Beamer vehicle code#
"(a) No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of Division IX of this code nor shall any speed trap be used in securing evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code." The basic question involved is whether the method of checking speed here employed constitutes a "speed trap" as that term is defined in the California Vehicle Code. The constitutionality of that section has never been passed upon, and we do not pass upon it in this opinion. if such court admits any evidence" secured by means of a speed trap. This conclusion makes it unnecessary to pass on the constitutionality of section 753 of the Vehicle Code which, by express terms, purports to deprive any court of "jurisdiction to render a judgment of conviction. 2d 725 ), and because of the public importance of the question, and for the reason that this is the only way the cause can be taken to an appellate court, we will assume jurisdiction. Because we have concluded that in any event the writ should not issue, and in view of the broad expansion of the scope of the writ made by the appellate courts in recent years (In re Byrnes, 26 Cal. If such evidence was inadmissible there is no lawful evidence upon which the court was entitled to act. Here the sole evidence to support the conviction consists of the challenged evidence. However, the present case does not involve a "mere" ruling on the admission of evidence.
) The district attorney correctly points out that the municipal court had jurisdiction of the person and subject matter, and that the superior court had jurisdiction to review on appeal.
2d 588 ) and ordinarily cannot be used to review mere irregularities or errors committed by a court within the scope of an admitted jurisdiction. It does not have the scope of an appeal (In re Schunke, 81 Cal. Habeas corpus is, of course, a writ that normally is limited to testing the jurisdiction of the court. The district attorney urges that, regardless of whether the speed meter evidence was or was not admissible, the propriety of the conviction cannot be determined in this habeas corpus proceeding. ) Beamer seeks to review the propriety of his conviction by this proceeding in habeas corpus. The Appellate Department of the Superior Court affirmed the conviction by a two-to-one vote. He was sentenced to a fine or imprisonment. The municipal court admitted this evidence over Beamer's objection that such evidence was inadmissible under sections 751 and 752 of the Vehicle Code. The sole evidence of Beamer's speed was obtained by the use of an electromagnetic radar speed meter. Dayton, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent.īeamer was charged with and convicted of a violation of sections 510 and 511 of the Vehicle Code in that at a designated time and place he drove an automobile upon a public street at 35 miles per hour in a prima facie 25-mile zone.
Coakley, District Attorney (Alameda County), and L.
2d 63 (1955) In re SCOTT BEAMER, on Habeas Corpus.
0 kommentar(er)
