| Author | Message | ||
     Ron_luning |
Hey everyone, I'm going to submit the below statement to fight the BS ticket I got 2 months ago. Let me know if you see anything in there that I should omit because it doesn't help my case. If you feel like telling me to bow down to an idiot cop (this guy is, I know that they all are not idiots) and just pay my ticket, then don't bother. Here it is: 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 south bound on Interstate 5 at 0710 on May 20, 2009, I was stopped by California Highway Patrolman Ceaser (I.D.#16090) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. Officer Ceasar has alleged that I was splitting traffic at 50-55 mph. 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, California Vehicle Code 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. I can attest that the road surface was completely dry, the sky was overcast and visibility was clear at the time I was stopped. Environmental conditions are confirmed in the climate data enclosure supplied by the National Weather Service for San Diego. Officer Ceasar also failed to note his determination of the Safe Speed for I-5S in the appropriate space on my citation. Approximately one month after being stopped I received a Notice of Correction and Proof of Service for this citation. On that notice, Officer Ceasar adds to the original citation by stating “HIS SPEED APPROX: 55+MPH MAX SPEED: 65 MPH HIS SAFE SPEED 0 MPH”. At the time I was stopped, traffic (including Officer Ceasar’s vehicle) was moving at approximately 50 mph. It is clear that with traffic moving on the highway at a speed of 50 mph, if I followed the safe speed determined by Officer Ceasar (i.e. zero) I would almost certainly have been killed. The practice of lane sharing or lane splitting by motorcycles is not explicitly prohibited by California Vehicle Code. The California Highway Patrol website addresses the issue with the following statement: “Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles? Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner.” Good sense would dictate that sharing lanes on a motorcycle should only be done when there is ample room to either side and that the motorcycle rider keeps the difference between his speed and that of surrounding traffic to a level that allows plenty of time to react to road hazards. Also, the motorcycle rider should not exceed the posted maximum speed limit at any time. I submit that I was following both California law and Highway Patrol guidance. When I was stopped I was sharing a single lane where the distance between the sides of vehicles was ample. I kept the speed differential between myself and surrounding traffic to approximately 5 mph, the equivalent of a brisk walk. I never exceeded the maximum posted speed for the highway. In addition I always keep the brake lever covered, i.e. fingers ready to apply the brakes, at all times when riding in traffic to further reduce reaction time should a road hazard dictate immediate action. I was traveling a safe and reasonable speed. The vehicle license (Maryland plate 122MGS) as described in the courtesy notice I received is not from a vehicle I have ever registered, owned, or ridden. Due to the inadequacy of evidence to suggest that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law and the clearly incorrect determination of “safe speed”, I ask the Court to dismiss my citation in the interest of justice. | ||
| Carbonbigfoot |
Nothing out of line. That will work as well as anything could. As always, it will come down to the discretion of the court. Well crafted! Rob (Message edited by carbonbigfoot on July 14, 2009) | ||
| Xb12xmike |
Wait,...you were lane splitting with traffic moving at 50mph, and you were traveling not more than 65mph thru it? OR traffic was stopped and you were traveling at 5-15 mph thru it? (sorry) | ||
| Ron_luning |
Traffic was going 50ish, I was going 55ish. | ||
| Sruzhyo |
Whats the verdict?? Keep us posted. | ||
| Xb12xmike |
You'd be wasting ur time if you lived in jersey. Maybe even be marked for ticket frenzy just for spite. | ||
| Jjk |
Hey Ron - I think that it is a big mistake to admit to ANY facts surrounding the offense. By sending in this letter and giving your side of the story in writing, you are potentially hurting the defense of your case. The reality of the situation is that your letter most likely will not achieve the result you intend (i.e. dismissal). I would strongly suggest that you go ahead and bite the bullet and hire a criminal defense attorney to assist you. Someone who is a former prosecutor would be a big selling point. What do I base my advice on? Let's just say that I may or may not be a criminal defense attorney and I may or may not have been a State's attorney prosecuting everything up to murders at some point in my life. I'll let you decide . . . Good luck either way. John | ||
| Ron_luning |
John, Thanks for the advice. If this were a big ticket, I'd consider hiring an attorney. As it is, the fine is $94, no points. In California, if this "trial by written declaration" results in me being found guilty I can get a complete redo and ask for a court trial. Hopefully it won't come to that. | ||
