Pop3 Radar

Pop3 Radar Speeding Ticket

I got a ticket for doing 94 in a 65 on the Garden State Parkway in NJ, along with a reckless driving ticket. I have a valentine one radar detector in the car and it did not go off, which leads me to believe the officer used Pop3 radar. Is Pop3 admissable in court? I don't think it is due to its high inaccuracy rate. Any ideas where I can search for cases that set a precident?

All because your radar detector failed to alert you does NOT mean that he did not use a radar that it is supposed to detect.

And, yes, I do believe Pop3 radars are perfectly acceptable in NJ. Additionally, what agency would spend money to buy a radar unit that they could NOT use? You are free to challenge the device's veracity if you wish.

It might also be possible that he hit you with lidar which probably wouldn't trip your device either.

And there is also the possibility he timed you between two pre-measured points or conducted a visual estimation of your speed.

Even if you contest it, perhaps you should consider slowing down.

- Carl

Sounds like you have retained a fool for your attorney. Fire yourself and hire a real attorney if you want to keep your license and insurance.

He's implying the officer used POP 3 in POP mode only and didn't confirm the reading with a follow-up sustained measurement, folklore put out by a certain radar detector manufacture to cover false negatives. He could ask for his money back to cover part of the ticket cost.

I doubt any LEO needs a radar to detect someone doing 94 in a 65

Robbie0723 said:

I doubt any LEO needs a radar to detect someone doing 94 in a 65

Click to expand...

So true ... so true.

Heck, my 10 year old could guess that he was exceeding the limit!

- Carl

Its not that simple...

The ticket states RADAR, not any other measuring device (lidar, vascar...). RCDWJava, I'm not saying the entire radar gun is inadmissable, but there is a feature of the gun that I believe is not. In the gun's (the one I THINK the trooper was using) own manual it instructs officers NOT to use Pop3 mode for writing tickets. If it's in the gun's manual how is it fokelore Robby? In normal detectable mode the gun is very admissable and accurate. Many believe it is a conspiracy amoung radar gun builders to make undetectable units even though they are not accurate to boost sales. As an everyday citizen, if you don't follow technical issues like this you wouldn't even know that Pop3 existed, and I'm betting thats what the trooper that gave me the ticket thought about me. He expects me to believe that my radar detector is faulty - not the latter. I'm wondering if ONLY Pop3 measurmetns are admissable? And to those who doubt my detector, its a Valentine One, arguably the best on the market - if there was non-Pop3 radar I'm banking on the Valentine picking it up. Without the sarcasm, does anyone thats really listening to me think I have a shot?

Here's how it generally goes in my state (CA) ... you can argue the setting, calibration and maintenance of the radar ... you can also argue the officer's position, movement, and qualifications to use and calibrate the radar properly ... what you cannot do is use a lack of a response from your radar detector as "proof" that the radar was either NOT used at all or was in Pop3 mode. The fact that an electronic device might malfunction (Valentine or not) is not proof that another device was or was not employed correctly.

Whether the failure of your detector to activate is allowable evidence in your state or not - I can't say. However, I would suspect it is not.

Do you have a chance of beating the cite? Sure. There's always a chance.

- carl

Not sounding like a good case here.

First off the judge is going to start off ticked off that you were doing 94 in a 65 and exceeding the speed limit by almost thirty miles an hour...Thats not just your basic speeding case....even if you are innocent he is gonna start off ticked off like I said...and about your detector....what proof do you have that it didn't go off...Unless you were recording it somehow or had someone in the car, you have no proof....this happened to me and the judge and prosecutor laughed at me but I got the ticket thrown out for other reasons....If you did have someone in the car the prosecution will say that the radar is a tested and true electronic equipment and your radar detector is not....If you then say start asking about the testing and certification of the radar unit they will ask you for testing of your detector just to prove the point that that argument was invalid....and from what I have found, pretty much every radar is tested and all the legal stuff as needed and rarely falls out of testing....so you have to find a way to prove that you werent going 94 which is going to be difficult because even though your innocent until proven guilty the judge can decide how he wants and your left up to an appeal if you don't agree....and trust me when he sees 29 miles over the speed limit hes going to convict you before you ever open your mouth. My personal decisions are to always try to plea out of tickets that high for that reason....or you can do what I do now....stop speeding....but none the less I do wish you good luck as I hate judges who do what I talked about but unfortunatly thats usually how they are.
Jason

Around here, the State Police cruise in slicktops (not just Crown Vic's) and only hit the button a few car lengths away. Since they have front and rear transponders, they can do this from either direction (e.g. after they go by you in the opposite direction).

Radar detectors, even the V1, are not much help with the latest digital instant on radar in use by a properly trained officers. A Valentine One is not infallable and can miss signals for multiple reasons, particularly if shot from behind.