PETER F. IOCONA - ATTORNEY AT LAW
ORANGE COUNTY'S "BEST" DUI LAWYERS

CALL NOW: 949-305-0343 - FREE CONSULTATION - PAYMENT PLANS

SPEEDING VIOLATIONS


CONTACT US TODAY


ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES


 
CLIENT REVIEWS &
PEER-REVIEW RATINGS



FOLLOW OUR DUI BLOGS


GOOGLE BLOGGER

OC DUI Lawyer Blog


GOOGLE BUSINESS PAGES


PETER F. IOCONA
ATTORNEY AT LAW

22982 LA CADENA DR #239
LAGUNA HILLS, CA. 92653




THE SOCAL LAW NETWORK

23152 VERDUGO DR #201
LAGUNA HILLS, CA. 92653

 



SHARE AND FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

  


  



ALAN CASTILLO AND PETER F.  IOCONA BOTH SELECTED AS ONE OF ORANGE COUNTY'S TOP-RATED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Top-Rated OC DUI Attorney


PETER F. IOCONA: RATED BY "SUPER LAWYERS" 2015-2016


Super Lawyer Rated - Peter F. Iocona


PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE "TOP 100 TRIAL LAWYERS" BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION


Top 100 Trial Lawyers - Peter F. Iocona



PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE TOP CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS





PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP ONE PERCENT ATTORNEYS BY N.A.D.C. 


Peter F. Iocona - Top One Percent Rated Attorney


PETER F. IOCONA SELECTED AS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ADVOCACY OF DUI DEFENSE


Nationally Ranked Superior DUI Attorney


FEATURED IN THE "TOP 100" MAGAZINE AS ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP 100 LAW FIRMS



 "MEMBER" OF THE CALIFORNIA DUI LAWYERS ASSOCIATION


DUI Defense Lawyer - California DUI Lawyers Association


"MEMBER" OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR DUI DEFENSE


DUI Lawyer - National College for DUI Defense


"MEMBER" OF THE DUI DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION (DUIDLA)


DUI Defense Lawyer - DUIDLA Member

  
ALAN CASTILLO SELECTED AS 
ONE OF THE "TOP 100 TRIAL LAWYERS" BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION



Top 100 Trial Lawyers - Alan Castillo


ALAN CASTILLO SELECTED AS 
ONE OF THE NATION'S TOP ONE PERCENT ATTORNEYS BY N.A.D.C. 


Alan Castillo - Top One Percent Rated Attorney



FORMER CONTRIBUTING EDITORS TO "CALIFORNIA DRUNK DRIVING LAW "
(2003-2016)


California Drunk Driving Law - Contributing Editors (2003-2016)



LAWYER LEGION COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AWARD 


Lawyer Legion - Top Attorney



"LEAD COUNSEL" RATED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS


Lead Counsel Rated Orange County DUI Attorneys



 LAWYER.COM VERIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS





 BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU RATED "A+"


BBB Top Rating - Top-Rated DUI Attorneys



EVERY ATTORNEY IS RATED "10/10" OR "SUPERB" BY AVVO ATTORNEY RATING SERVICE


Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated Orange County DUI Lawyer

PETER F. IOCONA RATED "SUPERB" "10/10" BY AVVO



Peter F. Iocona - Best Orange County DUI Lawyer

PETER F. IOCONA RECEIVED "CLIENT'S CHOICE AWARD" 
FROM AVVO RATING SERVICE


Peter F. Iocona - Top Orange County DUI Attorney

 PETER F. IOCONA AWARDED 
"TOP CONTRIBUTOR" BY AVVO





ALAN CASTILLO RATED "SUPERB" BY AVVO





 
ALAN CASTILLO RECEIVED "CLIENTS' CHOICE AWARD" 
FROM AVVO RATING SERVICE





 MARLO CORDERO RATED
"SUPERB" BY AVVO


CALL NOW FOR A FREE DUI CONSULTATION:


Click to call

ON-CALL 24 HOURS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK

SHARE AND FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA:


  


  


SPEEDING VIOLATIONS

RATED BY SUPER LAWYERS, ORANGE COUNTY'S TOP-RATED DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEYS

Peter F. Iocona - Top 100 Trial LawyersPeter F. Iocona - Super Lawyers Rated Orange County DUI Lawyer  Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated DUI Criminal Defense Attorney
 Peter F. Iocona - Top-Rated Orange County DUI Defense Attorney

THE BASIC SPEED LAWS (CVC § 22350), THE PRIMA FACIE SPEED LAWS (CVC § 22349) AND THE MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS

VEHICLE CODE SECTION 22350 - BASIC SPEED LAWS

The Statute: CVC § 22350 is known as the basic speed law. It provides:

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.

