I did this TBD for my GF who got ticketed in Pasadena for 22350. The charges got dropped
Note, request a court date extension since the cop's memory might get fuzzy after a longer period...
Defendant's Name: ULTRAFLIP
Citation No.: C0XXXXXXXX
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in regards to my trial by declaration. The bail amount of $159.00 has already been received by Los Angeles Superior Court, receipt# XXXXXXX on 5/16/08.
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.
On 4/8/2008 I was ticketed for allegedly traveling at 45mph in a 30mph zone. I believe that I was driving approximately 25-35mph at the time of my stop and that my speed was quite safe for the prevailing conditions.
The Basic Speed Law, CVC 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."
I believe that the posted speed of 30mph on Marengo Avenue is artificially low, reflecting an out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, may constitute an illegal Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(2) which defines an illegal radar speed trap as: "A particular section of a highway with a...speed limit that is provided by this code...[which] limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects." If the traffic survey on Marengo Avenue is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal.
When using radar/laser evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar is not an illegal speed trap. CVC 40803(b) states: "In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802."
The prosecution must include a certified copy of the speed survey, to establish that Marengo Avenue is not an illegal Speed Trap. This is required pursuant to CVC 40803(b). I trust the court will rule the laser evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805 if the prosecution does not provide a certified speed survey for Marengo Avenue.
CVC 40805, Admission of Speed Trap Evidence, states: "Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction against any person for violation of this code involving the speed of a vehicle if the court admits any evidence or testimony secured in violation of, or which is inadmissible under this article." This code confirms that the officer's radar/laser evidence should be inadmissible without verification of the speed survey.
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/LASER is not legal without this course, and his RADAR/LASER 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/LASER 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/LASER 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/LASER was properly calibrated within three years to NTHSA 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.
If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a court assignment to attend traffic school.
I declare under penalty of perjury that this statement is true and correct.
Date: 5/16/2008
________________________________________ULTRAFLIP, Defendant in Pro Per