| Jjk |
Ahhh. That's odd because it seems like it would clearly be a moving violation. If it isn't then yeah, fire away! The only additional question I would have would be whether or not a conviction it will impact your insurance. Best of luck! | ||
| Mbest |
A loss in a California Trial By Declaration case can be appealed. That gives you one more chance (in person) to plead your case and sway the Judge in your favor. Also there is a slight chance that the Officer will not appear, thus defaulting in your favor. Don't count on that though, many officers enjoy going to court, it's a lot safer, air conditioned, and may even be getting paid OT to be there. Often a persons adamant pursuing of these "minor" infractions is seen as a genuine belief by the defendant (you) that you are innocent, and if you don't do something stupid and tick off the judge, it may just go you way. The Officer, in using CVC 22350 (basic speed law) is saying that although you were not exceeding the posted speed limit, you were operating you vehicle (motorcycle) at a speed that in his (expert) opinion, was too fast for the conditions (lane sharing). So you need to convince the court that your actions at that speed was indeed safe. i.e. eye contact with the other drivers, no driveways or intersections for the other vehicle to merge or turn into etc.etc. But even if you lose, there is always the chance of getting you fine reduced from the (uniform bail schedule) amount that was mailed to you. Politely pointing out inaccuracies in the Officers written statement of facts, may help establish the officers inattention to details and/or mental preoccupation that could have adversely affected his perception of the "infraction" he observed. So if you show up in person, ask to have the whole thing thrown out based on the inaccurate citation first. Good luck. Let us know how it goes | ||
| Rodrob |
You must deny all charges to have any chance. Do not argue the facts of the case. The statue is clear and the officer failed to provide evidence of the conditions necessary for a violation. Argue the case based on statute. Forget about being in the right. I beat a basic speed with radar 55 in 35 with a simple statement to the effect - "On (date) was cited for (basic speed statute) violation of alleged 55 in 35, a charge which I deny absolutely, while traveling on (street). The officer has failed to provide any evidence as to the conditions to support the alleged violation. (Describe clear and dry conditions) Therefore the charged must be dismissed." It was. I think there was a precedent supporting case cited. I would also demand that the amended statement by the officer be thrown out as a clear distortion of the evidence after the fact once the officer realized that the actual facts and conditions as originally stated, did not meet the demands of the statute for violation. (You could probably have this dismissed based on this alone) I will try to find the letter crafted by my attorney friend, who does this as a hobby, and post it for DISCUSSION. The key point here is that whether or not I was speeding was irrelevant. By arguing purely on the basis of the statue and evidence required for violation, the Judge had a very simple choice; was the evidence needed for violation of the statute provided - no - case dismissed. He was never able to consider my guilt or innocence. I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY AND THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. JUST OPINION FOR DISCUSSION. (Message edited by Rod-Rob on July 15, 2009) | ||
| Xl1200r |
So traffic was moving at 50mph and you were splitting at 55? Legal or not, this seems really dumb to me, but then again I know California is a whole different world so who am I to judge. If you go with the long version, take out the caps where you quote the officer. Even if he wrote them in all caps, I don't think it paints your stance in a favorable light. The amended ticket is not going to cast a bad light on the officer. The system obviously allows for this, so the court won't just throw it away. I think it comes down to CHP quote you listed about lane splitting. I think your interpretation is a little off, the officer obviously felt you were in the wrong, and I think you'll have a hard time convincing a judge, who probably doesn't ride (and even if he did) that lane splitting at the speeds given is "safe" or "prudent". I'm not saying don't fight it - ALWAYS fight a ticket if you can, but I think you've got an uphill, losing battle on your hands with this one. The system works different in each state, and California has some rules that we don't have here in NY, so I can't comment really on how to handle this otherwise. | ||
| Ron_luning |
