Speeding ticket without getting pulled over?

[eBay Mike]

Asking for a friend, SWIM. Sometimes he goes a little faster than the suggested posted speed limit, but he believes in the basic speed law, and he never endangers other people when riding.

Are there any scenarios where someone can get a speeding citation without being pulled over by a police officer, on the spot or soon after?

Some examples:
1. Plane/chopper estimating speed, not pulled over by cop car, possible citation in mail? (SWIM stops and looks in the air before doing top speed runs, but what if there’s a small drone that can radar him?)
2. Traffic patrol radars him, gets license plate but doesn’t pursue/pull him over
3. Pass cop A on windy road. He radios ahead to cop B so they can time how long that segment of road takes him to travel.

*In example 1 and 2, can the police show up to his house to write up the citation?

Thank you.

 

[bojangle]

Asking for a friend, SWIM. Sometimes he goes a little faster than the suggested posted speed limit, but he believes in the basic speed law, and he never endangers other people when riding.

Are there any scenarios where someone can get a speeding citation without being pulled over by a police officer, on the spot or soon after?

Some examples:
1. Plane/chopper estimating speed, not pulled over by cop car, possible citation in mail? (SWIM stops and looks in the air before doing top speed runs, but what if there’s a small drone that can radar him?)
2. Traffic patrol radars him, gets license plate but doesn’t pursue/pull him over
3. Pass cop A on windy road. He radios ahead to cop B so they can time how long that segment of road takes him to travel.

*In example 1 and 2, can the police show up to his house to write up the citation?

Thank you.

Starting with # 3. That is the definition of a speed trap, and is illegal in California. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=40802.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=40801

Other scenarios are possible, but not likely. An officer would have to identify the driver. And in order for a misdemeanor or infraction to not become "stale", it would have to be done the same day, for the most part. That doesn't apply to felony charges, and doesn't prevent a warrant from being sought in misdemeanor cases after the fact. (Think reckless driving and reckless evading.)

 

[eBay Mike]

Thank you, Mr. bojangle. Number 3 is my biggest concern. I love windy roads but was getting nervous just passing a park ranger parked on the side etc.

For number 1 and 2, I always assumed if a vehicle was radared/paced but not stopped on the spot, the police can later show up to that person’s house and either cite them, or ask who was driving their vehicle earlier…so if it was person A actually driving during the infraction, person A may blame it on an imaginary person, person B. Cop asks for person B’s info, and person A says something like “don’t know him that well, we just met and don’t even know his name or phone number.” Which I was guessing would get person A in trouble. Unless they claim the vehicle was stolen. I don’t think that would go very well.

So, I guess if someone isn’t going extremely fast, and it’s just for a quick burst, gets radared/paced by plane or ground unit but not pulled over, or chased, they are probably ok?

 

[bojangle]

Thank you, Mr. bojangle. Number 3 is my biggest concern. I love windy roads but was getting nervous just passing a park ranger parked on the side etc.

For number 1 and 2, I always assumed if a vehicle was radared/paced but not stopped on the spot, the police can later show up to that person’s house and either cite them, or ask who was driving their vehicle earlier…so if it was person A actually driving during the infraction, person A may blame it on an imaginary person, person B. Cop asks for person B’s info, and person A says something like “don’t know him that well, we just met and don’t even know his name or phone number.” Which I was guessing would get person A in trouble. Unless they claim the vehicle was stolen. I don’t think that would go very well.

So, I guess if someone isn’t going extremely fast, and it’s just for a quick burst, gets radared/paced by plane or ground unit but not pulled over, or chased, they are probably ok?

I'd say one is pretty safe if they aren't pulled over at the time of violation and if they don't flee/evade the police. If one was just speeding past a cop and not pulled over at the time, you pretty much just got lucky. Maybe it's a good idea to use that luck as a warning and slow down, because sooner or later one's luck runs out.

As far as police showing up to the house, no one has to talk to the police. No one has to even open the door to the police. If they police are detaining a person on reasonable suspicion or probable cause, one has to identify themselves, but can otherwise refuse to talk.

The typical lies we hear all the time...the one driving the car (or passenger in the car who fled/or insert whatever reason we are asking about) is ALWAYS someone the liar just met. They only know the first name, and not even sure about that. They have no phone number or address for this person. It's simply amazing how many people happen to be with strangers they just met right before a police contact.

It's also amazing how many people I've come across who are wearing other people's pants, and who never checked those pants they're wearing to find the drugs and Paraphernalia inside. This is a very frequent occurrence, I tell you what!

