Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

56 in a 35 with no radio, @##$!

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 56 in a 35 with no radio, @##$!

    Well today I was teaching my first class of new officers radar operation. At around 1100 we went out on a main road on our base. We had two radars for six officers. While I was explaining radar related info to them I heard what appeared to vehicle fast approaching. I observed the vehicle traveling at an extremely high rate of speed for this road way that is 35MPH. This is the fastest speed limit we have on our base. I est. the vehicle to be going 60 and verified the speed with my radar. The radar displayed 56. My fastest catch since I got 1 going 50 a few months ago. The problem was I was in a training uniform and radioless. SOB. I phoned the front gate phone but remembered that my phone is special and somehow doesn't get through to the front gate. This would have been my first CVC 22349 cite. Well I wouldn't have wrote the cite but I would have been the radar operator for the citation. The morale of the story, TAKE YOUR WEAPON AND RADIO WITH YOU WHENEVER YOU LEAVE THE STATION. That will be the last time I leave the station without a radio or duty weapon.

    Extra: About a year ago I had the same thing, I saw a motorcycle traveling at a high rate of speed but we didn't have radar units in our patrol vehicles. I had to go about 65 to catch up to him and didn't gain any distance until I was at 55.

  • #2
    That is one thing I have never understood about the military LEO they go to training with out a weapon and some of the civilians will be in town during lunch in their police uniform with no weapon... Just a moving target in my opinion

    Comment


    • #3
      Really, did you have your vehicle with you?

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't see what it had to do with this particular incident, but why would you ever fail to take your weapon with you?

        By the way, 56 in a 35 zone is not that big a deal, given that California has prima facie speed limits and military bases tend to post speed limits that are too low. And a judge likely would laugh at a 22349 CVC cite for 56 mph.

        It also is an interesting question whether you can use radar at all. Would the provisions of CVC §§ 40801 - 40805 apply, given that you are enforcing the California Vehicle Code?
        Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
        Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #5
          Your referring to 40802. I've completed a 24 radar course + 8 for lidar. I've also completed the CHP radar operator instructor course. 22349 as you know is max speed. I'd rather not cite for 22350 when 22349 is available. I didn't have a vehicle with me. The roadway I was conducting the radar training on was near the police station. 35 on this roadway is a good speed. If I conducted a speed survey I'd probably get vehicles going 25-40. Most vehicles are 30-35. BTW, this roadway is route 66 that comes from Barstow onto the base. The speed on route 66 (E. & W. Main St.) in Barstow is also 35MPH. As to wondering if 40801-40805 would apply, I believe they do. I'm using 18 USC 13 to cite under. I believe if I'm using CVC to cite for speed violations with radar, I will follow POST requirement of having completed a 24 hour radar class like I did. This requirement is listed under 40802.

          Comment


          • #6
            Just for information:

            Maximum Speed Limit

            22349. (a) Except as provided in Section 22356, no person may drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.

            (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may drive a vehicle upon a two-lane, undivided highway at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour unless that highway, or portion thereof, has been posted for a higher speed by the Department of Transportation or appropriate local agency upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. For purposes of this subdivision, the following apply:

            (1) A two-lane, undivided highway is a highway with not more than one through lane of travel in each direction.

            (2) Passing lanes may not be considered when determining the number of through lanes.

            (c) It is the intent of the Legislature that there be reasonable signing on affected two-lane, undivided highways described in subdivision (b) in continuing the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit, including placing signs at county boundaries to the extent possible, and at other appropriate locations.
            Amended and Repealed Sec. 22, Ch. 766, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996. Repeal operative March 31, 1996.
            Added Sec. 23, Ch. 766, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996. Operative March 31, 1996.
            Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 20, Stats. 1996. Effective March 29, 1996.
            Amended Sec. 41, Ch. 724, Stats. 1999. Effective January 1, 2000.

