Arizona Criminal Speeding...

[stasis]

Hello everyone, I recently received a criminal traffic ticket in Arizona for speeding, 70 in a 45. I do not believe that I was going that fast because I had a GPS on which does not agree, yes I sped up but it does not show me going 70 ever. The prosecuter told me that they dont need to prove I was going 70, just 65 in order for it to be criminal, however I dont agree with that. If I am being charged with going 70, dont they need to prove I was going 70, not just that I was speeding? I had seen the police car when turning at an intersection however he must have followed me for some reason because a mile or two later as soon as I did speed up some to pass a truck the lights came on.

I was planning on using the radar calibration defense, asking for the calibration log showing the radar was checked with the tuning forks before and after the offense, and if needed asking whether or not the radar was recently calibrated as well as the tuning forks. I am just looking for any advise, whether or not it is likely that I could get the charges dropped or if I should look for a lawyer? Thank you!

 

[seniorjudge]

I always recommend that people use a lawyer when going to court.

 

[stasis]

Well I dont think it is worth it to hire a lawyer... Thats why I was looking here.

 

[seniorjudge]

Well I dont think it is worth it to hire a lawyer... Thats why I was looking here.

Q: I am just looking for any advise, whether or not it is likely that I could get the charges dropped or if I should look for a lawyer?

A: I think you should look for a lawyer. However, if you want to do this pro se, there are tons of websites to help you. Some websites are more helpful than others; I don't know the good ones from the bad ones.

 

[stasis]

Does anyone know of any relevant case law which would pertain to the subject of radar calibration etc?

 

[cyjeff]

Wait...

So you don't want to hire an attorney... but you still feel comfortable asking US to burn our LexisNexis account looking up case law?

Interesting....

Maybe you will get lucky...

 

[stasis]

Jeez... Sorry... I found this site while searching about the subject, I saw another user who asked similar questions, who represented himself for a speeding infraction and there were many people who willingly helped in much more detail then I am looking for, providing many different examples of case law for his situation.

If you do not want to help that is fine, but what do you expect, the site is called FREE ADVICE, if I was hiring an attorney why would I be looking for "free advice"......

 

[The Occultist]

If I am being charged with going 70, dont they need to prove I was going 70, not just that I was speeding?

What exactly are you charged with (statute number please)? "Going 70" is not a crime, but "criminal speeding" is.

Oh, and watch out for your calibration argument; how do you know your vehicle (and GPS) are properly calibrated?

 

[stasis]

28-701.02 AZ Excessive Speed

Thanks for your response!

 

[seniorjudge]

28-701.02 AZ Excessive Speed

Thanks for your response!

Thank you. Now please answer the other question:

What exactly are you charged with (statute number please)? "Going 70" is not a crime, but "criminal speeding" is.

Oh, and watch out for your calibration argument; how do you know your vehicle (and GPS) are properly calibrated?

 

[stasis]

Well I cant say my vehicle is, however GPS is more accurate then radar. I wasnt going to bring up the GPS, that is just what makes me want to fight it. I have read of other cases where someone brought up a GPS and the judge ignored it. I was more looking to attack the radar calibration, saying that it could not be accurate considering the circumstances. From what I have read mostly any prosecutor will not have the needed documents and proof to show that the radar and tuning forks have been calibrated.

I passed the officer while he was sitting in an alley way right at the light I turned at. I saw him right away and did not speed up for a couple miles at least, for some reason he must have followed me (im guessing just because I was on a motorcycle). Which that brings up another point, I dont believe for a second I was doing 70, I think this speed was chosen in order to bump it up to the criminal traffic charge. So the officer had to be using radar while moving and behind me as he approached me, I know this can cause inaccurate radar readings as well and a state police officer I knew in New York told me that radar readings from behind (without even bringing into account the officer's vehicle moving) will be lower then the actual speed and lower then a reading from in front with the vehicle approaching. This just further agitates me, they can charge you with anything and you have to prove them wrong, isnt it supposed to be the other way around...?

 

[seniorjudge]

...
Which that brings up another point, I dont believe for a second I was doing 70, I think this speed was chosen in order to bump it up to the criminal traffic charge.
...

Your "belief" is irrelevant; do you have anything (i.e., evidence) to prove your speed?

...
So the officer had to be using radar while moving and behind me as he approached me, I know this can cause inaccurate radar readings as well and a state police officer I knew in New York told me that radar readings from behind (without even bringing into account the officer's vehicle moving) will be lower then the actual speed and lower then a reading from in front with the vehicle approaching. This just further agitates me, they can charge you with anything and you have to prove them wrong, isnt it supposed to be the other way around...?
...

I think your friend in New York gave you a bad physics lesson.

 

[stasis]

I realize my "belief" doesn't mean anything in court, who would ever normally have proof of their speed...? Why should I have to prove my speed, the officer needs to prove it to show I was over the speed limit.

"Radar Batching - this error is caused when the police car is either slowing down or
accelerating when the radar unit is still calculating the speed of the targeted vehicle. "

Obviously the officers car must have been accelerating while approaching me from behind.

 

[seniorjudge]

I realize my "belief" doesn't mean anything in court, who would ever normally have proof of their speed...? Why should I have to prove my speed, the officer needs to prove it to show I was over the speed limit.

"Radar Batching - this error is caused when the police car is either slowing down or
accelerating when the radar unit is still calculating the speed of the targeted vehicle. "

Obviously the officers car must have been accelerating while approaching me from behind.

By all means, plead not guilty and have a trial.

 

[Maestro64]

I am assuming you know he used radar because it was written on the ticket, he could have paced you. However, if know for a fact it was radar and specifically moving radar there is loads of things that could be brought into question especially with you being on a motorcycle.

Also, no one here is knowledgeable in the use of radar and how it works and all the possible short comings and defenses against it.

Also, you correct the state must prove you were going 70MPH since that is what the ticket was for not something over the limit. You do not have to prove you were doing another speed. This means you have to attach the so called evidence against you, which the office testimony and the equipment he used. There was another case on this board where the person just recently won against the radar evidence as well as the officer testimony so cases can be won, you just have to know what you are doing.

Anyway, if you want to learn about radar and the laws governing it use and all the things you need know about how it works and the possible defense go to radardetector.net. There is a few people there who know what they are talking about.