Lawyers for Speed Camera Challenge
Defense based on challenging the validity of speed camera and radar measurements.
Last updated:
Speed camera readings (fixed radars, mobile radars, and section control cameras) are subject to strict homologation and calibration requirements. Any failure to comply with these technical specifications can render the measurement invalid as evidence, resulting in dismissal of the speeding charge.
Legal Framework: Homologation and Calibration
Our defense examines: device homologation (the radar must be approved by the Spanish Metrology Centre and appear in the official register), calibration certificates (annual recalibration is mandatory; expired certificates invalidate readings), measurement tolerance margins (typically 5-7% depending on the speed range), vehicle identification (photos must clearly identify the offending vehicle; poor image quality or obstructed plates create doubt), and section control calculations (average speed cameras must prove there was no stop or deviation within the measured section).
Defense Strategies
On that basis, we request the full maintenance and calibration log of the device, the homologation certificate and, where they exist, the recordings of the measurement. The decisive move is often arithmetic: applying the tolerance margin to the recorded speed can bring it below the criminal threshold, downgrading the offence to a mere administrative infraction. We also challenge the identification of the vehicle and the driver when the image does not allow an unequivocal attribution.
Criminal Consequences
Speeding becomes a criminal offence under Art. 379.1 CP when the speed exceeds the limit by more than 80 km/h on interurban roads or 60 km/h in urban areas; below that threshold it is an administrative infraction. The criminal form carries prison of 3 to 6 months, a fine of 6 to 12 months or community service, and the deprivation of the right to drive of 1 to 4 years. This is why reducing the measured speed below the threshold —through the tolerance margin and the challenge to the measurement— is the central objective of the defence.
Penalty Chart
| Type / Scenario | Criminal Penalty |
|---|---|
| Imprisonment | Prison sentences from 3 months to 6 years depending on severity and concurrence of offenses. |
| License Revocation | Revocation of driving privileges from 1 to 4 years. |
* Penalties shown are indicative. The actual penalty depends on case circumstances, applicable mitigating and aggravating factors.
Our Defense Strategy
Evidence Review
Comprehensive review of the prosecution evidence to detect procedural irregularities.
Negotiation
Limited plea agreement when the evidence is strong, to minimize consequences.
Road Safety Offences in Spain: DUI, Reckless Driving and Traffic Crimes — Defence Guide
Road safety offences (Arts. 379-385 CP) are among the most prosecuted in Spain. Driving under the influence (DUI), dangerous driving, unlicensed driving, and driving while disqualified carry not only prison sentences and fines, but also driving licence disqualification that can last up to 10 years.
Penalty Table: Road Safety Offences
| Offence | Article | Threshold | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| DUI (alcohol) | Art. 379.2 | > 0.60 breath / 1.2 blood | 3-6 months prison or fine + 1-4 yr disqual. |
| DUI (drugs) | Art. 379.2 | Any detectable amount | 3-6 months prison or fine + 1-4 yr disqual. |
| Excessive speed | Art. 379.1 | +60 km/h urban / +80 km/h interurban over the limit | 3-6 months prison or fine + 1-4 yr disqual. |
| Reckless driving (Art. 380) | Art. 380 | Manifest disregard for life | 6 months – 2 years + 1-6 yr disqual. |
| Unlicensed driving (never held) | Art. 384 | No licence ever held | 3-6 months prison or fine |
| Driving while disqualified | Art. 384 | Lost by judicial/admin order | 3-6 months + 1-4 yr further disqual. |
| Hit and run (Art. 382 bis) | Art. 382 bis | Leaving accident scene | 6 months – 4 years |
Key Defence Strategies
Challenge the Breathalyser Result
Breathalyser devices must be calibrated and certified. Challenge: calibration records out of date, device malfunction, improper administration protocol (required 15-minute observation period before test).
Drug Test Challenge (Saliva/Blood)
Roadside saliva tests are presumptive, not conclusive. Request the blood confirmatory test. If the confirmatory test was not performed or the result is contested, the evidence may be insufficient.
Reckless Driving: subjectivising the risk
Art. 380 requires manifest, concrete endangerment of road users. Driving fast on an empty road at night may not constitute the 'manifest danger to life' required.
Disqualification Computation
If the accused drove believing the disqualification had expired (administrative error, incorrect notification), the subjective element of Art. 384 may be absent.
Why Choose Us?
Need a criminal defense lawyer for this type of offense? Here's how we work:
Do you need specialised legal assistance?
The judicial system is complex. We have the criminal-law specialisation and technical resources required to take on the defence.