Speeding Ticket in Texas Alleged Speed

Hey guys,

Well I went out joy-riding last night (I live in Houston, Texas) and may have been going way over the speed limit on the interstate. Next thing I know, I've got a stater on my 6 and I'm getting pulled over. Well, he didn't get a radar reading on me but on my ticket he put the "alleged speed" as 124. That was the speed he was going to catch up to me. So in my mind that opens up alot of doubt on my actual speed. Just looking to see if it really is that big a deal or I'm up **** creek without a paddle. Thanks a million!

~Miguel

Speeding in Texas

is that big a deal

Click to expand...

It is a big deal. I'm surprised that he did not tow your car and lock you up. I hope they have buses in your area.

Yes, I know it's a big deal. Thank you. I'm just looking for some constructive advice on what my options are. Another thing is that on the ticket it says like driving 10% above posted speed limit which was 65. Anyone?

magellan498 said:

Yes, I know it's a big deal. Thank you. I'm just looking for some constructive advice on what my options are. Another thing is that on the ticket it says like driving 10% above posted speed limit which was 65. Anyone?

Click to expand...

124mph would not be 10% above 65. Closer to 100%. Constructive advice: get lawyer and a second job before the fine is due, slow down for the remainder of time you have a driver's license, and maybe over to NASCAR country.

since the alleged speed is fictional it should leave a lot of wiggle room. make sure the law enforcement office brings his calibration for his speedometer otherwise his testimony to his speed is inadmissbble heresay unless he is qualified to calibrate speetometers

if he tries to say he can "estimate speeds" drop a pencil from you head level and have him tell you the speed as it passed your know (calculate it before hand) and show to the court that he can't in fact "estimate speeds" to within even 10%

the state has to provide the foundation of any evidence they present (it is a criminal trial) so to not provide the EVIDENCE and FOUNDATION is a problem for them.

cepe10 said:

if he tries to say he can "estimate speeds" drop a pencil from you head level and have him tell you the speed as it passed your know (calculate it before hand) and show to the court that he can't in fact "estimate speeds" to within even 10%

Click to expand...

I've never gotten a ticket, but I've sat in traffic courts, and I can tell you that this little production would get you NOWHERE, which is exactly what it should do.

The LEO doesn't spend his days dropping pencils and calculating their speeds, he spends his days patrolling streets. I can estimate my speed within 10 MPH at any given time, and I only log a few hours per week. I'm sure it's not unheard of for a LEO to log greater than a hundred hours per week in a patrolcar, so do you really think he's not going to be able to tell if you're even going 100?

My advice? Either don't get a lawyer, plead guilty, and get screwed for being an irresponsible dolt on the road, or hire a lawyer, pay the fees, and negotiate on the severity of the violation (ie knocked down to an 80 in a 65 or something). I don't even see how you could get a speeding violation in excess of 100 MPH down to a non-moving violation like improper equipment, but shucks - a speeding apologist told you to drop a pencil and put on a production to make the cop look like a moron, so it MUST work, right?

You must be "special" to be so accurate with your speed estimating I do traffic studies for a living and couldn't testify within reasonable accuracy the speed of vehicles without my calibrated and NIST traceable equipment. I'm pretty sure if I tested such LEO's they would not be able to give an estimate that agreed to even with 15% of each other or the true speed. Of course these LEOs (and yourself) are not licensed professionals and you do not know the criminal case procedure or the evidence and foundation that is required. Although you are correct that many judges think they are above the laws of the land and do not follow proper procedure or the US constitution for that matter in criminal cases. congads on that, karma will have a way of catching up with you.

P.S. it may not be productive but it is fun to make a dishonest LEO look like a complete fool on the stand as he commits perjury and gets caught in it.

if he tries to say he can "estimate speeds" drop a pencil from you head level and have him tell you the speed as it passed your know (calculate it before hand) and show to the court that he can't in fact "estimate speeds" to within even 10%

Click to expand...

I assume you got that advice from Madame Cleo. That is about how much it is worth.

I suppose since it is based on physics it is beyond your third grade education. I especially found dougtheflake's assnine comment that "you can just tell speeds" laughable. I suppose that will be the end of Kustom Signals and the rest of the equipment manufaturer's in fact i bet he will take over the speed reading for nascar, major league baseball etc. next. I can just see the new citations "going real fast (2 pts), going fast (1 pt), going pretty fast (1 pt) LMAO BTW laser units are calibrated with a moving unit (just like a pencil in a free fall) but you'll learn about that stuff if you make it to 6th grade and above.

