Legal Opinion

People v. Conzelman

Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California

Decided November 23, 1994No. Crim. A. No. 9008PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CHOATE, J.

We hold that whenever radar is used in conjunction with the enforcement of a posted speed limit on a nonlocal roadway,1 the speed trap laws are invoked, giving rise to the need for a current engineering and traffic survey that justifies the posted speed. Absent the survey, we conclude that the officer is incompetent to testify as to the speed of the defendant’s vehicle, even if his testimony is confined to his visual determination of that speed.

Facts

Officer Bivens of the City of Orange Police Department testified that he visually estimated defendant Michael A. Conzelman’s…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. CornersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  2. People v. HalopoffAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1976
  3. People v. SterrittAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1976
  4. People v. SterrittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  5. People v. SullivanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. People v. CooperAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 2002
  2. People v. CooperCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API