Case Study: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Speeding Ticket on I-580

Circumstances:

Gabriella R. is a 56-year-old woman, a very responsible person and a prudent driver. Her line of work requires her to have a spotless driving record and, like us all, she wants it to remain that way.

Unfortunately her perfect driving record was put in jeopardy on a rainy, winter day in 2009.  Gabriella was being tailgated on this particular day.  As she uses the busy Bay area freeways on a regular basis, she has a tactic she uses for regular tailgaters she finds behind her.  She would usually tap her brakes two or three times to warn the driver behind her to back off.  On this rainy winter day, when she is presented with a tail gator and wanted to use her tactic, she couldn’t because the roads were wet so she felt it was not safe to do this.

As Gabi says, “my only choice was to get out of the way and to let the larger vehicle pass by me. If the road was dry I would not have had to switch lanes I could have just tapped my brakes and the other driver might have backed off, but I did have to change lanes and I did have to increase my speed to allow the other driver to pass.”

Problem: CVC 22349(a) CALIFORNIA SPEEDING VIOLATION  

As a result, she was pulled over.   As Gabi described the instance, “on the day I was issued the citation, I was driving westbound on the I-580 Freeway amongst moderate traffic. The roadway was multiple lanes wide and free from construction or debris. Overall, I was driving at a speed which was reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic and the surface and width of the roadway.”

According to DMV this violation description follows:

Maximum Speed Limit 22349. 

(a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.

(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a higher speed by the Department of Transportation or appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. For purposes of this subdivision, the following apply:

(1) A two-lane, undivided highway is a highway with not more than one through lane of travel in each direction.

(2) Passing lanes may not be considered when determining the number of through lanes.

(a) It is the intent of the Legislature that there be reasonable signing on affected two-lane, undivided highways described in subdivision

(b) in continuing the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit, including placing signs at county boundaries to the extent possible, and at other appropriate locations.

Amended and Repealed Sec. 22, Ch. 766, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996. Repeal operative March 31, 1996.
Added Sec. 23, Ch. 766, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996. Operative March 31, 1996.
Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 20, Stats. 1996. Effective March 29, 1996.
Amended Sec. 41, Ch. 724, Stats. 1999. Effective January 1, 2000.

Solution: 

Gabriella found hope when she discovered Ticket Busters of California (TicketBust.com).  Since the officer was not relying on the use of radar or lidar, a Ticketbust Traffic Ticket Expert explained exactly what she would need from Gabriella in order to represent her during a process called Trial by Written Declaration. 

Gabriella signed 3 original copies of the Trial by Declaration form, which she downloaded from the TicketBust site.

She also had to sign the TicketBust Engagement Letter also available for easy download, which explains the process and the terms and conditions of the TicketBust Service and Money Back Guarantee.  Additionally, in California, in order to contest a traffic ticket, the court requires you to post bail for a Trial by Written Declaration. Therefore, Gabriella had to also include a bail check*, made out to the court. 

The last step was to include a check for the TicketBust service.

*If you post bail directly with the court, you must inform the court that you are posting bail for a Trial by Written Declaration to contest your ticket. The court will refund your bail once your ticket is dismissed.

TicketBust uses these forms, etc. to submit the necessary documents to the courts. Some services simply give you a downloadable eBook which describes a traffic ticket defense, and then leave the paperwork filing and everything else to the driver. TicketBust submits all documents to the court on behalf of their client, so the client doesn't have to go to court or even the post office.  The client also does not need to worry about deadlines after they have secured the TicketBust services.

Resolution: 

“One of my friends probably already contacted your company. I don’t know how to thank
you for all your help, for the very smooth processing, and for the result!"

TicketBust had a conference call with Gabriella and helped her formulate the following defense which TicketBust then used in her Trial By Written Declaration defense document:

“The officer alleged that I was traveling at 82 mph and I did not admit any guilt as to traveling at that speed. I felt my speed was reasonable and prudent in light of the circumstances (driving conditions and traffic). The officer cited me for allegedly violating VC§22349 by traveling at 82 mph in a 65  mph zone, however the officer did not rely on the use of radar, and I believe the officer was mistaken in citing me for that speed.
 
I had to switch lanes more than once because I was being tailgated.  I actually accelerated as a result of seeing a car closing in behind me (and the roads were slick because it had been raining earlier so I feared being rear ended), feeling it was impossible for me to both adhere to the Maximum Speed Law, yet also adhere to the Basic Speed Law, when it was safer for me to speed up due to the car pushing me from behind, and my presumption was that they wanted to get past me. I ended up changing lanes and the officer was behind me. However the officer was not behind me long and did not use radar to assess my speed. The foregoing reasons would explain why he cited me for a speed in excess of my actual traveling speed.
 
