Anyone Tried The 40801 California Vehicle Code Defense?

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.

On 16 Mar 2005 14:29:21 -0800, "Audiofan2" >
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"

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" >
> 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"

I-5 South right before Stockton. The speed limit is 70 there. In
Stockton it drops to 55 for construction.

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.

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.

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.

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.