Help! I got a traffic ticket

Website Links

Description

While far from a complete collection of California traffic law cases, these have been very useful: -People v Behjat - In a prosecution under Vehicle Code section 22350, the record must contain substantial evidence from which a fact finder could conclude either that the defendant drove at a speed that endangered people or property or that she drove at a speed that was unreasonable for the driving conditions. -People v Beltran - We accept the settled statement as correct, because the trial judge is the final arbiter of that issue. (regarding appeals) In any case where a county seat is an incorporated city, it includes all territory heretofore or hereafter annexed thereto. (regarding change of venue) -People v Carlucci - ...the trial court at a traffic infraction hearing may call and question witnesses in the absence of a prosecutor. Such actions constitute neither a per se denial of due process nor transmute the judge into prosecutor. -People v Difiore - We conclude that defendant was entitled to rely on the anti-speed-trap laws even though the evidence showed that defendant was driving in excess of 55 miles per hour. -People v Earnest - Because the People did not produce either the original engineering and traffic survey or a certified copy of it demonstrating that the posted speed limits on the pertinent segments of roadway were justified by current engineering and traffic surveys, none of their evidence as to the defendants' speeds was - admissible... -Esteybar v Municipal Court - The prosecution of a case by the district attorney involves an exercise of executive power... -People v Flaxman - whenever radar is used in conjunction with a prima facie speed limit it is always relevant to determine whether or not the prima facie speed limit has been justified as required by the statute, regardless of the fact that the violation has no relation to any prima facie speed limit. -People v Goulet This is the definitive case on speed traps. Read it. You might also want to read Chapter 8 of the CalTrans Traffic Manual . NOTE:The CalTrans Traffic manual has been replaced by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 as amended by the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement . (see Chapter 2B: Regulatory Signs; pages 51 - 54) The CalTrans Manual and the MUTCD require the Adobe Acrobat Reader (it's free). -People v Halopoff - [W]e declare the obligation of the prosecutor to establish that a speed trap was not involved in those cases where radar is used to apprehend a defendant. -People v Huffman - If the court finds the survey does justify the speed limit, then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove his speed was nevertheless safe under the circumstances. (Veh. Code, sec. 22351, subd. (b).) -People ex rel. Kottmeier v. Municipal Court - The municipal court may properly require the District Attorney to supply a list of witnesses for each case, for example; the court should then permit the witnesses to give a narrative recital. The court has no obligation, however, to assist the People's witnesses in presenting the case, and we recognize its continuing discretion to request the presence of a prosecutor in the unusual case.

Companies nearby