Defendant was cited for violation of Vehicle Code section 22350. The officer checked radar on the ticket and wrote a note on the bottom, "Warned about following too close."
Defendant presented a solid Basic Speed Law defense and pointed out that the officer could not have clocked defendant's car on the radar if it was following another car too close. The officer also testified the date on the survey was six weeks after the date of the alleged violation.
In at least her fifth questionable decision that morning, the judge found the defendant guilty. This prompted him to observe while leaving the court, "I think there's been reasonable doubt presented in a number of cases this morning. I think you are an extremely poor judge."
In an ex parte conversation a couple of weeks later, Findley told the defendant, "Yes, but if the officer takes the time to write the ticket, I assume you have to be guilty." This total disregard of a fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence (i.e., innocent until proven guilty) inspired the defendant to include the following point on the Opening Brief of his appeal:
Ignorance of the Law: While ignorance of the law is no excuse, I find Judge Pro Tem Findley's ignorance of the law in this case inexcusable.
(Thus the Iggy was born.)
The DA's Response Brief conceded the case.