Rodrob, From what other have said on previous posts, and since the form even exists, I would think that CA courts would accept either additional or modified information as written in the "notice of correction". Is that not true? I was under the impression that during a trial by written declaration, the officer would respond in writing as well, effectively taking the place of testimony in a courtroom. So all he would have to do is put that info (safe speed, my speed) in his written statement and it would be accepted anyway. Since he could testify whatever he wanted at that time, I figured it would be better to try and refute his previous statements as made in the "notice of correction". | ||
| Mrzifear |
Hi, I saw your post. When i got a ticket in CA i used this sites walk through. http://www.helpigotaticket.com/tut/index.html also I think you put a lot of thought into your statement but you admitted you were lane splitting at 50+ mph. I do the same thing as you at times but, by you saying that in your statement, you have given the court what they need to find you guilty. It doesn't matter if it was safe or not. you have said now that you were doing what you got the ticket for. and if the court says " well we think lane splitting at anything above 35 mph at anytime is unsafe" you have now told them you were doing 50+. You do not need to say anything under "STATEMENT OF FACTS" other than, "I stand by my plea of not guilty." This is not being dishonest; you are innocent until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the officer fails to submit his/her paperwork, the judge will have to dismiss your case and refund your bail. If you know that you are guilty, and want to request a reduction in the fine, you may try offering the judge an explanation, but this gives the judge the evidence he needs to find you guilty even if the officer fails to submit his/her statement against you. I would advise saving any attempt at an explanation for the new trial if you lose the decision in this one. also the nice thing about it is, if your found guilty you can void the whole thing. this also give you a 2nd chance for the officer to not show up and have you found not guilty. just my 2 cents. in the end do what you think is right. | ||
| Paint_shaker |
Ron, Good luck. While the system isn't perfect, pleading your case in court is an American right! Rodrob wrote: "The key point here is that whether or not I was speeding was irrelevant." What ever happened to personal responsibility? | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
+1 Paint, personal responsibility is exactly what I thought when I read this: I'm not saying don't fight it - ALWAYS fight a ticket if you can, but I think you've got an uphill, losing battle on your hands with this one. I sincerely hope this does not suggest fighting a ticket when you know you were wrong- what does that say about someone's ethics? | ||
| Xl1200r |
I sincerely hope this does not suggest fighting a ticket when you know you were wrong- what does that say about someone's ethics? Nothing to do with ethics. Maybe I'm too used to how things work in New York, but at least in my county, you always plead not guilty to a ticket and have your day in court because 9 times out of 10, the judge and officer will be willing to work with you, lessen the ticket to something with no points and lower fine - unless you have a pile of tickets, then you're screwed. Just as an example, PA totally BLOWS for tickets. The issuing officer doesn't even have to show up in court, someone else can stand in his place (that's right, someone who wasn't even there when the ticket was written). That was like a kick in the balls for me last year. BUT, I showed up anyways, the fine was reduced and there were no points. | ||
| Xb12xmike |
Oh yea things are changing here in jersey too. I got a ticket once on the NJ TPK for being "too-fast and too furious" on my way to work one day, when I went to court, the prosecutor offered me to plead guilty to a non-moving violation but with a quadrupled fine and no points. I gladly took it. Apparently this happens often these days. (fyi: that was the 1st and last time I drove "too-fast and too furious") | ||
| Jdugger |
> when I went to court, the prosecutor offered me to plead guilty to a non-moving >violation but with a quadrupled fine and no points. I gladly took it. Apparently >this happens often these days I don't know how many times I've posted this up on this site, and for some reason, no one seems to believe me. The facts: 1. Local governments need cash. 2. Police officers in them largely exist as revenue collectors. 3. Courts, politicians and the like are all in on the scam. OFFER THEM MONEY and all of your problems will go away. Yes, it's technically a bribe. No, it's not against the law because it's a "plea" or "deferred adjudication" or "probation." There is a 100% chance you can get almost any ticket other than DUI and get it dismissed by simply offering money. Guys... it's a MONEY game. If you have it, you walk. PERIOD. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
I could not, considering my personal ethics, plead not guilty to something I know I am guilty of. Additionally, the principles I use to guide my actions would never allow me to "bribe" my way out of something I know I am guilty of doing. Morality is not a "game', and there is no amount of money in the world that could compensate for the loss of my ethics and self-respect. But that's just me... | ||
