PD Forum/CHP

[capttankona]

May 4, 2009 14:00:22 GMT -5 The Big Dog said:

You only made two mistakes TBD, you forgot section B, which states

(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445.

Please help me understand how this is germane to your argument that an officer on an overpass shooting LIDAR on the freeway constitutes a speed trap.

I never said it was, I said you forgot part of the law. Snipets do not count, you must show context. This specific portion claims there must be no interuptions in the roadway length. I don't understand it exactly, but it is part of the law.

[The Big Dog]

Well then I guess I'll have to go back and re-read the entire section in context along with the legislative intent. It seems to me that I would have not included it because it is not germane to the situation at hand on 101. Please bear in mind the definition of a freeway... which has no interruptions at all.

If you raise the question, then you are, by definition, making it germane to your argument. If you don't understand that point of the law and how it relates to the entirety of the statute, then why is it that I made a mistake by not including it?

[The Big Dog]

Here is the entire paragraph, and subparagraphs, of what you chose to pounce on, and in context....

(b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is defined by the latest functional usage and federal-aid system maps submitted to the federal Highway Administration, except that when these maps have not been submitted, or when the street or road is not shown on the maps, a "local street or road" means a street or road that primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length.
Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as
defined in Section 445.
(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.

As I suspected.... the reason I snipped it is that it is not germane to the freeway. That specific sub-paragraph deals only with a "local street or road". The standards set for a local street or road can not be applied to a highway or a freeway.

But let's go to the tape on what you wrote, shall we?

Snipets do not count, you must show context. This specific portion claims there must be no interuptions in the roadway length.

So now what we've established is that you used, perhaps out of not understanding how to read the law, unrelated pieces of the statute out of context to try and advance your argument... which, I think, you basically tried to drill me for doing without foundation. I "made two mistakes"... apparently not, eh?

Again.... and this is a suggestion only as you can certainly do what you want, obey the speed limit on 101 in the construction zone. It's not a "speed trap" under the operative statute (40802 VC), and if you get pinched the judge is not going to buy your assertions that it is.

[The Big Dog]

May 4, 2009 15:00:17 GMT -5 capttankona said:

Aircraft are speed traps, as defined in a decision in our courts. Even if the roads are clearly marked patrolled by aircraft. Why, because there is no way for the aircraft to follow the vehicle and match speed, the instrumentation of the plane does not do this.

Again.... please show me the case law that holds this. If you can't produce it, then this becomes your opinion and has no weight or force of law.

Personally, I believe that the officer must be in a clearly marked vehicle. They must also be visible to the driver. This one could possibly be thrown out, provided someone pushed the case.

Here's something for you to chew on... that stuff about in uniform and a clearly marked vehicle really only applies to CHP, and perhaps to a local officer whose sole function is to enforce the Vehicle Code. I used to write tickets and make the occassional DUI pinch using an all black car without roof lights and without markings... including at night. I was in a regulation uniform, but I wasn't out there solely to enforce the Vehicle Code, and I happened to observe the violations in front of me as I patrolled the streets.

Never once lost a case.......

I am stating my opinion based on what I have read about only.

To which you are most certainly entitled. But I'm entitled to share my opinion, based on the statutes, my training and experience. Which one is going to be more cogent in this case?

Also, if no engineering and traffic survey has been done within 5 years, it is a speed trap.

No survey, or an expired survey does not necessarily a speed trap make. It just means that there is no survey, and they shouldn't be writing tickets on that stretch of road.

But, again, that is on you to find out and it probably will have to be decided in a court other then traffic court. Again, costing you money.

That is called "discovery". What it costs you is your time, and nothing more, if you win. You are entitled to ask for the current survey of the road as part of your defense, and the officer has to produce it.

For what it's worth the CHP (and more often local agencies) have lost tickets because they were using an outdated survey. Conducting a survey is the responsibility of the city or county engineering department. The enforcement agencies are supposed to stay abreast of what is and is not surveyed. It is kind of embarrassing, particularly for CHP, to lose tickets based on a lapsed survey, but it does happen from time to time.