![]() |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||
| |||||||
| | |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
Cvc 40902What is the name of your state? CA Situation: I received a speeding ticket. Officer said I was going 'about' 70 when I asked "what I was being pulled over for?" I asked for proof because I truly believed he had eye balled me. He looked at me and said, "um...yeah...okay." He never even ran my license and then came back for me to sign it. I asked for the proof and he kept repeating but stumbling on the words "you can't go to my car..." I said, then how about a calibration ticket?" He just kept on repeating that I could not go to his car. What's up with that?? I plead not guilty and requested a trial by declaration. Could this save me?What is the name of your state? |
|
#2
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Also, as an FYI, officers trained in the use of radar are trained to make visual estimation and then have it confirmed by the radar. So, yes, he DID eyeball you ... then he apparently hit you with the radar as well. Even if he didn't hit you with radar, his eyeballing may well be good enough for the court if he is radar certified ... or, if you were doing 70 in a zone where the speed limit was 45 or less. - Carl
__________________ A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant "Make mine a double mocha ... And a croissant!" He Who Kneels Before God Can Stand Before Anyone ....author unknown |
|
#3
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
The evidence is lost once the officer leaves the scene - serial number of the unit being used etc. - that is covered under the rules of evidence and chain of custody. Refusal would preclude the use of the evidence in court in anything but a kangeroo kourt.
__________________ _____________________________________________________ “[w]hen a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.” "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. |
|
#4
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
__________________ _____________________________________________________ “[w]hen a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.” "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. |
|
#5
| |||
| |||
| Now I know you are making this up as you go along...
__________________ * * The information I gave is based on my 7 seconds of research on Google. Review the information yourself to make an informed decision. Communication is KEY - 10 mins of talking now can save you months of headaches later! Masterfully stating the obvious to the oblivious! (Thanks SP!) Tell it like it is! When all else fails, make up a statistic! ![]() Gender references shall apply equally to the other gender. I will not correct gender mistakes (unless I want to) |
|
#6
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Like any testimony, the court is free to believe it or not. There is no right to see the radar. - Carl
__________________ A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant "Make mine a double mocha ... And a croissant!" He Who Kneels Before God Can Stand Before Anyone ....author unknown |
|
#7
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
- Carl
__________________ A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant "Make mine a double mocha ... And a croissant!" He Who Kneels Before God Can Stand Before Anyone ....author unknown |
![]() |