http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/fillable/tr205.pdf

http://www.ticketassassin.com/

http://www.helpigotaticket.com

this is what the officers file on their side http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/tr235.pdf

Trial By Declaration (TBD)

The following FAQ is based on information I�ve leveraged from the Internet. It should serve as a step by step guide taking your through the process of accepting a ticket, requesting the TBD, and what to spend your money on after you�ve won. I have personally sent in similar declarations and won my cases, so I know the process works.

Getting a ticket




Okay, this is the easy part. Go out and commit a moving violation in front of a cop. Go on, you know you want to�. When a cop pulls you over, you need to remember a few things that may help defuse the situation. Most of these are self explanatory.

1. Signal, then calmly move into a safe parked location.
2. Turn off your car. Forget about letting your car idle down. Turn it off.
3. If it�s night time, turn on your dome light so that the cop can see what you�re doing as he approaches the car.
4. Have your window down and your hands either on the steering wheel or out the window with your keys in hand.
5. Be polite, but do not admit any guilt. The cop may or may not be a dick. If he/she is, just take it up the ass for now, because it will help you greatly later if he/she does not have something to remember you by (ie your smart ass mouth).

Okay, you did it! You got a ticket. I hope it was worth it. No lets get you off the hook.

Requesting a Trial By Declaration

There are two ways to request a TBD. Depending on where in the world you are located you may want to write into the courts and formally request a TBD. You can download the request forms online. I suggest you send everything certified mail so that you have a record of it. The second, easier way is to wait until you get your summons in the mail, then walk into the court house during off peak hours, find the clerks office and request it in person. He/She will give you everything you need and send you on your way.

Note: In order to perform a TBD, you will need to pay the bail in full prior to continuing the process. So, if your ticket was for $170.00, you will need to bring in a cash, check or money order either to the clerk�s office or enclosed in your TBD request packet.

Writing the declaration

This obviously is the most important part of the TBD. There are a few things to understand first before getting into the meat of the declaration. First, if you had decided to plead not guilty and appear in court in person, officers are paid overtime to appear in court against you. So obviously they are motivated to do so. Also if you are appearing in court, the officer and judge may already have a repore that may work against you. Also a number of other things can obviously go wrong if you show up in person. With a TBD, on the other hand, the police are not paid anything extra. In fact, it�s just more paperwork for them. There are smart cops as well as dumb ones as you may have guess. But none of them are lawyers. My point here is that if/when they write in their side of the story; they may not be as well spoken as you. All of this will ultimately work in your favor. Do you no speaka de ingliss good? That will no longer be a problem, just use on of the examples at the end of the FAQ. You�ll need to change the names, case number and some other misc. information, but by far, these should be versatile enough for most of your scenarios.

Once you�ve got all your paperwork together, you can walk it in to the court or mail it in. If you choose to mail the documents in, I again advise that you do so by certified mail.

The Waiting Game

Now that everything is set in motion, it�s time to wait. The officer is given notice of your intent to conduct a TBD and he�s given ample time to respond. You will be notified of the court date (don�t worry you don�t have to appear) when the declarations will be reviewed. Following that you�ll be notified several weeks later of the outcome. Following that, you�ll wait another 60-90 days to receive your check from the state refunding your bail.

What if the cop is a genius and I loose

Yeah right.

Okay, let�s say you ignore the examples and choose to write the declaration in Egyptian Hieroglyphics and using a purple crayon (un sharpened). It�s not the end of the world. Fortunately you will be given a second chance.
Quote
40902. (d) If the defendant is dissatisfied with a decision of the court in a proceeding pursuant to this section, the defendant shall be granted a trial de novo.
To request a trial de novo you need to submit (in person or by mail) a Form TR-220. This is available online as either a blank form or a fillable form.
The TR-220 must be received by the court within 20 days of the date the clerk mails you the decision.
Once you have requested a trial de novo, you will need to prepare for your trial (unless you intend to enter a plea of "No Contest" or ask for traffic school).

Statement of Facts

Please feel free to use the examples below in your trial by declaration. Obviously you will need to change the names, case number and other key information. However the format and verbiage of at least one of these should be well suited for your needs.



Example 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendant's Name: Simone De Beauvoir
Case No.: S780824

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.

The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on Sorrento Valley Road on 10-21-99, I was stopped by a SDPD Officer (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 62mph in a 45mph zone based on Radar evidence. I believe that I was driving approximately 50-55mph 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."

At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with light traffic. On my citation, the officer marks that the traffic was "light." No persons or property were put at risk. As such, the Officer does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law.

