Example 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant's Name: Simone De Beauvoir
Case No.: S780824
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.
The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on Sorrento Valley Road on 10-21-99, I was stopped by a SDPD Officer (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 62mph in a 45mph zone based on Radar evidence. I believe that I was driving approximately 50-55mph at the time of my stop and that my speed was quite safe for the prevailing conditions.
The Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350 states: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."
At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with light traffic. On my citation, the officer marks that the traffic was "light." No persons or property were put at risk. As such, the Officer does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law.
Further, I believe that the posted speed of 45mph on Sorrento Valley Road is artificially low, reflecting an out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, may constitute an illegal Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(2) which defines an illegal radar speed trap as:"A particular section of a highway with a...speed limit that is provided by this code...[which] 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." If the traffic survey on Sorento valley Road is more than five years old, the officer's use of radar to determine my speed was illegal.
When using radar evidence, the prosecution is required to prove that the use of radar is not an illegal speed trap. Speed Trap Evidence 40803(b) states: "In any prosecution under this code of a charge involving the speed of a vehicle, where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802."
If the prosecution does not attach proof with its written declaration (a certified copy of the speed survey) to establish as part of its prima facie case, that Sorrento Valley Road is not an illegal Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), I trust the Court will rule the radar evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.
CVC 40805, Admission of Speed Trap Evidence, states:"Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgement of conviction against any person for violation of this code involving the speed of a vehicle if the court admits any evidence or testimony secured in violation of, or which is inadmissible under this article."
I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.
If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a Court assignment to attend traffic school.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
Simone De Beauvoir, Defendant in Pro Per

Example 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant's Name: Lucas Ridgeston
Case No.: S780824
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.
The facts of my case are as follows: While driving west bound on Meade at 0855 on 3-17-99, I was stopped by SDPD Officer Ffrengig (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. Officer Ffrengig has alleged that I was driving approximately 33mph in a 25mph zone based on RADAR evidence. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions at the time of my stop, and was therefore not in violation of the Basic Speed Law.
The Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350, states: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."
On my citation, the officer fails to note any of these relevant conditions except for traffic, which he correctly notes as "Medium." I can attest that the road was dry with clear visibility at the time of my stop. Officer Ffrengig also fails to note the Safe Speed for Meade in the appropriate space on my Notice to Appear. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions on Meade when I was stopped.
My assertion that my speed was Safe and Reasonable for conditions is supported by the most recent Traffic and Engineering survey for Meade which gives the Safe Speed (85th percentile speed) as 32 mph, which is just 1mph different than the "approximate" speed Officer Ffrengig noted on my citation. Based on this evidence, I know that I was not in violation of the Basic Speed Law at the time and place of my citation and, pursuant to the common sense spirit of CVC 22350, contest that my speed at the time of my traffic stop was therefore not per se unlawful.
Further, I believe that the officer's radar may have been tracking one of several cars other than mine. There were cars driving in front of me and also passing me as I proceeded down Meade; the presence of these vehicles was properly attested to on my citation by Officer Ffrengig as "Medium" traffic. The typical beam angle (spread) of police radar is 12-16 degrees, resulting in a beam width of 1 foot for every 4 feet of travel of the beam from the antennae. Therefore at 160 feet from its source, a police radar beam is typically 40 feet (four lanes) wide.
The officer noted on my citation that my radar-determined speed was 33mph from 150 feet away, a distance at which any of several cars then traveling through the officer's two-lane wide radar beam might have caused the speed indicated on the officer's unit. Due to the officer's indication of "medium" traffic and his notation that my alleged speed was determined at a 150' distance, it is clear that there is reasonable doubt as to which car's speed his radar unit was indicating.
Due to this reasonable doubt, and the fact that the Traffic and Engineering Survey for Meade has determined the Safe Speed to be 32mph, approximately the speed the officer claims I was traveling, I ask the Court to dismiss my citation in the interest of justice.
If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a Court assignment to attend traffic school.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
Lucas Ridgeston, Defendant in Pro Per

