(. )( .)
Go Kart Champion
Hi guys, I recently got a ticket in my GTI, I was cited with CVC 22356 (b) Speed in Excess of 70mph.
On the ticket, it stated I was going 80 in a 70 mph zone. I was caught on Lidar.
I've decided to fight it by Trial by Declaration, and I need some opinions on my letter!
Defendant's Name: Jxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Citation Number: 4xxxxxxx
Case No.: 4xxxxxxxx
I submit this written declaration to the Court with all due respect. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22356 VC-I.
The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on the I-10 E through Banning on January 23, 2012, I was stopped by a CHP Officer Sami Nunez (I.D.#18168) and was charged with violating CVC 22356 VC-I. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 80mph in a posted 70mph zone based on lidar unit evidence. It is my belief that I was driving safe for the prevailing conditions at the time of the stop and that my speed was not endangering the safety of any persons or property and was quite safe for the conditions.
At the time of my stop, it was approximately 11:30 PM. First, I would like to elucidate the conditions. The skies were clear and road conditions were dry. Traffic was medium, with several other cars traveling in the other lanes. I firmly believe that my speed was safe for the prevailing conditions. For example, I was traveling in the far right lane, following the flow and general speed of the traffic in front of me. Indeed, many cars were passing by at a higher rate of speed in the farthest left lane, where cars generally drive at a higher rate of speed than those to far right.
Upon being stopped by Officer Nunez, I immediately rolled down all the windows and turned on the interior lights. I turned off the engine and placed my hands on the steering wheel until Officer Nunez demanded me to step out of the vehicle for a sobriety test, to which I immediately submitted to politely with no hesitation and completely passed. I believe that Officer Nunez suspected me because of the holiday (1/23/12), which is Chinese New Years, and the proximity of Morongo Casino and Resort.
I maintain that I was merely driving normally to my destination, following the speed of the traffic in front of me. There was no way that my speed could have posed any substantial danger to any persons or property, especially considering the fact that the I-10 East has a posted speed limit of 70mph, which is higher than the average 65mph speed limit on other highways.
The implications of the higher 70mph limit is an admission on the part of traffic authorities including the California Highway Patrol and engineers of the Department of Transportation that a higher speed than normal is indeed not only helpful, but necessary to the orderly movement and evacuation of traffic from the area. As per CVC 22356(a),
“after consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol, determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey on existing highway segments, or upon the basis of appropriate design standards and projected traffic volumes in the case of newly constructed highway segments, that a speed greater than 65 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any state highway”
As with any speed limit, it is expected and hoped for that drivers will observe and respect a speed of 70mph for 70mph prima facie limit, just as it is expected and hoped for that drivers would likewise observe and respect a speed of 65mph on a highway with a 65mph prima facie speed limit. If an officer were to write someone a ticket for 74mph in a 65mph limit highway, then that would be proportional to the 80mph that Officer Nunez cited me for in the 70mph I-10 East highway. Now suppose that we use the 85th percentile average on a 65mph limit highway. The 74mph that someone would have been cited for in that 65mph highway would be well within the threshold. Consequently, I am confident that the 80mph that Officer Nunez cited me for would also be well within this 85th percentile average speed.
As such, I believe that Officer Nunez does not make a credible case that I was in violation of CVC 22356 VC-I, and would like it to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
On the ticket, it stated I was going 80 in a 70 mph zone. I was caught on Lidar.
I've decided to fight it by Trial by Declaration, and I need some opinions on my letter!
Defendant's Name: Jxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Citation Number: 4xxxxxxx
Case No.: 4xxxxxxxx
I submit this written declaration to the Court with all due respect. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22356 VC-I.
The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on the I-10 E through Banning on January 23, 2012, I was stopped by a CHP Officer Sami Nunez (I.D.#18168) and was charged with violating CVC 22356 VC-I. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 80mph in a posted 70mph zone based on lidar unit evidence. It is my belief that I was driving safe for the prevailing conditions at the time of the stop and that my speed was not endangering the safety of any persons or property and was quite safe for the conditions.
At the time of my stop, it was approximately 11:30 PM. First, I would like to elucidate the conditions. The skies were clear and road conditions were dry. Traffic was medium, with several other cars traveling in the other lanes. I firmly believe that my speed was safe for the prevailing conditions. For example, I was traveling in the far right lane, following the flow and general speed of the traffic in front of me. Indeed, many cars were passing by at a higher rate of speed in the farthest left lane, where cars generally drive at a higher rate of speed than those to far right.
Upon being stopped by Officer Nunez, I immediately rolled down all the windows and turned on the interior lights. I turned off the engine and placed my hands on the steering wheel until Officer Nunez demanded me to step out of the vehicle for a sobriety test, to which I immediately submitted to politely with no hesitation and completely passed. I believe that Officer Nunez suspected me because of the holiday (1/23/12), which is Chinese New Years, and the proximity of Morongo Casino and Resort.
I maintain that I was merely driving normally to my destination, following the speed of the traffic in front of me. There was no way that my speed could have posed any substantial danger to any persons or property, especially considering the fact that the I-10 East has a posted speed limit of 70mph, which is higher than the average 65mph speed limit on other highways.
The implications of the higher 70mph limit is an admission on the part of traffic authorities including the California Highway Patrol and engineers of the Department of Transportation that a higher speed than normal is indeed not only helpful, but necessary to the orderly movement and evacuation of traffic from the area. As per CVC 22356(a),
“after consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol, determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey on existing highway segments, or upon the basis of appropriate design standards and projected traffic volumes in the case of newly constructed highway segments, that a speed greater than 65 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any state highway”
As with any speed limit, it is expected and hoped for that drivers will observe and respect a speed of 70mph for 70mph prima facie limit, just as it is expected and hoped for that drivers would likewise observe and respect a speed of 65mph on a highway with a 65mph prima facie speed limit. If an officer were to write someone a ticket for 74mph in a 65mph limit highway, then that would be proportional to the 80mph that Officer Nunez cited me for in the 70mph I-10 East highway. Now suppose that we use the 85th percentile average on a 65mph limit highway. The 74mph that someone would have been cited for in that 65mph highway would be well within the threshold. Consequently, I am confident that the 80mph that Officer Nunez cited me for would also be well within this 85th percentile average speed.
As such, I believe that Officer Nunez does not make a credible case that I was in violation of CVC 22356 VC-I, and would like it to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
