Buena Vista exit east bound 210

Duarte, CaliforniaOct 04, 20102 Comments

Motor cop sitting on sidewalk with radar gun

Incident on Thursday, March 29, 2010, at approximately 3:30 p.m.: This is an extended off-ramp from the 210 eastbound, past an immediate on-ramp with traffic merging from the right to enter. A driver continuing east on that frontage road will have two lanes on a one-way right of way, passing roughly four blocks of residential side streets meeting the right hand lane until the roadway meets Buena Vista, a north-south main drag at the first light. Motorcycle officer conceals himself on the second or third side street with radar gun and stopped this writer -- probably not untypically -- who was under the good faith and experienced impression he was on a gradually slowing approach to the Buena Vista intersection but apparently clocked by said officer in excess of the claimed posted 35 mph. On conversation, ticketing LASD officer (who estimated this writer's speed at 48 mph, again while slowing to stop safely at that Buena Vista light) claimed he was not maintaining a speed trap because "neighbors" have allegedly complained about supposed excessive speed of cars on that roadway. Officer had an immediate response to the statement that this driver was observing all due safety under the conditions and under the impression this was an extended off-ramp, with officer citing the supposed exact number of feet he clocked the writer and asserting "three signs" announce the apparently required 35 mph speed. The assertion about the supposed "neighbors" makes little sense for a driver over on the left lane (as this writer was), hugging the freeway embankment where there are zero pedestrians or other foot traffic. For apparent good measure, the officer asserted he was citing drivers in this circumstance because there "had been a fatality" at that Buena Vista intersection a few years previously. Respectfully, that assertion had no relevance to this driver's conduct who was in no way driving recklessly (demonstrated by the easy stop at the Buena Vista light before the officer was able to approach from behind on his motorcycle.) In that conversation, the officer repeatedly took pains to disclaim his action was not the maintenance of a speed trap. He stridently took offense at the "speed trap" suggestion and asserted that the driver's expressing such a view over these circumstances guaranteed said officer was going to write the ticket, as opposed to issuing a warning. In spite of the officer's assertion, once he had completed the citation to this writer, this writer observed the same officer immediately proceed with haste south on Buena Vista, turning right at the next intersection. That officer had to have promptly circled around north through one of the above referenced residential streets as this writer (now northbound at that same Buena Vista light) observed that officer stopping in the same spot another driver (and presumably for the same alleged infraction) within no more than four minutes of completing the above citation. In this writer's opinion, the officer's disclaimer of any speed trap was directly contradicted by such immediate actions and by the above less-than-logical responses to driver's accurate, good-faith statements of his safe and attentive driving. Such law enforcement conduct is an unfortunate discredit to the integrity and goodwill on which the police rely for public support.
#1Mar 30, 2012Report Abuse
I would be very wary of this freeway exit, which merges with Evergreen St, especially towards the end of the month (quota time). I've driven on this street for years without any problem until recently. The author of the above comment makes a reasonable and logical argument in stating that driving on the left lane that hugs the freeway embankment poses no threat to pedestrians. The only sidewalk available for pedestrians is the one to the right of the two lanes in this eastbound one-way right of way. I would even go as far as adding that driving at 35MPH is a threat for drivers and recipe for disaster waiting to happen. On a few occasions, I've almost been side-swiped from drivers exiting this freeway ramp in excess of 35MPH. I don't know of anyone who exits freeway ramps at posted speed limits. Conversely, I have also had drivers attempting to merge onto the 210 East in excess of 35MPH almost side-swipe me when I exited this freeway ramp. Upon consulting with the watch commander from the nearby LASD satellite station, I received the same generic explanation for issuing these kinds of tickets. They have had "neighbors" complain about speeding vehicles. These residents knew what they were getting themselves into when they purchased their homes near a freeway. Moreover, depending on how you see it, the city planners/engineers are either plainly incompetent or deviously scheming in constructing a freeway ramp that egresses onto a strip of residential area and one that ingresses not too far. The "neighbors" explanation is