The officer must drive along beside, in front, or behind of the suspect vehicle, match the vehicle's pace, and look at his speedometer for a reading. The distance should be close, but it doesn't have to be on top of the suspect.inmemof3 said:Is pacing a legal method for determining speeds? What criteria must be followed?
Oh, it's LEGAL allrightinmemof3 said:What is the name of your state? North Carolina
Is pacing a legal method for determining speeds? What criteria must be followed?
Yep, that's tricky. Rules of discovery are different in every state. The key is that officer is an expert witness as soon as he testifies as to the speed measurement. In many jurisdictions, discovery includes planned testimony from any expert witness. Need to look up NC rules of discovery on the web.CdwJava said:Just HOW do you get the officer's planned testimony in Discovery?? It's not like that is written down anywhere. Officer's notes or reports, sure - but planned testimony?
It must. We don't have to provide that information here.sukharev said:Yep, that's tricky. Rules of discovery are different in every state.
Obviously this must vary by state as well. But I cannot imagine that ANY state would consider this as reasonable. Out here, calibration once a year is the norm.Just like with laser, his car has to be calibrated (by a certified shop) before and after the shift.
Sorry, I meant testing, not calibration. I agree, calibration is expected to be done within a reasonable time (6 month or 1 year in most states), but testing of any speed measurement device is required within yet another reasonable time before and after the arrest (typically less than a day). Both are likely not done, but that's what discovery is for - to test those hypotheses.CdwJava said:Out here, calibration once a year is the norm.
The fact that we don't test the speedometer every day has not proven to be a problem in CA. This may not be the case in other states, but I doubt any judge is going to look on this as a fatal error. Maybe as one small thing to try and establish reasonable doubt, but certainly not the "smoking gun" of errors.sukharev said:Sorry, I meant testing, not calibration. I agree, calibration is expected to be done within a reasonable time (6 month or 1 year in most states), but testing of any speed measurement device is required within yet another reasonable time before and after the arrest (typically less than a day). Both are likely not done, but that's what discovery is for - to test those hypotheses.
No offence, but I believe you are required to test any speed measuring device within a reasonable time, that covers the car, too. This is the only way to know the measurement was correct. Calibration a year ago is not a proof of that. Standards of proof do apply (and once again are state dependent).CdwJava said:The fact that we don't test the speedometer every day has not proven to be a problem in CA. This may not be the case in other states, but I doubt any judge is going to look on this as a fatal error. Maybe as one small thing to try and establish reasonable doubt, but certainly not the "smoking gun" of errors.
And radar/lidar are put through their paces at the start of every shift. Not being certified in their use myself, I don't precisely know the procedure.
- Carl
As you said, it must be state dependent. This has never been an issue in CA that I have been aware of.sukharev said:No offence, but I believe you are required to test any speed measuring device within a reasonable time, that covers the car, too. This is the only way to know the measurement was correct. Calibration a year ago is not a proof of that. Standards of proof do apply (and once again are state dependent).
Hi, Carl:CdwJava said:As you said, it must be state dependent. This has never been an issue in CA that I have been aware of. - Carl
Okay ... nothing there is remotely close to requiring an officer have the speedometer checked before and/or after every shift when a cite is issued.sukharev said:Hi, Carl:
with all due respect to your profession, I'd like to disagree. Here is a link to CA discussion on pacing.
http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24963
yes, you are correct, the link only has mentioning on a case where calibration was an issue, not testing. However, I am sure one can dig up more examples, including case law, where this is the case.CdwJava said:Okay ... nothing there is remotely close to requiring an officer have the speedometer checked before and/or after every shift when a cite is issued.
And the ruling of one traffic court is hardly binding even if one DID hold that opinion.
- Carl
I doubt that ... Detentions with cause are perfectly lawful, and arrests for a criminal offense committed in an officer's presence is perfectly lawful. How do you figure that a traffic stop without a warrant?sukharev said:If all legal rules applied, you probably could not even make an arrest (traffic stop) without a warrant.