirm out of MUTCD compliance using the California Vehicle Code. It is amazing. We fought for years to prove that the MUTCD superseded the Cal Trans Manual and finally won. Judges hated this, so now apparently some of them are going to switch gears and claim that the Vehicle Code is now the "King" of traffic law. They really hate the MUTCD because it strips them of power to convict on illegal tickets and speed limits. The Cal Trans manual fell officially as of Jan 03. I don't believe that any of these issues affect our strategies. Be prepared to make the same arguments that we used below (for instance #8) against the CSTM and use them against the CVC, it is the same argument and the same references and case law. It is just their latest trick since they lost the "big one".
California specific information:
1) There is no Federal maximum speed limit.
2) California has several 70 mph roads in the State (ask Cal Trans or CDOT)
3) California wants to claim their "State max" is 65 so they can invoke the "no survey necessary" rule however they can't have their cake and eat it too. They have roads posted at 70mph making 70 the State max speed and therefore only the roads marked at 70 are exempt from surveys.
4) Since the 65 roads are not State max roads, they have all the same survey requirements of any other road and therefore our strategies and the survey requirements still apply. Note here that most highways and freeways are built to a survey standard; they may have a form of "built in" survey upon which they were constructed. This is still a survey and the survey is still required to be available for court or brought by you. The engineer at CDOT or other agency may not have a copy of it available however. In court this should be "their problem" but many judges will consider it yours. If you have trouble getting such a survey just follow the procedure of documenting the non-existence of a survey from your system. Use the strategies and (most importantly case law from the library you were given) to show that a survey is necessary or a dismissal is in order. The case law will also show the 65 vs. the 70 issue above. Of course the speed limits from the 1970's when most of the case laws were decided are different. You will have to interpret the differences. Note: At the time of the case law (most of it) 55 was the national speed limit.


You will need to have all your references including those
that show the MUTCD is superior to the CTSTM (or CVC), and you will need your case
law which also shows that only the State max speed limit roads are exempt
from the survey requirement. Good luck. Do your homework especially at
the case law library, address below if you lost it.
http://www.ticketkiller.com/oriupoei...83/caselaw.htm



Lastly, I have a winning defense from a California TicketKiller customer. This person chose to use the Trial by Declaration option which is available in most California courts. This is a great option because legally the TBD is a win/no lose for you. If you win, that is the end of it, you won. If you lose you can go “trial de novo” or “new trial” (lawyers like to speak latin because they think it helps them look cool) the TBD doesn’t count unless you want it to (check with the court to be sure that what I am telling you holds in your area). You simply proceed with trial #2 but you get a different judge (generally) and they can’t use the TBD against you, but you can bring your copy of the cop’s statement in and question him from the hand he has now tipped. You may also notice that Gary’s TBD quotes a 3 yr requirement for calibration. This is what is now stated in the CVC. I like to use case law and try to show the one year requirement but either way, just use the reference you chose and back it up with the appropriate proof (case law or CVC).Gary did a great job especially of using calibration issues and case law. Here is the example:
GARY TOWERY CHP79031BQ

CVC40802(c)(1)(A) states: When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).

The officer should provide documentary proof to the court that he successfully completed this radar operator course certified and approved by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. If the officer does not submit proof with his declaration that he successfully completed this minimum 24 hour course in accordance with CVC40802(c)(1)(A), my case should be dismissed. His use of RADAR is not legal without this course, and his RADAR evidence is inadmissible. I urge the court to not accept hearsay testimony in lieu of documentary evidence to verify course completion. If the course was completed, documentary proof should be provided.

CVC40802(c)(1)(D) requires that: The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility.

The Officer should provide documentary proof that his RADAR meets or exceeds National Highway Traffic Administration Standards in accordance with CVC40802(c)(1)(D). At minimum, the officer should provide documents to the court proving that his RADAR has been calibrated within 3 years by an independent certified testing or calibration facility pursuant to CVC40802(c)(1)(D). If the officer cannot provide this evidence to the court, his RADAR evidence is inadmissible and my case should be dismissed. I urge the court to not accept hearsay testimony in lieu of documentary evidence to verify required radar calibration. If the calibration was completed, documentary proof should be provided. Further, the officer should prove that the testing facility was certified and independent from the police department.

Finally, the officer must prove, pursuant to 40802 (c)(1)(C)(i) that he established prior to issuing my citation that his RADAR was properly calibrated within three years to NTSHA standards.

This standard is stated clearly in the code which establishes that a conviction is not warranted unless “The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear, the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of subparagraph (D).” If the officer does not prove this standard, my case should be dismissed.

