This is a declaration for a “tailgating” ticket. Though the officer here cites the driver for not following at a specific number of car lengths, there is no specific safe following distance mandated in the law. Most officers assume a specific following distance, in feet or car lengths, that the motorist should have been observing. This declaration exploits these false assumptions.
We also point out here that the officer did not note the speed of the car being followed. Police note your speed on the ticket but almost never note the speed of the car you were following, an essential element in determining a safe following distance.
For example, if you are two car length back and are driving faster than the car in front of you, this could be very unsafe since you would be moving even closer to him. If you are two car length back and are driving at the same speed of the car in front, this may or may not be unsafe since you are maintaining a steady distance. If you are are two car length back and the car in front is driving faster than you, this is not unsafe at all since he is pulling away from you. An officer’s failure to note the speed of the car you were following casts great doubt on his assertion that your were following too closely.
Some cops write up motorist under CVC 21703 as a “replacement” ticket . An officer may stop a motorist for going just a few miles above the speed limit on the freeway as a pretext to see what else they might be up to (drinking, drugs, smuggling ferrets, etc.). When the officer finds no drugs, booze or ferret poop, he cites the motorist under this very subjective code in order to justify the unnecessary stop.
The vast majority of these tickets are written by the CHP on the freeway during morning and afternoon rush hours. In heavy rush hour traffic it can be virtually impossible to maintain a large following distance from the car in front of you. If you do so, several other cars will spot this “daylight” and scoot in front of you, again shortening your following distance.
Since the traffic itself can prevent the constant maintenance of an ideal following distance, the police should reserve these citations for the true tailgaters who attempt to intimidate other drivers to move over or to speed up.
For directions on how to use this document, click here.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant’s Name: Mark E. De Sade
Case No.: S780824
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 21703.
The facts of my case are as follows: While driving on the 405 Freeway on 1-4-99 I was stopped by CHP Officer Choade (I.D.#1234) and charged with violating CVC 21703, Following Too Closely. The officer told me that I was not speeding but alleged that I was following the car in front of me “too closely.”
The officer told me that I should keep 7-8 car lengths between myself and the car in front of me when traveling on the highway (I was approximately 4 car lengths behind). I had always been taught that I should stay 2-3 seconds behind the car in front of me since a “car length” is never a specific distance and is therefore meaningless as a measurement (The California Driver Handbook advises motorist to use this “three-second rule” to determine a safe “Following Distance.”) I was following the car in front of me at a safe distance with approximately a 3 second “space cushion” as advised by the DMV.
I reviewed the California Vehicle Code to see if Officer Choade’s definition of a safe following distance of “7-8 car lengths” corresponded with the actual law. CVC 21703 Following Too Closely states: “The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway.”
The officer neglected to note the relevant conditions upon my citation of 1) traffic upon the road , 2) condition of the road, and most importantly, 3) the speed of the vehicle I was following. I can state that traffic at the time of my stop was light to medium, road conditions were good, and the vehicle I was following was traveling slightly faster than I and was therefore pulling away from me. As such, I believe that I was following at a safe and prudent distance.
Officer Choade’s “7-8 car length” rule-of-thumb has no specific correspondence to the actual verbiage or intent of CVC 21703, and seems to be his own somewhat inaccurate interpretation of this law. The California Vehicle Code contains no definition of how long a “car length” is, probably due to the obvious fact that there is no standard “car length” This fact, combined with the officer’s failure to note the actual road conditions (including the speed of the vehicle I was following) would seem to cast reasonable doubt on his assertion that I was following “too closely.”
I believe that a reasonable interpretation of CVC 21703 proves my innocence in this case and I ask the Court to dismiss my citation 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 )
( signature )
( name typed out )