dmvp29

I'll take your word for it, but do you know why it's illegal?

I'm assuming a cop sitting amongst the trees and pointing a laser gun at oncoming traffic (to get their speed) is also illegal?

I'm assuming a cop waiting at a fixed point and nailing people with radar is also illegal in California?

I mean, functionally there's no difference between a cop using radar/LIDAR and a cop visually estimating speed by calculating distance/time.

wiredGS400

There are many reasons why aircraft tickets can be considered illegal speed traps in California. I will tell you that, surprisingly, California legislature and the courts actually want to protect the public from the officers giving tickets. Weird but true. You should know that CHP vehicles MUST BE MARKED VEHICLES. California believes that if the point of enforcement is to prevent law breaking, the courts have determined that tricking the public with undercover cars does not accomplish that goal of prevention--but having marked vehicles tends to keep the public driving "properly." There is an aspect of that in aircraft tickets. The other problem with aircraft tickets is that the officer that witnesses the violation, must be the officer that cites you. He also must be present in court to testify as to the facts. Normally, this is not done because the aircraft can't pull the vehicle over to the side of the road and issue the citation. The other issue is that, because of the inherent unreliability of aircraft enforcement. So many different things can affect a speed reading when the aircraft attempts to time a vehicle between 2 points. First, the officer can not testify, or prove, that the lines used are an exact distance apart. Also, a car can slow down, and speed up, and give a false speed reading if timed between 2 points. Next, an aircraft can not maintain an exact distance and angle in relation to the car as it times the vehicle between 2 points. There is more, and if you really want to read up, you can check out People v. Darby 95 Cal App 3d 707.

OPTiK

lol @ all the people that said pay the ticket and go to traffic school. You should do everything in your power to make sure that those points don't hit your license. If they do, you'll spend ~1k+ in insurance premiums. Get a lawyer and have him knock it down to non-moving. It's not that ticket that sucks the most, its the aftermath of the points hitting your license and your insurance finding out.

dmvp29

Wow New York has some pretty harsh insurance policies.

Here in Texas people get speeding tickets all the time. It's fairly common.

Insurance premiums don't go up unless you have an accident and it's your fault. If you accumulate more than 6 points on your record within 3 years (points from any given speeding ticket are eventually erased off your record after 3 years), then you'll have to pay an extra $100/year "surcharge" for as long as you maintain > 6 points on your driving record.

The $100/year is a court associated thing, though. It has nothing to do with insurance.

I'm surprised that insurance companies in New York will hike insurance premiums by $1,000 just for getting points on a driving record from speeding. I assume this only relates to local NY insurance companies.

I have all state personally (national company), and there's no way all state does anything of the sort. But that also begs the question - why would New Yorkers go with local insurance companies that hike premiums by $1,000 for when national alternatives like All State are available?

dmvp29

Hmm, that makes sense. Good reason and kudos to California for keeping public safety in mind as the #1 priority over speeding ticket revenues.

andrew7

There are other tricks in the court room that you could use. Like this is my first speeding ticket comes first into mind. There are many others that I am sure you could look up in the forums

Rbtmatt

I'm not sure why "speed traps" are illegal but they are. Traditionally they were used in long stretches of highway like going to Las Vegas. They were outlawed many many years ago in California. I know some states can still use them.

Radar, LIDAR, pacing and visual estimation are all legal ways to obtain a vehicles speed in California. And some people think cops cannot hide and have to be out in the open. Wrong! They just have to be able to see you; you don't have to see them.

Rbtmatt

You’re wrong on many counts! Airplanes are still used for traffic enforcement in California. Have you ever see those "Patrolled by aircraft" signs on the way to Las Vegas? The difference is they are not measuring the distance you travel between two fixed points (speed trap). They are actually using radar from the plane. And the officer in the plane does NOT have to issue the citation. A ground unit can be called in to stop the vehicle and issue the citation. However, both officers names would have to be on the citation and both show up to court if the citation was contested.

