Can CHP Really Tell if You are Speeding from the Sky

[StlouisX50]

http://www.kionrightnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14362232

[Oyusan]

This is where the speed trap law might help us speeders. Speed traps are illegal in California.

California
V C Section 40802 Speed Traps

Speed Traps

40802. (a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:

(1) 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.

(2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed 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. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

(b) (1) For purposes of this section, a local street or road is ( ) one that is functionally classified as “local” on the “California Road System Maps,” that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. When a street or road does not appear on the “California Road System Maps,” it may be defined as a “local street or road” if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:

(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.

(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445.

(C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.

(2) For purposes of this section "school zone" means that area approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. "School zone" also includes the area approaching or passing any school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children if that highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign.

(c) (1) When all of the following criteria are met, paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be applicable and subdivision (a) shall not be applicable:

(A) 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.

(B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully completed the training required in subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.

(C) (i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic survey has been conducted in accordance with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). 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).

(ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.

(D) 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.

(2) A "speed trap" is either of the following:

(A) 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.

(B) (i) A particular section of a highway or state highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within one of the following time periods, 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:

(I) Except as specified in subclause (II), seven years.

(II) If an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, 10 years.

(ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone.

[Sector_15504]

Plus, if they do ding you, Both the writing officer and pilot have to show up to court..... So it makes it just that much more likely that you will win. These are E Z to beat, but most people dont know

[krypton2]

Hmm...I'm not doubting that it's illegal (as it does sound to be, on highways anyway) but if this type of enforcement isn't allowed why do they focus manpower and attention on it?

I suppose there's always a large amount of people who just pay the citation to get it over with but I would imagine that with the cost of citations in California A LOT of people would fight their tickets.

[djrams80]

As Oyusan basically said with the CVC code he quoted, the officer on the ground must aquire your speed independent from the officer in the plane. Basically, the officer in the sky where you are and how fast you are going, than the officer on the ground tags you with pacing, laser or radar. The officer in the sky's evidence is not admissable, but they don't need it once the officer on the ground gets your speed.

[krypton2]

Gotcha. So the plane can find the vehicle that's speeding and get their speed and radio down to an officer on the road to hit the car with radar or LIDAR.

Wouldn't that mean that the officer in the aircraft, in reality, wouldn't have to appear in court as the ground officer does the stop from start to finish? While the officer in the sky does initially find the speeding vehicles the cars on the road do all of the work to make the stop legal.

[Maestro]

Hmm...I'm not doubting that it's illegal (as it does sound to be, on highways anyway) but if this type of enforcement isn't allowed why do they focus manpower and attention on it?

I suppose there's always a large amount of people who just pay the citation to get it over with but I would imagine that with the cost of citations in California A LOT of people would fight their tickets.

When I lived in CA, I took traffic school and was in a class with a guy you beat all this tickets he got on Highway 5 using the above speed trap law. As he explained it he use to travel up and down US 5 all the time and use to see police pulling people over left and right and he got nailed a few time and had lawyer fight the ticket. The lawyer would always get the ticket tossed. Finally one day he went to court with his lawyer to find out what this guy did to get the tickets tossed and learned of the speed trap law and using planes. After that he would fight his own tickets and win.

The interesting part is he said ever time we went to court for these tickets there would be a ton of people ther fighting the same ticket. However, all he did was mention the above vehicle code the judge would toss the ticket, but everyone else was found guilt since all they had was excuses.

Then one day, he was fighting another ticket and went to court and the normal judge was not there and some guy who had very little traffic ticket experience was filling in. This guy proceeds to do what he did every time in the past which was to state the above vehicle code say the ticket violate it with no other explanation. Well the new judge was not buying it and said he would not toss the ticket. The guy began to explain and the officer who was there was trying to tell the judge to let it go and toss it. The judge would not have it and let the guy go through all the details of why the ticket was not valid. Well the cat was out of the bag and the 20 other people sitting in court who got the exact same ticket all stood up and said their tickets were not valid either since the well all caught doing the same thing at the same location.

I know it was long, but yes the police in CA do issue tickets knowing full well they are in violation of the vehicle code, and most people just pay or if they fight they loose since they have no idea about the law and the courts will not protect them if all they have is excuses.

[StlouisX50]

Yup, sounds like the BS down in SC. on I-95

[NormSky]

So they are taxing the poor and unimformed?