Prosectuor: We will stipulate that the officers observation is accurate to within 15%...

Oh

That makes the speed 105 MPH...

And since the officer actually measured the speed by pacing the violator....

how did you get 15%... and IF YOU ARE PACING YOU CAN'T BE "CATCHING UP"

Now if he had paced him for a prescriped amount of time (at least a few miles or so) and had a calibrated speedometer and could produce the agency certified calibration records of such and could come up with an actual speed....

from my experience there may not be a prosecutor and the LEO will pretend he is a member of the bar and attempt to question himself as a witness... or is that the judge acting as both prosecutor and judge by questioning the LEO as a winess....

I don't know enough to form a real argument here, but I just wanna comment on your notion that the officer would need to follow for a couple of miles to obtain an "accurate" speed. I'll agree a minimum distance would be required, but I'd go with about 1/8 of a mile. I've never had an officer follow me for a couple of miles to make sure I was really speeding.

The Occultist said:

I don't know enough to form a real argument here, but I just wanna comment on your notion that the officer would need to follow for a couple of miles to obtain an "accurate" speed. I'll agree a minimum distance would be required, but I'd go with about 1/8 of a mile. I've never had an officer follow me for a couple of miles to make sure I was really speeding.

Click to expand...

For the departments that "require" a minimum distance, it's rarely more than .1 mile.

And judges like nothing more than the old "drop a pencil and guess how fast it is" demonstration. They've never seen something like that, I'm sure. (And certainly, the officer will be befuddled as well). Definately, totally, absolutely do that.

Oh yeah, kindly post the results of your hearing after you do. (Please include the docket number since, unfortunately, certain people have have been known to (gasp!) lie.)

You Are Guilty said:

For the departments that "require" a minimum distance, it's rarely more than .1 mile.

And judges like nothing more than the old "drop a pencil and guess how fast it is" demonstration. They've never seen something like that, I'm sure. (And certainly, the officer will be befuddled as well). Definately, totally, absolutely do that.

Oh yeah, kindly post the results of your hearing after you do. (Please include the docket number since, unfortunately, certain people have have been known to (gasp!) lie.)

Click to expand...

Right you are - dishonest LEO's (i'm guessing your are probably included) lie all the time and feel they are somehow not accountable to the laws of the land. However, you are the only one who has to ultimately live with yourself.

Actually testifying under oath that you are certifed to do something when you are clearly not is a form of lying and eprjury as well. Testifying that you have direct knowledge of something you do not is also a form of lying. Dishonest LEO's do it all the time. If fact the more authoritarian they are the more chance of them being pathological liars.

The LEO's who have ethics problems to begin with are quickly indoctrinated that what they are doing is "for the public good" so being dishonest is OK.

Of course their are also plenty of completely honest LEO's many of whom are associates fo mine.

cepe10 said:

Right you are - dishonest LEO's (i'm guessing your are probably included) lie all the time and feel they are somehow not accountable to the laws of the land. However, you are the only one who has to ultimately live with yourself.

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm probably a lawyer, and, as I've freely admitted here, have racked up several dozen tickets (in NYC, home of the "no one is too innocent to not be found guilty" mentality). Although the vast majority were non-moving violations, my one speeding conviction came about when I was ticketed in an 88-hp Escort for doing 50mph (in a 30) one block from a red light -- I wasn't. The radar officer apparently didn't notice the red 275 hp Camaro that peeled out next to me from the same light. Yet you don't see me whining about dishonest officers, do you?

cepe10 said:

Actually testifying under oath that you are certifed to do something when you are clearly not is a form of lying and eprjury as well. Testifying that you have direct knowledge of something you do not is also a form of lying. Dishonest LEO's do it all the time.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. Of course, that's why there is a trial and discovery - catch them in a lie and the rest of their testimony becomes worthless.

cepe10 said:

If fact the more authoritarian they are the more chance of them being pathological liars.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that insight, Dr. Freud.

cepe10 said:

The LEO's who have ethics problems to begin with are quickly indoctrinated that what they are doing is "for the public good" so being dishonest is OK.

Click to expand...

Yes, I will admit that is true. The local Center For Dishonesty In Officers does this. They even offer a certificate when you complete their program.

cepe10 said:

Of course their are also plenty of completely honest LEO's many of whom are associates fo mine.

Click to expand...

Do your arms hurt from patting yourself on the back?