 

[berth]

It's also amazing how many people I've come across who are wearing other people's pants, and who never checked those pants they're wearing to find the drugs and Paraphernalia inside. This is a very frequent occurrence, I tell you what!

Well, hey, yea, there was that guy in the Terminator who stole the pants...

But, anecdote related to this.

I was on the jury for a meth possession case. The lady came to court regarding some traffic stuff, or something related, turned she had another outstanding warrant, and was arrested. During booking they found the drugs in her backpack.

The defense lawyer during voir dire, was basically fishing for folks who would be inclined to "question authority" to handle the deputy that was going to be testifying. He asked if anyone questioned the moon landing. (good thing he didn't ask me that, I would have probably been thrown out -- I have a poster above me right now signed by, among others, Ken Mattingly and my Dad, who worked on an experiment that flew on Apollo 16.)

The interesting thing, to me (and related to this point above) is that part of the possession statute (as read to us in the jury) had something akin to "knowingly possessed". This is where the "borrowed clothes" pops in. "I didn't know."

The funny thing, to me, is that the defense never tried to bring up the idea that the defendant may not have known about the drugs. I don't think she admitted it, but maybe she didn't deny it.

Similarly, I don't recall the prosecution pointing out that she did knowingly possess the drugs (or at least didn't deny knowing), just to cross that T and dot that I of the statute.

It never came up during the deliberations, but in hindsight I felt it should have. As I recall, this part was simply never established one way or the other and, barring someone convincing me I was mistaken (missed the evidence presented, or misread the statute), I would have acquitted her.

 

[bojangle]

Well, hey, yea, there was that guy in the Terminator who stole the pants...

But, anecdote related to this.

I was on the jury for a meth possession case. The lady came to court regarding some traffic stuff, or something related, turned she had another outstanding warrant, and was arrested. During booking they found the drugs in her backpack.

The defense lawyer during voir dire, was basically fishing for folks who would be inclined to "question authority" to handle the deputy that was going to be testifying. He asked if anyone questioned the moon landing. (good thing he didn't ask me that, I would have probably been thrown out -- I have a poster above me right now signed by, among others, Ken Mattingly and my Dad, who worked on an experiment that flew on Apollo 16.)

The interesting thing, to me (and related to this point above) is that part of the possession statute (as read to us in the jury) had something akin to "knowingly possessed". This is where the "borrowed clothes" pops in. "I didn't know."

The funny thing, to me, is that the defense never tried to bring up the idea that the defendant may not have known about the drugs. I don't think she admitted it, but maybe she didn't deny it.

Similarly, I don't recall the prosecution pointing out that she did knowingly possess the drugs (or at least didn't deny knowing), just to cross that T and dot that I of the statute.

It never came up during the deliberations, but in hindsight I felt it should have. As I recall, this part was simply never established one way or the other and, barring someone convincing me I was mistaken (missed the evidence presented, or misread the statute), I would have acquitted her.

Did I understand correctly?

There were drugs in a backpack she brought into court with her, and you seriously question that she didn't know about that, even though it wasn't specifically brought up by the prosecution or defense?

Were there some sort of details about the case that gave you reasonable doubt that the backpack didn't belong to the defendant, or that she wouldn't have likely known what was inside? I mean, by default, it is reasonable to believe that people know what they are carrying around. It should take some specific articuable information to lead a reasonable person to reasonably doubt this belief, IMO. In other words, without a compelling story to lead me to question that a defendant didn't know what they were possessing, my default reasonable presumption is that they knew. Even if they forgot it was in there at the time until it was too late, they know that shit is there's. People not in the drug scene don't just carry around illegal street drugs.

I'm sure they also instructed you that the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean beyond any possible imagined doubt.

 

[summitdog]

The funny thing, to me, is that the defense never tried to bring up the idea that the defendant may not have known about the drugs. I don't think she admitted it, but maybe she didn't deny it.

Similarly, I don't recall the prosecution pointing out that she did knowingly possess the drugs (or at least didn't deny knowing), just to cross that T and dot that I of the statute.

There should have been a jury instruction defining "knowingly possess". Often times an attorney will see things through their understanding of events and evidence presented and not think that the jury needs to be spoon fed. Sometimes an attorney runs the risk of appearing condescending to the witness or the jury itself but the attorney can't assume that the jurors will connect the dots themselves. It is the attorney's obligation to take them by the hand and connect the dots with them.

Scotty