And the whole idea of a speed trap is to get a vehicles AVERAGE speed between two MEASURED points in the roadway. When cops could do it in California, they knew the exact distance between the two points, becuse they measured i!

And cop cars do not have to be marked necessarily to issue citations. Unmarked CHP stop people all the time. It's true cop cars should be MARKED to deter crime but it is not required.

CCLSVTF

And you are right on many accouts Sir.... Especially about the part about unmarked/marked vehicles. The only laws in Ca governing police conducting traffic stops is that in order for a police vehicle to effect a traffic stop, that vehicle must have a solid forward facing read light. That is why I have seen unmarked all white CHP police vehicles with a red driver spot light used as the forward facing red light....

Also, people always think that only CHP can pull vehicles over on a freeway. That is wrong again. Under the penal code, any peace officer in the State of CA can effect any arrest within the state. They say that a citation is the lowest form of arrest. So LAPD, San Diego PD, LA Sheriffs, anyone can pull anyone over on a freeway. Now do they? Not really because most agencies have a policy about traffic stops outside of their city.... But they still can. I speak from experience because I was pulled over on my motorcycle for "Unsafe lane change" when I was slitting lanes in traffic by a motor cop from the City of Glendale on the 5 fwy and the 118 fwy. I challenged it and lost in court. The judge explained it very thoroughly..... It was very nice of the judge to make me look very stupid... LOL, even though I was... My fault... HA.

Rbtmatt

It's nice to see someone who actually knows what they are talking about and not just posting things they hear or think is correct!

I haven't heard of any agency forbidding their officers from conducting traffic stops outside of their city (but it wouldn't surprise me!). A big reason why most don't is the officer would have to know which Court jurisdiction he is in and send the violator to the correct court. An even bigger issue would be officer safety. If he / she needed help it would be much harder or even impossible to get help if you don't have the correct radio frequency.

dmvp29

California sounds great.

Speed traps are legal here in Texas. And they're used so frequently that most of the local population knows where the most popular "trap" areas are.

wiredGS400

That is funny, I thought Law School and 4 years of practice in the criminal and traffic court gave me that knowledge. I guess somehow you have more knowledge. But, lets go through things in a simple manner that even you two can easily understand.

CHP does not have unmarked vehicles. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS THE CHP BADGE AND LOGO ON THE SIDE OF THE DOORS. What makes a car unmarked is the lack of lettering, NOT A LACK OF AN EXTERNAL LIGHTBAR. Those are sometimes referred to as slicktops.

40800. (a) A traffic officer on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the provisions of Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000) or 11 (commencing with Section 21000) shall wear a full distinctive uniform, and if the officer while on duty uses a motor vehicle, it must be painted a distinctive color specified by the commissioner.

(b) This section does not apply to an officer assigned exclusively to the duty of investigating and securing evidence in reference to the theft of a vehicle or failure of a person to stop in the event of an accident or violation of Section 23109 or 23109.1 or in reference to a felony charge, or to an officer engaged in serving a warrant when the officer is not engaged in patrolling the highways for the purpose of enforcing the traffic laws.

40804. (a) In any prosecution under this code upon a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, an 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) An 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 (commencing with Section 20000) and 11 (commencing with Section 21000) is incompetent as a witness if at the time of that arrest he was not wearing a distinctive uniform, or was using a motor vehicle not painted the distinctive color specified by the commissioner.

(c) This section does not apply to an officer assigned exclusively to the duty of investigating and securing evidence in reference to the theft of a vehicle or failure of a person to stop in the event of an accident or violation of Section 23109 or 23109.1 or in reference to a felony charge or to an officer engaged in serving a warrant when the officer is not engaged in patrolling the highways for the purpose of enforcing the traffic laws.