Someone needs to drop a dime to Pelosi's office!

[Sector_15504]

So they are taxing the poor and unimformed?

Someone needs to drop a dime to Pelosi's office!

Welcome to CA, they tax everyone and give to the lazy (A.K.A. Welfare)

[Oyusan]

I hate Nancy Pelosi...

[WhistlerUser]

As Oyusan basically said with the CVC code he quoted, the officer on the ground must aquire your speed independent from the officer in the plane. Basically, the officer in the sky where you are and how fast you are going, than the officer on the ground tags you with pacing, laser or radar. The officer in the sky's evidence is not admissable, but they don't need it once the officer on the ground gets your speed.

According to the article, the bear-in-the-air doesn't clock the driver's speed. He clocks his own speed using mile markers and paces the driver. Seems like a loophole in CVC 40802.

If you take CVC 40802 (a) (1) literally, every inch of highway in CA is a speed trap as they all have mile markers. I doubt you're going to get a judge to throw out an air ticket based on this defense, as it effectively invalidates every ticket issued on a highway in CA.

If the LEO actually uses mile markers to clock your speed however, then you have a good defense.

[Oyusan]

As Oyusan basically said with the CVC code he quoted, the officer on the ground must aquire your speed independent from the officer in the plane. Basically, the officer in the sky where you are and how fast you are going, than the officer on the ground tags you with pacing, laser or radar. The officer in the sky's evidence is not admissable, but they don't need it once the officer on the ground gets your speed.

According to the article, the bear-in-the-air doesn't clock the driver's speed. He clocks his own speed using mile markers and paces the driver. Seems like a loophole in CVC 40802.

If you take CVC 40802 (a) (1) literally, every inch of highway in CA is a speed trap as they all have mile markers. I doubt you're going to get a judge to throw out an air ticket based on this defense, as it effectively invalidates every ticket issued on a highway in CA.

Umm, this is the first I've heard of this. Well, if this is happing, two things come to mind:

1 - The plane using mile markers to measure it's speed would be the same as using it to measure my speed even if it paced me. Either it used the mile markers to measure my speed, or it used it's speedometer to pace me. In which case...

2 - In a discovery for an airplane pacing - get the airplane's speedometer calibration.

There has to be an easy way to fight that tactic...

[WhistlerUser]

Umm, this is the first I've heard of this. Well, if this is happing, two things come to mind:

1 - The plane using mile markers to measure it's speed would be the same as using it to measure my speed even if it paced me. Either it used the mile markers to measure my speed, or it used it's speedometer to pace me. In which case...

2 - In a discovery for an airplane pacing - get the airplane's speedometer calibration.

There has to be an easy way to fight that tactic...
From the article:

"Basically I use the aircraft to pace the vehicle for a one mile mark, and then I use the stopwatch to convert the aircraft speed to ground speed," said Werner.

I agree. The pilot clocked his own speed, then paced the car. Essentially one step removed from clocking the car directly. But again, if you take that first part of 40802 literally, then every highway in CA is a speed trap. I don't think you'll get a dismissal unless you were clocked directly by the airplane.

[Oyusan]

Umm, this is the first I've heard of this. Well, if this is happing, two things come to mind:

1 - The plane using mile markers to measure it's speed would be the same as using it to measure my speed even if it paced me. Either it used the mile markers to measure my speed, or it used it's speedometer to pace me. In which case...

2 - In a discovery for an airplane pacing - get the airplane's speedometer calibration.

There has to be an easy way to fight that tactic...
From the article:

"Basically I use the aircraft to pace the vehicle for a one mile mark, and then I use the stopwatch to convert the aircraft speed to ground speed," said Werner.

I agree. The pilot clocked his own speed, then paced the car. Essentially one step removed from clocking the car directly. But again, if you take that first part of 40802 literally, then every highway in CA is a speed trap. I don't think you'll get a dismissal unless you were clocked directly by the airplane.

I see your point, its just another BS tactic to screw us over. But, we still have a right to confirm the accuracy of the methods in which they used to clock us. If they used that tactic to get around the speed trap law, then we should have the right to challenge their airplane speedometers if it is a pacing instead of a speed trap. In my mind, an airplane pacing would be treated the same as a vehicle pacing. I'd want their airplane calibration records. It is a good idea on their part, but its still flawed and we still have good ways to fight it.