On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 02:34:51 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
In California, one could argue that the roadway markers constitute a
speed trap, as the aerial LEOs determine the speed of automobiles by
timing them between those marks.

I've seen the law you cite before, and agree with your interpretation. But
I'm curious if you know the rationale behind it.

No I don't. But I could guess.

You might consider addressing your question to the California
Department of Motor Vehicles:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40802.htm

What problem regarding the enforcement of speed limits is that law
trying to address?

My guess would be that the prohibition against speed traps, as defined
in the CVC, is the state's attempt to restrain municipal police
departments from abusing the system and fleecing the public.

You see, the CVC not only enables the local constabulary to cite
alleged offenders, it also protects the public from official abuse of
the legal system by them. Take this example:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d18/vc42201_6.htm
"Refunds: Bail Deposits

42201.6. (a) A deposit of bail received with respect to an
infraction violation of this code, or any local ordinance adopted
pursuant to this code, including, but not limited to, a violation
involving the standing or parking of a vehicle, shall be refunded
by the agency which issued the notice of violation or the court
within 30 days of a cancellation, dismissal or finding of not
guilty of the offense charged.

(b) Multiple or duplicate deposits of bail or parking penalty
shall be identified by the court or agency and refunded within 30
days of identification.

(c) Any amount to be refunded in accordance with subdivision (a)
or (b) shall accrue interest, at the rate specified in Section
3289 of the Civil Code, on and after the 60th day of a
cancellation, dismissal, or finding of not guilty or
identification of multiple or duplicate deposits, and shall be
refunded as soon as possible thereafter along with accrued
interest."


The above CVC section 42201.6 makes it unlawful to withhold bail
refunds beyond 30 days. The Vehicle code goes one step further in
protecting people from misuse of the power of the court:


http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d18/vc42202.htm
"Disobedience by Officials

42202. Failure, refusal, or neglect on the part of any judicial
or other officer or employee receiving or having custody of any
fine or forfeiture mentioned in this article either before or
after deposit in the respective fund to comply with the foregoing
provisions of this article is misconduct in office and ground for
removal therefrom."


So it would appear that CVC section 42202 grants people the power to
remove judicial offenders from office who violate CVC section 42201.6.
In spite of the above laws the local Superior Court publishes this
policy on their web site:


http://www.occourts.org/traffic/
"If the fine is suspended or if you are found not guilty, your
bail is refunded by mail within sixty days and is returned to the
depositor at the address listed on the case."


Here we have a publicly documented policy of judicial abuse directly
in opposition to the laws the court is sworn to uphold. I'm sure
municipal police are capable of considerably more odious breaches of
public trust.