            Increase of Freeway Speed Limit to 70 Miles Per Hour

            22356. (a) Whenever the Department of Transportation, after consultation with the Department of the California Highway Patrol, determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey on existing highway segments, or upon the basis of appropriate design standards and projected traffic volumes in the case of newly constructed highway segments, that a speed greater than 65 miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any state highway, or portion thereof, that is otherwise subject to a maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour, the Department of Transportation, with the approval of the Department of the California Highway Patrol, may declare a higher maximum speed of 70 miles per hour for vehicles not subject to Section 22406, and shall cause appropriate signs to be erected giving notice thereof. The Department of Transportation shall only make a determination under this section that is fully consistent with, and in full compliance with, federal law.

            (b) No person shall drive a vehicle upon that highway at a speed greater than 70 miles per hour, as posted.

            (c) This section shall become operative on the date specified in subdivision (c) of Section 22366.

            Amended Ch. 1220, Stats. 1994. Effective September 30, 1994.
            Amended and repealed Sec. 26, Ch. 766, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996. Repeal operative January 7, 1996.
            Added Sec. 27, Ch. 766, Stats. 1995. Effective January 1, 1996. Operative January 7, 1996.
            Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence!

            [George Washington (1732 - 1799)]

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MCSD View Post
              As to wondering if 40801-40805 would apply, I believe they do. I'm using 18 USC 13 to cite under. I believe if I'm using CVC to cite for speed violations with radar, I will follow POST requirement of having completed a 24 hour radar class like I did. This requirement is listed under 40802.
              You can't conduct a traffic and engineering survey yourself. Just because Old Rte 66 has a 35 mph limit, that does not mean that a survey was conducted. Furthermore, as CHP Sgt points out, the limit under CVC 22349 would be 65, not 55, if the roadway has four or more lanes.

              Absent a proper survey that justifies the posted speed limit, radar evidence would be inadmissible if federal law incorporates CVC sections 40801-40805. Section 40802 does not in itself prevent convictions for speeding if radar evidence is used. Sections 40803 - 40805 do that. The reason why those sections might not apply in federal court is that, in general, when federal law incorporates state law, it does so only to the extent that the law is considered substantive. Law that is considered procedural generally is not incorporated. Rules of evidence or methods of proof are generally considered procedural, but may be deemed substantive in some cases. I do not know whether this would be one of them.
              Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                No big deal

                So, it's only a traffic violation.............

                21 over are a dime a dozen..why care..
                "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm" -George Orwell

                "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing diapers." - Blues Brothers

                Comment


                • #9
                  Why would a judge laugh at 56 in a 35?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by just joe View Post
                    Why would a judge laugh at 56 in a 35?
                    I do not believe anyone said anything about a judge laughing.
                    Why would an officer get so upset about not writing a traffic summons????????????????????????????????????????
                    "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm" -George Orwell

                    "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing diapers." - Blues Brothers

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Big deal I routinely see more than 20 over in a 30 mph zone, but I often don't have time to mess with them. I never cry over spilled milk.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ahh you guys are so supportive. I'm not crying over spilled milk. I'm just saying it would have been nice to get. Thanks for the reply SgtCHP. And I know I can't conduct a survey myself.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          And a judge likely would laugh at a 22349 CVC cite for 56 mph.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I thank God every day I put my uniform on that I didn't follow through with my plans after the USMC to get a LE job in California. I'll take Indiana Code any day of the week over that stuff out west!
                            Why are there so many babies on O.com? Creole, you and your buddy JPSO Recruit help me out on this one....

                            * "Preach always, if necessary, use words!" St Francis of Assisi

                            * Luke Chapter 6, Verses 27-36

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Wait.. you are a radar instructor and never ever have cited for a "fast speed"?

                              So im guessing you are the guy that is bored to death and summons motorists for going just 5 over.

                              Geez. It never gets old.
                              Captain Square Badge, reporting for duty!.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 2832 users online. 149 members and 2683 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X