A court case from 2008 in the california appelate court ruled on this issue regarding DUI, but then also stated:

"The import of these sections is unmistakable. In any prosecution of a person charged with an offense “involving the speed of a vehicle,” the testimony of the arresting officer is inadmissible unless that officer was in uniform and driving a marked patrol car. The Legislature has thus created a specific and limited remedy for a violation of section 40800--the exclusion of the noncomplying officer’s testimony in a prosecution for speed-related offenses. These sanctions further the chief goal of speed trap legislation, i.e., to restrict clandestine enforcement of the speed laws by officers not clearly identified as law enforcement personnel. "

40801:
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 "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.

This means that "airplane surveillance" tickets are illegal in California, unless the arresting officer paces your vehicle to determine your speed.

Why does the California Highway Patrol continue with airplane surveillance? Because most people don't know the law and just send in their fine, and because many drivers *are* paced, not realizing that a CHP cruiser has pulled in behind them.

There is no way in hell that a radar gun from a plane would stand up in court. The beamwidth, the movement of other cars, the movement of the plane etc makes it impossible.

So to the 2 braintrusts, let's see your authority for your propositions.

OPTiK

My advice should hold true for all states/insurances . Here's a quote from money.msn.com

"But with two or more moving violations, you'll find that an additional ticket may endanger your finances. Beyond possible license suspension or revocation, you could be staring at escalating fines and premium hikes in the hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars. An Insurance.com analysis of 32,000 car insurance quotes found that drivers with two violations were offered rates 34% higher than drivers with no violations."


Here's another quote from insureme.com about what happens after getting 1 ticket:

"If you’re cited for speeding, your insurer may attach a temporary surcharge to your policy for three years. One large auto insurer may raise your rate by up to 26 percent the first year, then gradually lower that surcharge and drop it completely after three years, as long as you have no more moving violations."

Obviously if you have previous accidents your rates will go up higher than if you didn't.

dmvp29

Hmm that's strange.

Maybe part of what happens is that insurance rates don't necessarily go up if you get a couple of speeding tickets, but they just won't go down year after year whereas someone with a clean driving history (no speeding tickets) may receive lower rates each year.

I've had my fair share of speeding tickets. I think I had 4 within the span of a year during 2009. My insurance with All State never went up (but it didn't go down either. It just stayed the same).

CCLSVTF

Well a law degree and 4 years of experience does not make you an employee of chp nor does it make you any sort of expert when it comes to chp. Who do you think you are? Just cause you may have more knowledge then the common person doesn't give you a right to act like an *** an insult people by saying you will go over it in a simple manner so we can understand. Obviously your someone who thinks they need to throw out their résume so people say, "Wow." You must have some insecurities too cause you have to put people down to make you look superior. You should relax cause your not that cool and I don't think anyone is really impressed by you. Just by having a law degree doesn't mean you know more then everyone either. I have a Degree in criminal justice but that doesn't mean that I know more than everyone else. It is possible for someone without a CJ degree to know more then I do. I don't need to get into a measuring contest with you because I'm secure with myself but rest assured, I have more experience then you do!!!!


No one ever said anything about lack of a light bar so that comment is worthless. Having no markings on a vehicle make it an unmarked vehicle. Plus we were discussing that an unmarked vehicle can conduct a traffic stop. It does not have to be a marked police vehicle. Chp probably has thousands of vehicles but your going to say everyone of them are marked? Have you seen them all? Cause I have seen in person chp officers operating an unmarked vehicle!!!! Do you even remember what we were discussing???? Someone said that all chp cars are marked. We disagreed. But you just did the research for us by posting 40800(a) and (b) VC. That clearly supports what we have been talking about. It only says that a vehicle must be a distinct color. Says nothing about it has to be a marked police vehicle. Then 40800(b) even states an exception. Did you just post that without reading it? You must have been so excited to put someone down that you forgot to even read what we were actually talking about. Oh that's right, I forgot, you have a law degree and you know more then I do. Congrats, your a better person then I am.

So you just posted a bunch of VC codes that don't really mean a thing to what we were discussing. So what did you actually prove? Not a really good lawyer are you????