It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that I was traveling at the cited speed and thus guilty of this infraction.  However, the officer seemed to be relying only upon his own speedometer for his visual speed estimation.  A subjective visual estimation of speed is the least credible type of method an officer may use to assess a vehicle’s speed.  In my case, only his actual training records containing information regarding the accuracy of his visual estimations of speed, with the use of a calibrated speedometer, might be cited as evidence to possibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his visual speed measurement in this instance was credible, and if he has produced no such records, then he is incompetent to rely solely on his own visual estimation of my speed without the use of radar or lidar instrumentation.  Perhaps to enhance his speed estimate’s credibility, the officer may have used a comparative measurement, for example if I was catching up to or passing on another vehicle.  However, in my particular case, I was not gaining on or attempting to overtake any other vehicle. I do not feel I was traveling at the speed I was cited for, and since the officer did not rely upon the use of any calibrated radar or laser instrumentation for speed measurements, I feel he mistakenly came to the conclusion that I was traveling at 82 miles per hour.
 
The lack of evidence of any speedometer calibration is also relevant to this inquiry. If officer testified that his car was going 82 mph while he was following from behind me, he has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his speedometer reading was based upon a calibrated reading. Otherwise, even if he stated that his speedometer read 82 mph while following my vehicle, this reading itself may have been an incorrect indicator of my vehicle’s true speed.   As with instrumentation such as radar or laser/lidar, the patrol car’s speedometer should have been calibrated by a certified shop before and after the officer’s shift.  It is highly unlikely that such timely speedometer calibration was performed. In California, it is required to test any speed measuring device within a reasonable time, such as those in highway patrol cars.  Only if the officer presented evidence that calibration was performed upon the officer’s specific patrol car used that day can we even begin to reasonably consider that the speedometer measurement itself could have been correct at the time of citation issuance.   Thus, for example, if the officer states that he followed behind my vehicle at 65 mph, this statement alone, without reliable proof, constitutes impermissible hearsay.  Proof of a calibrated speedometer in the officer’s specific vehicle that was calibrated to accurately measure speed at the time of the citation is lacking in this case.
 
Moreover, nowhere on the citation is the Patrol Vehicle Number written that the officer was operating at the time the citation was issued—the space for this information on citation #SH687156 is blank. As such, I submit that it is not possible to verify beyond a reasonable doubt that speedometer calibration was performed on the specific patrol vehicle he was driving at the time this citation was issued. Since the officer failed to record his patrol vehicle number on my citation, any speedometer calibration data that he may provide cannot be matched with the specific vehicle he used at the time he stopped and cited my vehicle. Even if the officer should present calibration data, I respectfully request that the court to reject any such calibration data, since the officer was driving a vehicle whose Patrol Vehicle Number is unknown.
 
Based upon the above true facts and for all of the foregoing reasons cited, in the interest of justice, I respectfully request this court to dismiss the citation in its entirety. I believe the above true facts and accompanying rationale warrant a dismissal.  In the alternative, should the court rule against me, I then respectfully request that the court issue permission to attend traffic school for this violation.”

In March of 2010, Gabriella wrote to us, "I posted a 5-star review at the Better Business Bureau, and gave your web site address to everyone I know to bookmark it in case they ever need help. One of my friends probably already contacted your company. I don’t know how to thank you for all your help, for the very smooth processing, and for the result!".  

Then she added the following, posted on TrustLink, she wrote "At the end of last year I got pulled over for speeding (84 miles) on a rainy day. I had no experience in how to try to explain to the Officer why I did what I did, just handed over the documents he asked for. I did not want to go to Court either because I am not good at talking publicly, so I searched the Internet and found TicketBust.com. The web site explains everything very clearly, and I signed up for help. I sent all documentation (very few) back they sent me to sign with my check of the bail amount, and in a few days a representative called me for some details. From that point all I had to do is wait. "

Upon receiving a notice that the case had been dismissed and she would be getting a full refund of her bail amount, Gabriella had these comments which she gladly posted on the Internet, “A month after the Court date I received a letter from the Court dismissing the case and indicating that my full bail amount will be returned in 60 days! Everything went very smoothly, and everyone who contacted me either on the phone or by email were very nice and professional. I already gave their web site address to my friends if they  should ever need help. Thank you TicketBust.com!!!!”

For more information on how Ticket Busters of California can help to beat your speeding tickets or fight other traffic tickets, visit TicketBust.com or call us today at 800 850-8038.