Example 3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant's Name: Quentin Crisp
Case No.: S780824
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22350.
The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on Madera Street in Lemon Grove at 0830 on 10-22-98, I was stopped by Deputy Perchyll (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 22350. Deputy Perchyll has alleged that I was driving 41mph in a 25mph zone based on RADAR evidence. In fact, I was traveling 40mph in a posted 40mph zone.
Deputy Perchyll asserts that I was driving in a school zone with a temporary prima facie speed limit of 25mph, which is the sole basis of my citation. However, the Deputy did not cite me for driving in a prima facie school zone, CVC 22352(b)(2); he cited me for breaking the Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350. I did not break the Basic Speed Law. I know that I was traveling a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions at the time of my stop, 40mph in a posted 40mph zone.
The Basic Speed Law, CVC 22350, states: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property."
At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with light traffic. No persons or property were put at risk by my driving 40mph in a posted 40mph zone. The mere act of passing a school at 40mph in a 40mph zone is not assumed to "endanger the safety of persons or property" under the Basic Speed Law. As such, the Deputy does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law at the time of my stop.
Further, I believe that a posted speed of 40mph on Madera Street is artificially low, reflecting a possibly out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, the Deputy's use of Radar may constitute a Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(a)(1) (traffic survey more than five years old).
If the prosecution does not attach proof with its Written Declaration (a certified copy of the speed survey for 1700 Madera Street), to establish as part of its prima facie case, that the road I was cited on was not a Speed Trap, as they are required to do pursuant to CVC 40803(b), Speed Trap Evidence, I trust that the Court will rule the RADAR evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 40805.
I trust in the Court's fairness and believe that my citation should be dismissed in the interest of justice.
If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a Court assignment to attend traffic school.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
Quentin Crisp, Defendant in Pro Per

Example 4
May 18, 2004
Superior Court, County of Los Angeles
1427 West Covina Parkway
West Covina, CA 91790
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing in regards to my trial by declaration. The bail amount of $111.00 has already been received by Deputy Clerk, Margaret Orban.
On the night of March 22, 2004, I was traveling on Fullerton Rd, northbound, just south of the 60 freeway. While on Fullerton, I stopped at a traffic light at Diamond Plaza Way, just before the eastbound onramp to the 60 freeway. I was stopped behind a silver 1998-2000 Honda Accord at the time on the far right lane as the light had turned red. As the traffic light turned green, the Accord ahead of me began to accelerate, and as I normally do, I followed. While at the traffic light I also noticed a police unit parked with its parking lights on, at the Shell gas station at the corner of Fullerton and Diamond Plaza Way. As I approached the gas station, I noticed the lights of the police unit turn on and begin moving forward, well before I had passed in front of the police unit. As I passed in front of the police unit, I had noticed that he had pulled to the exit of the gas station, and continued to follow me up the onramp of the 60 freeway heading eastbound. About 500ft up the ramp, the officer turned on his light bar, at which time I pulled to the right to the emergency lane and stopped my vehicle. I was confused as to why I was pulled over, and asked the officer as he approached my vehicle. His response to me was that “Your exhaust is too loud.” After which he requested my license and registration and gave me my citation.
I believe that there is reasonable doubt as to Officer Arruda’s judgement in regards to the indicated exhaust violation stated by the CVC code 21750.
Firstly, I have attached a certification from the State Referee Station in Chaffey College, indicating that the exhaust noise level of my vehicle does meet the legal limit of 95dB. The certificate indicated the exhaust noise level of my vehicle to be at 93dB, below that of the 95dB limit as set by the testing methods indicated by the CCR, Title 13, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 9 in regards to CVC 27150.
Secondly, I believe that Officer Arruda may have mistaken the exhaust noise he heard from the Accord’s for my car. While at the traffic light, I had noticed the Accord having a large dual exhaust system. I believe that Officer Arruda may have heard the exhaust noise coming from that vehicle, as I noticed him pull his car to the exit of the gas station as the Accord was passing in front of him, and right before I passed in front of him. The modified exhaust on that vehicle was about the same sound volume, if not louder, than mine, and I believe that if Officer Arruda had began to move his vehicle before I had passed him, there is a high probability that he mistook the exhaust noise of the Accord’s as my vehicle’s.
I have enclosed 3 additional pages I would like admitted as evidence: a copy of the receipt for service at the Chaffey College Referee Station, a copy of the Referee Station Vehicle Inspection Report, and a copy of the Certificate indicating vehicle exhaust noise compliance affixed to the back of the issued Notice to Appear citation.
Thank you,
Adam West
(Mayor)