This statute means that, regardless of any speed limit, one may not drive so fast as to be "dangerous" on a roadway. (CVC § 22358.5). Before someone may be found guilty of a violation of CVC § 22350, there must be “substantial evidence from which a fact finder could conclude either that the defendant drove at a speed that endangered people or property or that he drove at a speed that was unreasonable for the driving conditions.” People v. Behjat (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 3.

VEHICLE CODE § 22350

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.

A motorist driving within the posted speed limit is not always free of negligence. Wilkins v. Sawyer (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 458. All speed regulations are referable to primary demand that all vehicles shall be operated at a careful and prudent speed not greater than is reasonable and proper, and that they shall not be operated in such way as to endanger life, limb, or property of any person. Cowan v. Market St. Ry. Co. (1935) 8 Cal.App.2d 642.

When radar evidence is used in the prosecution for a violation of the basic speed law, the people bear burden of establishing that engineering and traffic survey justifies posted speed by producing that survey. People v. Smith (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d Supp. 7.  The State could not rebut the presumption a speed trap was utilized, which arose due to use of radar to enforce prima facie speed limit, by producing a summary of the current engineering and traffic survey for the relevant segment of the roadway.  The state was required to produce the original survey or certified copy of the survey. People v. Ellis (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th Supp. 25. 

PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS

A prima facie speed limit establishes the point at which the defendant’s speed is presumed to be unsafe under the basic speed law described in the above-referenced section.

If it is proved that the defendant exceeded the prima facie limit, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that his or her speed was safe under CVC § 22350. In this regard, CVC § 22351, subdivision (b) states the following:

The speed of any vehicle upon a highway in excess of the prima facie speed limits in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is prima facie unlawful unless the defendant establishes by competent evidence that the speed in excess of said limits did not constitute a violation of the basic speed law at the time, place and under the conditions then existing.

But proof of a speed below the prima facie limit may also prove a violation of CVC § 22350. CVC § 22351, subdivision (a), provides:

The speed of any vehicle upon a highway not in excess of the limits specified in Section 22352 or established as authorized in this code is lawful unless clearly proved to be in violation of the basic speed law.

Prima facie speed limits are set in one of two ways: by survey or by statute.

For instance, CVC § 22354 uses the survey method to set a speed limit, authorizing the setting of a prima facie speed limit at some speed below the maximum speed limit on any road where an engineering and traffic survey justifies that speed limit established by the survey or by the applicable statute relating to the prima facie speed limits.

MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS

Maximum speed limits are best described as the highest speed limit allowed on certain roads where high speeds are permissible, and they establish the maximum permissible speed on other roads with lower, prima facie speed limits.

There are three maximum speed limits in California: 55, 65 and 70, depending on various factors. CVC § 22349 sets a maximum speed limit of 65 mph throughout the state (except for the 70 mph limit on some freeways). CVC § 22349(a) reads:

Except as provided in Section 22356 [70 mph on some freeways], no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than 65 miles per hour.

The CVC § 22356 referred to above allows a 70 mph speed limit if justified by an engineering and traffic survey where a 65 mph limit would otherwise be applicable.


SPEED RESTRICTION SIGNS

In any action involving the question of unlawful speed of a vehicle upon a highway which has been signposted with speed restriction signs of a type complying with the requirements of this code, it shall be presumed that existing facts authorize the erection of the signs and that the prima facie speed limit on the highway is the limit stated on the signs.

This presumption may be rebutted, but where a speed limit is signposted, there are two applicable presumptions: (1) the particular facts related to the road and its conditions authorize the posted limit, i.e., the speed limit is validly established; and (2), the sign accurately states the established speed limit. Where a speed limit is posted, the person accused of violating it has the burden to prove it was not valid. See: Reynolds v. Filomeo (1951) 38 Cal.2d 5, 12-13, and Guerra v. Brooks (1951) 38 Cal.2d 16.

DIRECTIONS TO PETER F. IOCONA - ATTORNEY AT LAW IN LAGUNA HILLS















Website Builder