Further, I believe that the posted speed of 45mph on Sorrento Valley Road 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 Sorento valley Road is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal.

When using radar evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar is not an illegal speed trap. Speed Trap Evidence 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."

If the prosecution does not attach proof with its written declaration (a certified copy of the speed survey) to establish as part of its prima facie case, that Sorrento Valley Road is not an illegal Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), I trust the Court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.

CVC 40805, Admission of Speed Trap Evidence, states:"Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgement 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."

I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.

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 under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date:

Simone De Beauvoir, Defendant in Pro Per


[b/]Example 2[/b]

STATEMENT OF FACTS[/b]

Defendant's Name: Lucas Ridgeston
Case No.: S780824

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.

The facts of my case are as follows: While driving west bound on Meade at 0855 on 3-17-99, I was stopped by SDPD Officer Ffrengig (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. Officer Ffrengig has alleged that I was driving approximately 33mph in a 25mph zone based on RADAR evidence. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions at the time of my stop, and was therefore not in violation of the Basic Speed Law.

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."

On my citation, the officer fails to note any of these relevant conditions except for traffic, which he correctly notes as "Medium." I can attest that the road was dry with clear visibility at the time of my stop. Officer Ffrengig also fails to note the Safe Speed for Meade in the appropriate space on my Notice to Appear. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions on Meade when I was stopped.

My assertion that my speed was Safe and Reasonable for conditions is supported by the most recent Traffic and Engineering survey for Meade which gives the Safe Speed (85th percentile speed) as 32 mph, which is just 1mph different than the "approximate" speed Officer Ffrengig noted on my citation. Based on this evidence, I know that I was not in violation of the Basic Speed Law at the time and place of my citation and, pursuant to the common sense spirit of CVC 22350, contest that my speed at the time of my traffic stop was therefore not per se unlawful.

Further, I believe that the officer's radar may have been tracking one of several cars other than mine. There were cars driving in front of me and also passing me as I proceeded down Meade; the presence of these vehicles was properly attested to on my citation by Officer Ffrengig as "Medium" traffic. The typical beam angle (spread) of police radar is 12-16 degrees, resulting in a beam width of 1 foot for every 4 feet of travel of the beam from the antennae. Therefore at 160 feet from its source, a police radar beam is typically 40 feet (four lanes) wide.

The officer noted on my citation that my radar-determined speed was 33mph from 150 feet away, a distance at which any of several cars then traveling through the officer's two-lane wide radar beam might have caused the speed indicated on the officer's unit. Due to the officer's indication of "medium" traffic and his notation that my alleged speed was determined at a 150' distance, it is clear that there is reasonable doubt as to which car's speed his radar unit was indicating.

Due to this reasonable doubt, and the fact that the Traffic and Engineering Survey for Meade has determined the Safe Speed to be 32mph, approximately the speed the officer claims I was traveling, I ask the Court to dismiss my citation in the interest of justice.

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 under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date:

Lucas Ridgeston, Defendant in Pro Per


Example 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendant's Name: Quentin Crisp
Case No.: S780824

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.

The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on Madera Street in Lemon Grove at 0830 on 10-22-98, I was stopped by Deputy Perchyll (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. Deputy Perchyll has alleged that I was driving 41mph in a 25mph zone based on RADAR evidence. In fact, I was traveling 40mph in a posted 40mph zone.

Deputy Perchyll asserts that I was driving in a school zone with a temporary prima facie speed limit of 25mph, which is the sole basis of my citation. However, the Deputy did not cite me for driving in a prima facie school zone, CVC 22352(b)(2); he cited me for breaking the Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350. I did not break the Basic Speed Law. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions at the time of my stop, 40mph in a posted 40mph zone.

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."

At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with light traffic. No persons or property were put at risk by my driving 40mph in a posted 40mph zone. The mere act of passing a school at 40mph in a 40mph zone is not assumed to "endanger the safety of persons or property" under the Basic Speed Law. As such, the Deputy does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law at the time of my stop.

Further, I believe that a posted speed of 40mph on Madera Street is artificially low, reflecting a possibly out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, the Deputy's use of Radar may constitute a Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(1) (traffic survey more than five years old).

If the prosecution does not attach proof with its Written Declaration (a certified copy of the speed survey for 1700 Madera Street), to establish as part of its prima facie case, that the road I was cited on was not a Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), Speed Trap Evidence, I trust that the Court will rule the RADAR evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.

I trust in the Court's fairness and believe that my citation should be dismissed in the interest of justice.

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 under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date:

Quentin Crisp, Defendant in Pro Per



Example 4

May 18, 2004
Superior Court, County of Los Angeles
1427 West Covina Parkway
West Covina, CA 91790




To Whom It May Concern:


I am writing in regards to my trial by declaration. The bail amount of $111.00 has already been received by Deputy Clerk, Margaret Orban.

On the night of March 22, 2004, I was traveling on Fullerton Rd, northbound, just south of the 60 freeway. While on Fullerton, I stopped at a traffic light at Diamond Plaza Way, just before the eastbound onramp to the 60 freeway. I was stopped behind a silver 1998-2000 Honda Accord at the time on the far right lane as the light had turned red. As the traffic light turned green, the Accord ahead of me began to accelerate, and as I normally do, I followed. While at the traffic light I also noticed a police unit parked with its parking lights on, at the Shell gas station at the corner of Fullerton and Diamond Plaza Way. As I approached the gas station, I noticed the lights of the police unit turn on and begin moving forward, well before I had passed in front of the police unit. As I passed in front of the police unit, I had noticed that he had pulled to the exit of the gas station, and continued to follow me up the onramp of the 60 freeway heading eastbound. About 500ft up the ramp, the officer turned on his light bar, at which time I pulled to the right to the emergency lane and stopped my vehicle. I was confused as to why I was pulled over, and asked the officer as he approached my vehicle. His response to me was that �Your exhaust is too loud.� After which he requested my license and registration and gave me my citation.

I believe that there is reasonable doubt as to Officer Arruda�s judgement in regards to the indicated exhaust violation stated by the CVC code 21750.

Firstly, I have attached a certification from the State Referee Station in Chaffey College, indicating that the exhaust noise level of my vehicle does meet the legal limit of 95dB. The certificate indicated the exhaust noise level of my vehicle to be at 93dB, below that of the 95dB limit as set by the testing methods indicated by the CCR, Title 13, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 9 in regards to CVC 27150.

Secondly, I believe that Officer Arruda may have mistaken the exhaust noise he heard from the Accord�s for my car. While at the traffic light, I had noticed the Accord having a large dual exhaust system. I believe that Officer Arruda may have heard the exhaust noise coming from that vehicle, as I noticed him pull his car to the exit of the gas station as the Accord was passing in front of him, and right before I passed in front of him. The modified exhaust on that vehicle was about the same sound volume, if not louder, than mine, and I believe that if Officer Arruda had began to move his vehicle before I had passed him, there is a high probability that he mistook the exhaust noise of the Accord�s as my vehicle�s.

I have enclosed 3 additional pages I would like admitted as evidence: a copy of the receipt for service at the Chaffey College Referee Station, a copy of the Referee Station Vehicle Inspection Report, and a copy of the Certificate indicating vehicle exhaust noise compliance affixed to the back of the issued Notice to Appear citation.


Thank you,


Adam West
(Mayor)


To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing in regards to my trial by declaration. The bail amount of $186.00 has already been received by Santa Clarita Court, receipt # xxxxxxxxx on 12/2/05.

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 November 11th I was ticketed for allegedly traveling at 69mph in a 50mph zone. I believe that I was driving approximately 55-60mph 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."

On my citation, the officer fails to note any of these relevant conditions including traffic, which would be correctly described as "Light to Medium." I can attest that the road was dry with clear visibility at the time of my stop. Officer Banks also fails to note the Safe Speed for Sierra Highway in the appropriate space on my Notice to Appear. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions on Sierra Highway when I was stopped. No persons or property were put at risk by my driving. As such, the Officer does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law.

Further, I believe that the posted speed of 50mph on Sierra Highway 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 Sierra Highway is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal.

When using radar 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 Sierra Highway is not an illegal Speed Trap. This is required pursuant to CVC 40803(b).� I trust the court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805 if the prosecution does not provide a certified speed survey for Sierra Highway.

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 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).

Further, I believe that the officer's radar may have targeted one of several cars other than mine.
There was a vehicle passing me as I drove down Sierra Highway, however he suddenly applied his brakes, just before we passed officer Banks in the parked radar unit. As a result of the other cars rapid braking I was going faster when passing the parked patrol car. When I noticed the other car braking hard and saw the parked patrol car ahead of me, I looked at my speedometer and it was reading approximately 56-58. Although I was going above the posted speed limit, I believe that the other car gave triggered the radar reading of 69mph.

The typical beam angle (spread) of police radar is 12-16 degrees, resulting in a beam width of 1 foot for every 4 feet of travel of the beam from the antennae. Therefore at 80 feet from its source, a police radar beam is typically 20 feet (two lanes) wide. Either of the cars then traveling through the officer's multi-lane wide radar beam might have caused the speed indicated on the officer's unit. I believe that this provides reasonable doubt as to which vehicle was actually targeted going 69mph.

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 is not legal without this course, and his RADAR 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 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 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 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 under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.


Example 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendant's Name: Peter Griffen
Case No.: 534806EH

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 21550A.

The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on John F Kennedy Dr. on 12-14-05, I was stopped by a SDPD Officer (I.D.#2963) and was charged with violating CVC 21550A. The Officer has alleged that I had failed to yield in a pedestrian crosswalk. I believe that as I approached the intersection, there were no pedestrians visible.

CVC 21950 (A) states: "The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter."

As I approached the intersection, there were no signs of pedestrians entering or waiting to enter the crosswalk. At the time of my stop, the Officer stated that I had not yielded to a pedestrian preparing to enter the crosswalk an indicated the position on the sidewalk. This position however would not have been visible to me as I approached due to an SUV parked at the curb.

CVC 21950 (B) states: "This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk."

I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.

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 under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: March 16, 2006

Peter Griffen, Defendant in Pro Per



Example 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendant's Name: Kakarot
Case No.: 0U812

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22101.

The facts of my case are as follows: While refueling my vehicle at the Unical station on January 10, 2006, I was approached by a SDPD Officer (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22101. The Officer has alleged that I turned illegally onto National Blvd from the Westbound 10 freeway exit. At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with light traffic. I believe that the turn was made legally and safely for the prevailing conditions.

CVC 21100(b) states: "Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the following matters:
(b) Regulating traffic by means of official traffic control devices meeting the requirements of Section 21400."

CVC 21450 restricts colors used in official traffic control devices to red, yellow, and green only.

The officer considered a posted sign to qualify as a traffic control device. However in this case, it does not adhere to standards outlined above for this citation. As such, the Officer does not make a credible case that I was in violation of CVC 22101.

I trust the Court will rule the posted sign does not qualify as a traffic control device as described in the CVC code(s) and dismiss my case.

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 under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date:

Kakarot (SSJ4), Defendant in Pro Per

Example 7


STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendant's Name: Meg Griffen
Case No.: 93263BV

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22349.

The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on I5 on 05-04-06, I was stopped by a CHP Officer (I.D.#15353) and was charged with violating CVC 22349. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 85mph in a 65mph zone based on Aircraft evidence. I believe that I was driving approximately 70mph 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."

At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with light traffic. No persons or property were put at risk.

Further, I believe that the method in which my speed was evaluated is subject to error and, may constitute an illegal Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(2).

40801. States that “No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code.”

40802. (a) Describes a "speed trap" as “A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance.”

40803. (a) “No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon the trial of any person in any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speedtrap.”

40804. (a) “In any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, any officer or other person shall be incompetent as a witness if the testimony is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speed trap.”

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."

I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.

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 under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date: September 9, 2006

Meg Griffen
Defendant in Pro Per

Source: http://www.socalevo.net/forum/index.php?topic=10663.0

 

/\ You try it out and let us know the outcome

 

lol i been using it, i got away with smog, exhaust, running a red light, speeding 20+mph so far.

ill let you kno if my wife gets away with the camera showing her running a light
so HA to you good sir

 

interesting

i just recently paid a ticket for running tolls in IL on 90... $63 fine for 3 tolls

 

not all states have trial by declaration ^_^

 

BRAVO! Very good writeup. Don't ever plead guilty to a ticket.

 

wow nice thank u for the write up

 

Very nice. The only states that allow TBD are:

1) California

2) Florida

3) Hawaii

4) Indiana
In Indiana, in order to bypass a court appearance you must opt for a “Trial by Affidavit.” Contact the court for the rules and regulations involved.

5) Louisiana
Contact the court for the rules and regulations involved.

6) Nebraska
Contact the court for the rules and regulations involved.

7) Ohio
Trial by declaration is available only at the discretion of each court. Contact the court to find out if it’s available where you received your ticket.

8) Oregon

9) Wyoming

 

I recently got out of a illegal muffler ticket via this method. I used lack of evidence to determine the actual noise level of the vehicle (i.e. the officer) and furthermore offered that the officer is not a certified dB meter nor did he HAVE one with him. Nor did he have evidence to determine my car to be louder than a factory model. Also because it is self incriminating they were NOT allowed to check the dB level of my muffler. It is factory anyways, I even submitted the pictures (timestamped) ten minutes after the incident with the muffler ON THE CAR. Then, I filed for "restitution" Which means if your found not guilty they have to pay you restitution for mandatory appearance in court IF you can prove it displaced your source of income for the duration of your hearing. Especially so when I have evidence of this particular officer's unwillingness to be presented evidence at ticket issuance. He wrote a ticket illegally without validation of the offense. It's kinda like giving you a ticket for illegal window tint when they never checked the tint. If they didn't check it there is no sufficient evidence. You can even go so far if they did check it to argue the meter was not certified. (they are available out of catalogs with no certification whatsoever as a lux meter, and become more and more inaccurate as the battery wears down. Similarly I got out of a speeding ticket by the same means citing the traffic as cause for the radar to have not correctly garnered my speed at the time of the stop. This method is for the people who have enough TIME to do this.

Oh and for the record if your STATE law does not have a determination of maximum dB from your exhaust system the Feds do and its 107dB for 2010. It also doesn't dictate anything but the factory sound emission law. So essentially there is NO LAW for your exhaust system if your state doesn't directly impose a law for noise or modification. Just remember generally speaking this will be found under emission laws not traffic.

 

IDK about that haha,

I wish it would work though so I could get out of the ticket I got in VA for 91 in a 65 haha

 

in cali 31% of TBDs win just cause the cop didnt submit his portion

 

i did not write this up mearly got it from socal evo forum

 

PA doesn't have it and most of the judges are powertripping dicks. The last two judges I had basically kept spouting off how long their tenure was and not listening to anything.

 

Nighthawk is right here. I have been studding law for four years now and I have used the Police Powers Act and stated that window tint was unconstitutional and I had all the evidence in the world the officer showed none nore did the PA and I was found guilty. Also I had a trial and it was a mis trial but the judge found me guilty. So I filed a motion for a new trial and during the motion hearing the judge said I never had a trial so I couldnt motion for a new one and I was found guilty. Its all about a power trip for the judges. Out of 6 cases I wont only one. These judges need to be kicked out and new ones put in that under stand the law and the constitution because they just want the money for the job. More people found guilty more money the county/state gets and the more power they get.

 

we r kali we like 2 sue who ever ^_^

 

or. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . just dont break the law.

 

or **** the law and fight it. not every law is fair and just

 

Going 10 miles per hour over the speed limit on the highway generally is not unsafe. I don't feel that we should have to pay a fine, get points and have higher insurance rates so the state can make a couple bucks.

 

Interesting... Glad FL is on that list.

 

meh it grinds my gear that ppl say oh then dont break the law.
but i hope this helps ppl with their case.

 

i love people that say this yet have broken many laws they may not even know about. there are alot of dumb laws out ther part of which are still in the books just cause no one cared to enforce them or change them.

 

Excuse me? What you're doing is taking what I said out of context to try to make me look bad. Op's post clearly encourages breaking the law:

Besides that, what OP posted, along with many other "get-out-of-a-ticket" techniques are well known and documented within the law enforcement community. I wont even get into the grey area of interpretation and misinterpretation that admittedly people try to exploit and are sometimes successful at. Personally, I would pursue your case more aggressively for trying to weasel out and not be a man about it.

My point in case, is that it would be easier to have not broken the law in the first place rather then trying to play the game.

 

the game is always played ,
Basic Speed Law

22350. 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.

Amended Ch. 252, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963.

that can also apply for driving slower than the flow of traffic, if everyone is going 80 posted speed is 65 you get pulled over and get a ticket do you just pay the ticket because you are breaking one law and following the other?

point is you fucked up use trial by declaration and save you some money and stop feeding gready city/counties money and use it for goverment cars that they take home and use tax dollars to pay for gas. gettin tired of cops using there govie vehicles take it home, meh i digress from the point.

 

Yep. I bet there isn't a single one of us here who hasn't used Limewire at some point.

And if you go even 1MPH over in many states, you're technically breaking the law.

Generally with many laws, most judges will say that the more restrictive law in the interplay of statutes is upheld unless the newer statute repeals the other.

An an example I use to highlight this is PA's Age of Consent law. If you look at the main AOC law for PA, it specifically says that as long as the consenting individual is 16 or older, then there isn't an issue. However, another law, the Corruption of Minors law comes into play and makes any sexual activity under the age of 18 illegal. So although the AOC law allows above 16, the Corruption of Minors law bans the pre 18 age that the AOC allows.

Unless the new statute completely contracts the other still in effect and there isn't anything in the facts of the case that can be used to hold you to the statute, you're generally able to be held accountable for the charge if they can loophole their way out of dismissing it.

That being said it still does not hurt to attempt to fight it anyways. You lose 100% of the cases you don't fight.

 

Great write up sir hopefully it will work if I ever get one for my turbo kit