a perfect cover up to generate revenue for the LASD and township. This notion is justified by the following: The "traffic and engineering survey" I requested from city hall is 8 years old. These surveys don't hold up in court after 7 years unless they meet additional and specific prerequisites set forth by law. Unfortunately, I don't know if my traffic ticket lawyer pushed hard enough to see if these prerequisites were met as I was absent during the trial. But I'm assuming that if this speed trap has been an ongoing problem, people are just paying and not challenging them. People don't want to fight the tickets because they are either time consuming or because they are afraid of challenging law enforcement. Therefore, the local LASD continues issuing speeding tickets even though it is illegal to do so, hoping that no one will catch this technicality. *The township's city hall interior doesn't look so great *The nearby satellite station looks like it needs some expanding and remodeling, especially the watch commander's office. *The township is ridden with gangs and needs constant monitoring. I would also be EXTREMELY wary of this particular motorcycle deputy. Unfortunately, per posting rules, this person cannot be identified, nor can I use colorful language to describe him, if you get my drift. However, if you are stopped by this person, you will know who it is. The township has a small LASD branch. Although the author of the above post did not identify him, I immediately knew which deputy he was referring to. I don't personally know the author of the above post, but I can corroborate that this deputy is full of contradictions and has absolutely no logical and reasoning skills. He claimed that I "seemed like a nice guy now that [he] was talking to [me]," but he had a "family and had to mitigate the situation as [he] saw fit." I was utterly baffled by how his family was pertinent to a routine traffic stop and as to what specifically had to be mitigated. Moreover, this deputy has mental/anger issues. He began his questioning rudely, and commanded me to remain in my car twice as he was walking back to his motorcycle to write me up. I never made any sudden movements and kept one hand on the wheel and one on my seat during the entirety of the traffic stop to indicate that I posed no threat. Nor was I ever rude or confrontational when our interaction began. He eased off once he noticed that I was becoming visibly angry. I filed a complaint with the sheriff's department shortly after and found out there was an audio recording of the stop. Of course, the department hid behind a subpoena when I requested to hear the recording. One watch commander went as far as distancing himself from the deputy, stating that he only saw said traffic deputy once a month and hardly interacted with him. All of these events only raised more suspicion. A law suit was economically foolish and frivolous. At least now he has his record tarnished and something to think about. This traffic stop has to be the sourest encounter I have ever had with law enforcement. I've have been issued warnings for speeding twice during my years of driving, and I know that's because I always come across as respectful and polite, and refrain from being confrontational or belligerent. Ultimately, the best way to help abolish these speed traps is to make law enforcement work hard to gain a conviction. The statement that the deputy made to the above poster about how the poster was "observing all due safety under the conditions and under the impression this was an extended off-ramp," could have been used against the deputy in court if caught on recording. According to the book "Fight Your Ticket and Win in California," this is one argument Mr. Brown advocates using." That is why I record all traffic stops now. Officers act completely different when they know they are being filmed. I wish I had filmed my traffic stop when I was pulled over and not naively thought that because I'm a respectful person, that courtesy would be reciprocated. When law enforcement works hard, more work and time has to be put in to prosecute you instead of them being out on the streets "patrolling" or doing something meaningful like deterring crime. They also do not get paid overtime for "trial[s] through written declaration." This involves writing and officers hate desk duty. I fought my ticket with a "trial through written declaration," followed by an in person trial. The latter is an option you get only if you first go through a "trial through written declaration." The traffic ticket lawyer who was present on my behalf told me that the deputy's eyes were "red throughout the trial," and he tried really hard to "make [me] pay for what I did." LOL!. I still payed the fine but no points were reported to the DMV.
#2Jun 13, 2016Report Abuse

Log In

Forgot Password?

Create an account

You only need an account if you would like to comment on speed traps. You can view and add speed traps without registering.

Create Account