People v. Cooper

California Supreme Court Jul 10, 2002 No. 5219673Published

Before: Kriegler

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for unsafe speed, holding that the trial court properly denied an untimely oral request for a trial by declaration, that the defendant was not denied equal protection, that the officer had jurisdiction to issue the citation, and that no traffic survey was required because the officer used pacing rather than radar.

Issues

Did the trial court err in denying an oral request for a trial by declaration?
Was the defendant denied equal protection because other speeders were not cited?
Did the officer lack territorial jurisdiction to issue a citation in an adjacent city?
Was the prosecution required to produce an engineering and traffic survey for a citation based on pacing?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Appellant's argument that the trial court committed reversible error when it denied his request for a trial by declaration must be rejected because the request was both untimely and not in written form.”

“We reject appellant's novel claim that he was denied equal protection because other speeding drivers were not cited.”

“The requirement of a traffic and engineering survey is unique to radar cases, and appellant has failed to cite any authority which would require a traffic survey in an unsafe speed prosecution based upon an officer's pace of the offender's vehicle.”

125 Cal.Rptr.2d 188 (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Robert COOPER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 5219673. Appellate Division, Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

July 10, 2002. [189] Greg Ingerson, and Robert Cooper in pro. per. for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT

KRIEGLER, Acting P.J.

Defendant Robert Cooper (hereinafter appellant) appeals from his conviction of violating Vehicle Code section 22350 (unsafe speed for prevailing conditions).

On December 19, 2000, appellant was issued a citation for violating Vehicle Code section 22350. Following a court trial, appellant was convicted of the charged offense.

This timely appeal follows. On appeal, appellant asserts the following contentions.

1. The trial court committed reversible error by violating appellant's statutory right to a trial by declaration.

2. Appellant was denied equal protection under the law because the officer admitted that everyone drives two or three times the posted speed limit.

3. The officer's admission that he lacked territorial jurisdiction in Beverly Hills precludes appellant's conviction.

4. The judgment should be reversed because the prosecution failed to introduce an engineering and traffic survey, and failed to establish the absence of a speed trap.

We first address appellant's contention that the trial court committed reversible error by denying his request to proceed by way of a trial by written declaration.

California Rules of Court, rule 828 sets forth the minimum procedural requirements for trials by written declaration. [190]

People v. Cooper

AI Brief

OPINION AND JUDGMENT

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief