From: gwu@nujoizey.tcs.com (George Wu)
Subject: Re: Berkeley Traffic Court
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:49:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.025445.2761@netcom.com>, dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross) writes:
> 
> While I applaud your efforts to fight the system, be aware that the radar
> use on Adeline is as bona fide speed trap anyway, and can't be entered
> into evidence legally.  Go up to the City Engineer's office (a block from
> the courthouse) and request the traffic survey for that area.  Then read
> the Vehicle Code on speed traps; or, better yet, read Brown's _Fight
> Your Ticket_.

     Actually, the speed trap defense *doesn't* apply to Adeline and
parts of Martin Luther King near the elevated BART tracks.  This area
is posted with signs using the word "SENIOR."  As with the case with
signs using the word "SCHOOL," the posted speed limit is the absolute
maximum speed at which one may travel, and exceeding that limit is
an automatic conviction.  No traffic survey is needed, again, because
the Basic Speed Law specifically exempts areas so marked.

> There ought to be some kind of motion you can make to declare the officer's
> testmony unfairly prejudiced once you prove that he used inadmissible
> evidence knowingly (the radar on Adeline) to try to convict you.

     In Hang 'Em High Rantzmann's court, the officer and judge are well
versed in the use of the Basic Speed Law defense.  Any attempt to object
to the officer's introduction of radar based testimony will be "noted by
the court."  Rantzmann will later prompt the officer, mentioning your
objection, and asking if the officer has anything to say.  The officer
will them specify the exemption.

     In areas not specifically posted to negate the Basic Speed Law,
such as University Ave., I have seen Rantzmann convict because "I
feel the speed at which you were travelling is unsafe regardless of
conditions."

> Maybe you can appeal?

     I thought there might be grounds for an appeal because the judge
acted as prosecution.  However, it seems quite difficult to win such a
case.  For one, I did not ask for a court reporter to record the
proceedings.

> Also, Berkeley (unlike Oakland) will usually let you go to traffic school
> following a contested guilty verdict.  My personal (fairly informed) view
> is that Oakland's policy of prohibiting traffic school for those who
> fight and lose is unconstitutional....

     According to Brown in "Fight Your Ticket," going to traffic school
*after* a conviction does not alter your traffic record.  You *may* be
able to avoid the fine, but the conviction still goes on your record.
This is also what Rantzmann seems to be saying in the pre-arraignment
tape he plays before beginning each session of arraignments.  With the
latest change in the law requiring the defendant to pay *both* the fine
and traffic school fees for *pre-arraignment* traffic school assignment,
I somehow doubt post-conviction traffic school is worth it.  Am I wrong?
Is there a judge out there tossing out convictions if the guilty party
will take traffic school?

						George


----
George J Wu, Software Engineer         | gwu@tcs.com or uunet!tcs!gwu
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc. | (510) 649-3700
2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA, 94704  | Never be the first to believe . . .
Newsgroups: ca.driving