How to delete my avatar?
Anyone Tried The 40801 California Vehicle Code Defense?
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

CarGuru > Driving > Anyone Tried The 40801 California Vehicle Code Defense? 19 March 2005 01:59:37

  Recent blog posts: 
  They have birthday today: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

Anyone Tried The 40801 California Vehicle Code Defense?

Audiofan2 17 March 2005 02:29:21
 Hi, has anyone tried the CVC 40801 speed trap defense for a airplane
ticket in California? I have my trial by written delaration and I am
preparing my defense. The officer did not pace me and I was pulled over
along with several (10+ other cars on I-5).

I am using trial by declaration first to see if the officer even
bothers to write his side and send it to the court. If I loose I can
still go for a real trial under California law. Then both officers have
to show up. I have done extensive research and have several other tools
at my disposal to find out when the particular officers are on duty for
court cases etc. This particular defense is what I think is best.

Thanks for any info.

Add comment
Big Bill 17 March 2005 06:20:31 permanent link ]
 On 16 Mar 2005 14:29:21 -0800, "Audiofan2" <audiofan2@gmail.co­m>
wrote:
Hi, has anyone tried the CVC 40801 speed trap defense for a airplane>ticket in California? I have my trial by written delaration and I am>preparing my defense. The officer did not pace me and I was pulled over>along with several (10+ other cars on I-5).>
I am using trial by declaration first to see if the officer even>bothers to write his side and send it to the court. If I loose I can>still go for a real trial under California law. Then both officers have>to show up. I have done extensive research and have several other tools>at my disposal to find out when the particular officers are on duty for>court cases etc. This particular defense is what I think is best.>
Thanks for any info.

I suppose you could do this.
But if you do go to court, wouldn't you have to get the court to
accept aircraft use as a speed trap? Are there any precedents for
this?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Add comment
Scott in the ArkLaTex 17 March 2005 08:22:28 permanent link ]
 On 16 Mar 2005 14:29:21 -0800, "Audiofan2" <audiofan2@gmail.co­m>
wrote:
Hi, has anyone tried the CVC 40801 speed trap defense for a airplane>ticket in California? I have my trial by written delaration and I am>preparing my defense. The officer did not pace me and I was pulled over>along with several (10+ other cars on I-5).

Whereabouts?

San Joaquiin Valley?

--
Back en Aztlan next week. ;)
Add comment
Audiofan2 18 March 2005 00:48:56 permanent link ]
 Well according to everything I previously read online, people are
saying that it qualifies as a speedtrap because they are timing me over
a given distance which this section of California Vehicle Code
prohibits.

The only catch is recently while researching the defense I noticed that
if the officer in the plane states that the plane was traveling at the
same speed as my car and that the officer was pacing me it would be
legal. This is a little trick which some officers seem to be using. If
the road had been curvy or changing in elevation the plane pacing
wouldn't work, however this was I-5 South right before Stockton which
is flat and straight. So no arguement there.


Big Bill wrote:> On 16 Mar 2005 14:29:21 -0800, "Audiofan2" <audiofan2@gmail.co­m>> wrote:>
Hi, has anyone tried the CVC 40801 speed trap defense for a airplane> >ticket in California? I have my trial by written delaration and I am> >preparing my defense. The officer did not pace me and I was pulled
over> >along with several (10+ other cars on I-5).> >
I am using trial by declaration first to see if the officer even> >bothers to write his side and send it to the court. If I loose I can> >still go for a real trial under California law. Then both officers
have> >to show up. I have done extensive research and have several other
tools> >at my disposal to find out when the particular officers are on duty
court cases etc. This particular defense is what I think is best.> >
Thanks for any info.>
I suppose you could do this.> But if you do go to court, wouldn't you have to get the court to> accept aircraft use as a speed trap? Are there any precedents for> this?>
-- > Bill Funk> Change "g" to "a"

Add comment
Audiofan2 18 March 2005 00:49:51 permanent link ]
 I-5 South right before Stockton. The speed limit is 70 there. In
Stockton it drops to 55 for construction.

Add comment
John David Galt 18 March 2005 11:09:40 permanent link ]
 Audiofan2 wrote:> Well according to everything I previously read online, people are> saying that it qualifies as a speedtrap because they are timing me over> a given distance which this section of California Vehicle Code> prohibits.

Back in the days of 55, I tried this argument unsuccessfully. The way
judges read it is, the cop must be using the literal method spelt out
in 40801 to measure your speed (that is, watching for when your car
passes each of the marks). If instead he measures his own speed that
way while pacing you, he prevails.
Add comment
John David Galt 18 March 2005 11:11:16 permanent link ]
 Audiofan2 wrote:> I-5 South right before Stockton. The speed limit is 70 there. In> Stockton it drops to 55 for construction.

In Stockton it hasn't been above 55 since 1974, not because of
construction but because parts of the road become stop-and-go during
rush hour. Oddly enough, the stop-and-go sometimes extends down past
I-205 but the 55 limit doesn't.
Add comment
Audiofan2 19 March 2005 01:58:02 permanent link ]
 Thanks, I am starting to think you are right.... It's funny though
because so many people think that this law applies to their infraction.
Perhaps it's just wishful thinking.

Add comment
Audiofan2 19 March 2005 01:59:37 permanent link ]
 Yea, the opposite direction (northbound) had a k band radar sign
reminding traffic of the limit. My Valentine One went off showing k
band on my prevoius two trips from Sacramento to Stockton that same day.

Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


CarGuru > Driving > Anyone Tried The 40801 California Vehicle Code Defense? 19 March 2005 01:59:37

see also:
Re: Good offer from iRacing... 50% off…
Re: Kerbs/Curbs?
pass tests:
see also:
Nissan Sentra 1999 GXE model
1970 nova
squeaky noise from 106

  Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .