You can look it up for yourself: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm

Testimony Based on Speed Trap
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.

(b) Every officer arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, a person so charged while on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the provisions of Divisions 10 and 11 is incompetent as a witness if at the time of such arrest he was not wearing a distinctive uniform, or was using a motor vehicle not painted the distinctive color specified by the commissioner.

Commissioner

265. The "commissioner" is the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol.


You have to get a copy of the Highway Patrol manual to find the vehicle color that is considered "distictive" for radar use. But the copy I have recites, except for enforcement of commercial vehicles, black and white is what must be used. For commercial vehicles ONLY, the car can be all white. So, unless the manual has been revised, there you have it.

 

Try again buddy. Let me break this apart for you.


No officer that is rolling around in a unmarked unit is going to be exclusively assigned to traffic enforcement. Divisions 10 and 11 clearly deal with accidents and the rules of the road. So in a nut-shell, an undercover officer can make a legal vehicle code violation detention if his primary purpose is not for traffic enforcement. That is how we get around the law there.

 

which exactly what I'm talking about and have been since I pointed out you are only partly right. Division 11, if you want to look at the web site, is the provision that holds speed laws. What you're talking about is all other provisions of Division 11.

I've won in court too many times on exactly this foundation for it not to be truth.

If a cop is assigned to radar enforcement, he has to be wearing a distinctive uniform in driving a vehicle of distinctive color. Note, the key word is color, not distinctivly marked. So, you can have all the badging and light bar you want. But if it's not the distinctive color, you can't use radar without also being in violation of the speed trap laws. You may get a speeding ticket from a cop so doing, but that speeding ticket will survive about 3 minutes in court. Anything else he might write you up for at the same time is, unfortunatly, is fair game for the cop to write.

So, a white, blue, purple, green, or any other color does not work unless the Commissioner of the Highway patrol changes the manual to state so. So, until you see a Highway Patrol car equiped with radar in any color other than black and white, no indication that definition has changed.

 

Answer this question for me... if for some reason an officer had a radar system in his undercover unit, and he was assigned to narcotics, would he be allowed to write a speeding ticket?

Or what if an officer used radar in his undercover unit on you but was wearing his distinctive uniform? Would that be legal?

 

Also, unless it has changed, the last time I checked a "distinctive uniform" just consisted of a badge and name plate.

 

Hey Fu what's up?

 

1. If for some reason an officer had a radar system in his undercover unit, and he was assigned to narcotics, would he be allowed to write a speeding ticket?

Answer: As you described, legally if his citation was dependent on radar evidence, then he would be in violation of the Speed Trap Law and so the radar evidence would not be admissible. No evidence, no conviction. Is there anything keeping him from writing the ticket anyway? No. And unfortunately (professional privilege i.e. one way street) I've never seen a judge charge a penalty to a cop for doing so no matter how flagrant he was.

Page 1-2, Section 2a of the CHP Motor Transport Manual gives definition of "Enforcement Sedans and Coupes (Class "E") must specifically be Black and White. Further, page 1-2 of the CHP Radar Speed Enforcement Manual, section 7 recites "... only fully marked black and white enforcement vehicles shall be used for radar enforcement." As you see, the "Commissioner is pretty clear on his definition of distinctive color.

Section 40805 VC also says that a court simply can't enter a judgment of guilty or not guilty if the court admits ANY evidence or testimony if that evidence is in violation of the Speed Trap laws. Very short Appeal conversation

2. Or what if an officer used radar in his undercover unit on you but was wearing his distinctive uniform? Would that be legal?

Answer: No. Read the law, which I cut and pasted, for you. The key word is "or". If the cop is not in compliance with either of those tests, he isn't in compliance with the Speed Trap Law requirements.

Also, you may be technically correct as to a badge and name plate in pretty much all other manners of law enforcement. But, specifically regarding Speed Trap Law, the key word is "Distinctive" uniform. One would only have to recite Webster’s Dictionary in the court regarding the definitions of the words "distinctive" and perhaps "uniform" and prosecution conversations in that regard will be quite short there after.

You want case law? Heck, there is one case in from the State Court of Appeals with my name on it that I've seen used successfully by others. Specifically regarding "visible" enforcement, Fleming is a good one. Halopoff, Conzelman (my favorite), and Goulet are recited quite often in speed trap defenses.

No, I'm not a lawyer. But Speed Trap law this is one subject I know very, very, very well.

Sorry Fu. You're just not going to win this one. But, A for effort.

 

I think Hozzman's understanding as a speed trap is wrong. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

"Speed trap" in California traffic law

Before the advent of radars, lasers and other hi-tech speed detectors, the speed of a vehicle was often determined with the help of aircraft observations by timing the moments when the vehicle passes two specific marks on a highway with known distance between them. This way was declared illegal, and for the purposes of the law the following definition was given in the California Vehicle Code:

A "speed trap" is ... 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.

The prohibition of this kind of "speed traps" followed after a series of successful defences that argued inadmissible error margin in human timing.

Subsequently, the second clause was added to the "speed trap" definition to cover inadmissible usage of "radar or other electronic devices". It considers multiple factors, such as the operation standards of devices, training of police officers, and whether the enforced speed limits were properly justified.

Since the introduction of this California law, some came to an erroneous conclusion that it forbids the "cop in the bush"-type speed traps.

above linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_t...ia_traffic_law

This topic can be debated over and over again. It all comes down to court. Who ever makes the stronger argument in court and can convinces the judge is the winner. But I guess in Hozzman's previous history, I guess he has convinced the judge otherwise. Some of us can argue our way out, the rest of us take traffic school or just eat the ticket when it comes to insurance.

 

Smile Now OR Cry Later.

 

how bout cry now and pay later.

 

, with due respect to your Google searching skills, wikipedia isn't a legal reference source and certainly doesn't take precedent over the California Vehicle Code. That is more a general discussion of speed trap concept, not the legal application which the legal definition is just barely touched in your cut and pasted "second clause".



I will say the "cops in the bush" is covered in case law Fleming vs. Superior Court that recites "The Legislature intended to bring traffic officers out into the open so that their presence would be felt by the motorists and thereby impress upon them with the fact that they are under a duty to drive carefully and obey all the rules of the road". Unfortunately it doesn't say cops have to be in the open. So, hiding in the bush's may not technically is wrong, but it certainly is contrary to the spirit of what was intended as appropriate practice. This unmarked police vehicle issue is just another example of police disregarding this same spirit.



People vs. Beamer is the case law centerpiece that affirmed "...radar does not constitute a speed trap because it measures speed 'through space' without reference to any part of the highway." So, with reference to your wikipedia cut and paste, you see how radar technically dodges the first part of the speed trap definition which is based in part to references to physical points of the highway.



If you want to read what defines a speed trap, go to the Ca Vehicle Code link I gave and lookup:



40802CVC Speed Trap (Revised Definition)

a. is the recital that your wikipedia discussion is primarily built around

b. is the most common point that creates a speed trap other than the vehicle color or distinctive uniform discussed in 40804 CVC Testimony Based on Speed Trap.



40804CVC Testimony Based on Speed Trap

This is the centerpiece regarding Fu and my debate and ultimately proves the point.



The remainders of Speed Trap Laws are:



627 CVC Engineering and Traffic Survey

40801 CVC Speed Trap Prohibition

40803 CVC Speed Trap Evidence



Like I said, this is one subject I know very very well.

 

^^ got some free time on your hands

 

Does anyone know the logistics about proposition 187?

 

Nope. Just a subject I can debate with little effort. Some of you can rebuild a carburator blindfolded. I can debate this blind folded. It was actually fun pulling it all together like this in debating with Fu.

More valuable to the clan, what with all the "Help I got a Ticket" threads that pop up on this forum, perhaps those that acutally use the search function will actually find the help they're looking for. This information has served me well in dealing with radar tickets.

 

Honestly, I don't like debating. But I'm just trying to have a better understanding. Based on my understanding of the speed trap definition, in section 40802(a)(1) california vehicle code, and the prohibition of speed traps in section 40801 california vehicle code. It doesn't appear to me that cops are in the wrong when they ticket us. Since speed traps seem strictly for speeding, this means they can ticket us for anything else. Maybe I'm not understanding your argument.

Could you please explain to us who are not well versed in law?

 

You are right in that they can ticket you for anything else.

The reality is that all a cop needs to pull you over is probable cause that you are in violation of something. The radar gun alerts how fast you are going. But cops can leverage into that they are trained to make visual estimates. That visual estimate alone gives them probably cause to pull you over. The California Vehicle Code book is about 3 inches thick. With all the alternatives that many laws provide, there is for sure something in that book they can cite you for.

But, if they are in conflict with the Speed Trap laws, they can't use radar evidence against you and thus would have no legal basis to cite you for speeding. Again, they can cite you for most anything else. But they legally cannot cite you for speeding. And, even if they do, the court is legally bound to recluse themselves from any speeding case where the sole evidence is obtained in violation of the speed trap laws. No finding of guilty or not guilty can be rendered. The case can only be dismissed. And “Kriss” makes the dismissal stick.

So, the lesson is, if you get caught on radar and get pulled over, be very polite to the cop and hope he only writes you a ticket for speeding. If he does, say thank you. Then, if you think he was in violation of the car color, distinctive uniform, or that the posted speed limit has not been certified by a road survey within the last 5 (I believe it might have recently been amended to 7) years, then go the court, post your bail and plead not guilty. Go to court and take your best shot in proving by the cops own testimony from your questioning one of those points. If the judge believe you proved at least one of the points, you win.

One more very important thing to know. So long as you weren't cited for exceeding the state's maximum speed of 70 mph, or were driving in a school zone at the time, the burden is on the cop to prove there is a valid road survey. No survey admitted into evidence, or judge ruling the survey is in-admissible as evidence is by far the most common grounds to prove the radar ticket is in conflict with the Speed Trap law. Get to know the technical aspects of Road Surveys, and you'll have your best chance of beating the ticket in court.

 

i dunno about the laws regarding undercover cars but I'll just mention the one I saw in Milpitas: a black camry with a red and blue triangle on the windshield.