Statement of Facts Defendants Name: Alberto Sanchez Case No: Date: May 25, 2013 Your Honor: 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 south bound on McHenry Ave (Sate Route 108) at approximately 00:00 on 01-19-2013, I was stopped by Officer XX of the Modesto Police Department and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The officer noted the location of the violation as the intersection of Sheila and McHenry Ave. Officer XX has alleged that I was driving approximately at a speed of 52mph in a 30mph zone based on Radar evidence. I know that I was travelling at a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions at the time of my stop, and was therefore not in violation of the Basic Speed Law under CVC 22350. 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 that endangers the safety of persons or property. The officer has presumed that the prima facie speed limit is the reasonable and prudent speed and that any excess to the prima facie speed limit is unsafe. At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with minimal traffic. The mean temperature on January 19 2013 was 43.2 F with 0 inches of precipitation and 5.5 miles of visibility (Source: www.almanac.com ). Neither on the citation nor during our conversation does the officer make any mention that my speed was unsafe based on weather and/or road conditions. As such, the officer does not make a credible case that I was in violation of the Basic Speed Law CVC 22350. Furthermore I believe that the posted speed limit of 30mph on that particular section of McHenry Ave is artificially low, reflecting an out-of-date traffic and engineering survey and, as such, may constitute an illegal Speed Trap pursuant to CVC 40802(b) which defines an illegal speed trap as: A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey and where enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. If the speed limit has not been justified by such a survey done within five years prior to January 19 2013, the road is considered a speed trap and CVC 40801 states that peace officers may not use electronic devices in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution. An officers statement that such a study was done-unless the officer personally participated in the study- is insufficient to prove it actually was done. Summaries of surveys are not enough either. (People v Sterritt (1976); People v Ellis(1995); People v Earnest (1995))

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 McHenry Ave (more specifically to as where the officer claims the violation occurred) 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. This is true even if the officers testimony is limited to his visual estimate of speed. If he used radar, this testimony is inadmissible. (People v Conzelman (1995) ). The officer may argue an exception to the above rule stating that the above requirement is not necessary for local streets and roads as defined by VC 40808(b). For this exception to hold true, the prosecution must show that McHenry Ave is referred to as a local street or road on the latest functional usage and federal-aid system maps as submitted to the Federal Highway Administration. The prosecution will not be able to prove this since McHenry Ave, also known as State Route 108, is shown to be a principal arterial road and not a local road. (Exhibit A). CVC 40805, Admission of Speed Trap Evidence, states: "Every court shall be without jurisdiction to render a judgment 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 Trial de Novo. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: May 25 2013

Alberto Sanchez, Defendant in Pro Per