Thanks Sukharev. I would like to give the manual a thorough reading so I guess I might have to make the request from the PD.sukharev said:Which information specifically are you interested in? I can probably fax you a few pages, but you can get a full manual via FOIA request to PD which issued the ticket. It takes 30 days to get it.
Hi Sukharev,sukharev said:Which information specifically are you interested in? I can probably fax you a few pages....
Sorry, I'm not familiar with them.rmet4nzkx said:You may want to contact "Mythbusters"
A court does not need a laser/radar to convict you of speeding; the officer's testimony alone is enough.Leviticus said:Sorry, I'm not familiar with them.
Perhaps you can provide a little more detail?
Thanks!
Hi Senior,seniorjudge said:A court does not need a laser/radar to convict you of speeding; the officer's testimony alone is enough.
Thanks Carl, I always appreciate your replies.CdwJava said:Lidars and radars are to confirm an officer's visual estimation. It is possible to get a conviction without them. They help, but are not required. How much they might be necessary depends a great deal on the jurisdiction and the court.
- Carl
Carl. I have always had a problem with the "officer can accurately determine speed" thing. I know that if I'm having a foggy day my perceptions aren't my norm and could easily vary. But since this seems to be the case could a defendent require the officer to submit to a test(s) to verify their accuracy.CdwJava said:Lidars and radars are to confirm an officer's visual estimation. It is possible to get a conviction without them. They help, but are not required. How much they might be necessary depends a great deal on the jurisdiction and the court.
- Carl
Police officers have certification training in all states and it is a continuing obligation.justalayman said:Carl. I have always had a problem with the "officer can accurately determine speed" thing. I know that if I'm having a foggy day my perceptions aren't my norm and could easily vary. But since this seems to be the case could a defendent require the officer to submit to a test(s) to verify their accuracy.
This test would need to be performed by a totally disinterested party to have any true validity. Comments?? and thanks for any input
As I said, it varies by jurisdiction.Leviticus said:I think you would agree that although the letter of the law might state they aren't necessary for a conviction, they are relied upon most of the time by police when they make a speeding charge.
Most courts are not going to allow you to engage in such theatrics. Recessing the courtroom so that you can take everyone outside for a test on the local roadway just isn't going to happen. And the old bit about dropping a book to the ground and asking the officer to estimate it's speed isn't likely to work, either.justalayman said:Carl. I have always had a problem with the "officer can accurately determine speed" thing. I know that if I'm having a foggy day my perceptions aren't my norm and could easily vary. But since this seems to be the case could a defendent require the officer to submit to a test(s) to verify their accuracy.
This test would need to be performed by a totally disinterested party to have any true validity. Comments?? and thanks for any input