The purpose of the strict legal standards in police use of radar is to prevent abuse of this technology through poorly trained operators or defective uncalibrated equipment. These should be considered minimum standards by the court in protecting defendants against the power of the state. I respectfully ask the court to uphold these minimum standards of protection.

The officer must provide documentary proof to verify the required standards of his radar equipment and operator training. If these legal standards are not each properly and fully documented, I urge the court to dismiss my citation in the interest of justice. Please do not accept hearsay statements in lieu of documentary evidence.

1.
GARY TOWERY CHP79031BQ
I would, however, like to add a more human perspective to this declaration by submitting the following facts regarding the incident for which I was cited.
Within the previous 10 miles prior to receiving this citation, I had pulled over twice to allow “tailgaters” to pass. A third incident involved a driver passing me on a double yellow line while I was in the process of pulling over again. To this statement, I would swear an oath, if necessary.
You may also notice that the car I was driving was a Honda Civic Hybrid, not necessarily the vehicle of choice for a NASCAR driver.

I have posted applicable references to case law at the end of this declaration.

State of Florida v. Aquilera (1979). This famous case is known widely as the Miami Radar Trial. After a local television reporter showed a house clocked at 28 mph and a palm tree clocked at 86 mph, the story broke nation wide and radar was quickly shown to be less than accurate. In this particular case the Dade County Court sustained a Motion to Suppress the results of radar units in 80 speeding ticket cases. The court's opinion stated that the reliability of radar speed measuring devices as used in their present modes and particularly in some cases, has not been established beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, nor has it met the test of reasonable scientific certainty.
United States v. Fields (1982). The District Court in Ohio ruled that it was impossible to determine from the radar results whether the defendant was traveling at the alleged speed or whether the Speedgun Eight radar unit was measuring the rotation of the ventilation fan at the sewage pumping station next to the officer's car. The court also found that the officer was not qualified to operate the radar unit since he did not know the requirements for correct operation of the unit. In addition, the officer did not calibrate the unit before its use.
State of Connecticut v. Tomanelli (1966). In the case, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that "outside influences may affect the accuracy of the recording by a police radar set sufficient to raise a doubt as to the reliability of the speed recorded." The court also stated that tuning forks must be proved to be accurate to be accepted as valid tests of a radar unit. In order to establish the accuracy of the radar unit the operator must testify to the following:
1. That he made tuning fork tests before and after the defendant's speed was recorded.
2. That the tests were made by activating 40, 60 and 80 mph tuning forks and by observing that the unit responded correctly in each case.
State of Minnesota v. Gerdes (1971). The Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled that where the only means of testing the accuracy of a radar unit is an internal mechanism within the unit, and there is no other evidence of the motorist's speed other than the radar reading, the conviction cannot be sustained. The court also established the
following conditions for proving the accuracy of the radar unit:
1. The officer must have adequate training and experience in the operation of the radar unit.
2. The officer must testify as to how the unit was set up and the conditions the unit was operated under.
2.
GARY TOWERY CHP79031BQ

3. It must be shown that the unit operated with a minimum possibility of distortion from external interference.
4. The unit must be tested with an external source, such as a tuning fork or an actual test run with another vehicle that has an accurately calibrated speedometer.
People of New York v. Perlman (1977). The Suffolk County District Court ruled that the radar device was not proved to be accurate since no external test had been performed before or after the arrest. This case is significant since it established the criteria of testing before and after a citation is issued.
State of Wisconsin v. Hanson (1978). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin set minimum conditions for the use of radar as evidence. Sufficient evidence to support a speeding conviction with moving radar will require testimony by a competent operating officer that:
1. He had adequate training and experience in radar operation;
2. The radar unit was in proper working condition at the time of the arrest;
3. The radar unit was used in an area where there was a minimum possibility of distortion;
4. The input speed of the officer's car was verified, the car's speedometer was expertly tested within a reasonable period after the citation was issued; and
5. All testing was done without the use of the radar unit's own internal calibration device.
State of Florida v. Allweiss (1980). The Pinellas County Court ruled that the testing methods for radar equipment are legally insufficient. "The use of such a tuning fork furnished by the manufacturer in this court's opinion is tantamount to allowing the machine to test itself. A tuning fork furnished by the manufacturer is but an extension and part of the total speed measuring apparatus which is furnished by the manufacturer upon delivery.
State of Delaware v. Edwards (1980). The court found that evidence based solely on the reading from a K-55 moving radar unit was not sufficient for a conviction since the unit has not been proven to be reliable.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this statement is true and correct.


Quick Reply: Ticketed.



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:53 AM.