| Carbonbigfoot |
That's why it's not called "Pleading Guilty", it's called a "plea" or "deferred adjudication" or "probation."  R | ||
| Jdugger |
> Morality is not a "game', and there is no amount of money in the world that could > compensate for the loss of my ethics and self-respect. That attitude and your day in court will get you a $300 fine for 10 over and points on your license for 3 years thanks to a quotaed officer who's sole responsibility is hiding behind a speed limit sign that suddenly drops the speed limit by 15 on an open highway that just happens to be annexed by some small town 2 miles away for 500 yards. Give the morality bit a rest and realize the whole system is corrupt and crooked, from the officer who knows he's not doing a damn bit of good for public safety but wants to keep his job to the mayor who uses the police force to collect revenue he can't raise in property taxes. The whole thing is a crooked sham. This isn't about being moral, it's about what is essentially a civil fraud. Save your moral ethic for your work and contributions to the commuity that really matter. People like you help make up for cops and politicans. Be smart, pay the bribe and just realize that's the way the world works sometimes. Keep yourself clean so you can do better good for the world in spite of the others around you. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Give the morality bit a rest and realize the whole system is corrupt and crooked, I don't pick and choose when I am moral, and when I'm not. I also will not give in to corruption and crookedness just because the "system" is. If I am caught breaking the law, I own up to it. If, after admitting my guilt, I am offered a way to reduce my penalty- then I might consider that option. People like you help make up for cops and politicans. Thank you... I think. | ||
| Deadduck |
Jdugger, somehow, strangely I agree with you and at the same time I'm more like Redbuelljunkie.....keep your nose clean, and vote your local politicians into acting right and the problem goes away after time....last ticket I got (knock-on-wood) was in my truck going to work at 3am, due to quotas, I got a ticket when I literally sneezed and crossed the yellow for a brief moment. a day in court would have cost me more than the ticket of 100 bucks so I just paid my fine, then called the commissioner and filed a complaint against the officer and the police force...things have changed in the last 5 years in my hometown since then, and I hope that it was people like me, filing complaints and voting the lifelong politicians out of office, that changed the way our local does its business. Since lane splitting isn't legal here in Georgia, if you are sideswiped while "legally" lane splitting in Cali, who is at fault in the accident? | ||
| Xb12xmike |
>That attitude and your day in court will get you a $300 fine for 10 over and points on your license for 3 years Insurance rate would go up too, no doubt. Morals, ethics and traffic court just don't mix. I do see where common sense would, but I guess thats me. | ||
| Ron_luning |
Deadduck, I'm pretty sure that in almost any traffic collision, the motorcyclist is always considered at fault no matter what happened. About the only thing that would make it otherwise is if the car driver was drunk. Even then it's an uphill battle. | ||
| Xl1200r |
I could not, considering my personal ethics, plead not guilty to something I know I am guilty of. Additionally, the principles I use to guide my actions would never allow me to "bribe" my way out of something I know I am guilty of doing. Morality is not a "game', and there is no amount of money in the world that could compensate for the loss of my ethics and self-respect. But that's just me... Dude get over yourself, lol. When you plead not guilty, you still end up paying a fine and you still end up wasting hours working through the process. You are by no means let off scott free. Have you ever rolled through a stop sign and not gotten caught? Driven/ridden over the speed limit and not gotten a ticket? Did you turn yourself in on either of these occasions? If the answer is "no", then get off the "ethics" kick. We're talking about traffic tickets, not kicking babies. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
Unfortunately, you either get it, or you don't. I sincerely hope that those here that seem confused about the basic tenets of ethics eventually get it. | ||
| Steeleagle |
If you do the crime, and get caught, you should buck up and do the time. Don't want to hassle with it all? Keep your nose clean! Think the citation is chicken droppings? It doesn't matter! Stop clogging up the legal system fighting stuff over a possible technicality when you're guilty. Maybe our taxes would go down when the case loads drop. ...Naw!! They'd think of another way to need money! Just my $.02 | ||
| Buelleaver |
I can vouch that in nj you can get out of points by paying 2x or more regular fine. Corrupt state all the way around. |
