I have data to prove I wasn't going 80 mph

[inagf3]

I work for an automotive company and was recently ticketed for speeding in a prototype vehicle. While driving I was recording various vehicle data via the ECU including vehicle speed. The vehicle data shows I was traveling 76 in a 70 mph zone (yes, the data is accurate), I then slowed to 71 mph prior to the speed limit changing to 65 mph. Shortly thereafter I was pulled over; the police man gave me ticket for 80 mph in a 65 mph zone. I told the policeman I wasn’t traveling 80 mph and had data to prove it. Of course he didn’t care about my vehicle data. Next, I politely asked to see the radar gun and he said “we don’t do that”.

I would understand if I got a ticket for 71 in a 65. However, I have a problem with 80 in a 65 when I NEVER reached that speed. Do I have a chance fighting this ticket (I live 3 hours from the ticket location)? Would my vehicle data have a chance to hold up in court? Thank you for your thoughts.

[justalayman]

[quote=inagf3;1796110] Would my vehicle data have a chance to hold up in court? QUOTE]do you have proof that has been accepted by the courts as accurate, like the radar used has?

How do you prove the accuracy of the data?

[JIMinCA]

What state do you live in?

[Amerikaner]

What state are you in? Did you get pulled over by State/City/County cop?

With regard to them accepting the vehicle data - You'd have to somehow be able to prove not only the authenticity of the data, but that the data is more reliable than the sworn testimony of the police officer involved (of course you're going to fight it right? And subpoena the officer?)

[inagf3]

Thank you for the responses. I live in Ohio and was pulled over in Indiana (Indiana State Police).

I'm not really sure how to authenticate that accuracy of the data. The data is time stamped (no date). I don't think I'd have a problem showing the specific point in the data where I radared by the officer going 71 not 80. I know the data is accurate because I've checked it. However, I'm not sure how to prove the accurance of the data in court short of bringing the judge in the car with the laptop and a stopwatch. We all know that's not going to happen.

Also, if I can somehow prove I wasn't going 80mph, would the judge throw out the ticket or say "you were still speeding" (71 in a 65)?? The ticket is the same price for 1-25 mph over the speed limit.

[Zigner]

The point is, you cannot prove the ACCURACY of YOUR measurements. Sure, you can show that the machines say you are traveling at a certain speed, but how do you prove the accuracy of that machine?

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by inagf3

Thank you for the responses. I live in Ohio and was pulled over in Indiana (Indiana State Police).

I'm not really sure how to authenticate that accuracy of the data. The data is time stamped (no date). I don't think I'd have a problem showing the specific point in the data where I radared by the officer going 71 not 80. I know the data is accurate because I've checked it. However, I'm not sure how to prove the accurance of the data in court short of bringing the judge in the car with the laptop and a stopwatch. We all know that's not going to happen.

Also, if I can somehow prove I wasn't going 80mph, would the judge throw out the ticket or say "you were still speeding" (71 in a 65)?? The ticket is the same price for 1-25 mph over the speed limit.

inagf3,

Ignore the NaySayers. They confuse this site with the, "I'm guilty as hell and I need a lecture site".

You don't have to prove that your instrumentation is accurate. You merely have to raise reasonable doubt. I wouldn't argue that the cop's radar is wrong... rather he must have clocked someone else (was there traffic??). You only have to raise the question that maybe he apprehended the wrong vehicle.

I think you have a pretty good argument, but it will largely depend on how well you present yourself in court.

Good luck!!

[Curt581]

Not just the accuracy of machine collecting the data... you'll have to prove the data came from THAT car and was recorded on THAT date, at THAT time.

How hard is it to gin up data recorded on a different day or even in a different car and claim it was generated on THAT day by THAT car? Does a prototype car have a vehicle ID number? Is that VIN reflected on the data? Does the recorder have a serial number? Is that reflected on the data? Does the data have a date/time stamp that can't be tampered with?

I shouldn't have to tell you that impressive looking, but bogus, computer data is easy to create.

In order to make that data admissible, you'll need a legal foundation for it. For that, you'll need an expert witness... preferably one that has no ties to you or your company so as to appear reasonably unbiased.

To answer your last question... assuming you manage to get the data admiited... Yes, proving you were going 71 in a 65, not 80 in a 65, means you just proved you were, in fact, speeding.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Curt581

Not just the accuracy of machine collecting the data... you'll have to prove the data came from THAT car and was recorded on THAT date, at THAT time.

How hard is it to gin up data recorded on a different day or even in a different car and claim it was generated on THAT day by THAT car? Does a prototype car have a vehicle ID number? Is that VIN reflected on the data? Does the recorder have a serial number? Is that reflected on the data? Does the data have a date/time stamp that can't be tampered with?

I shouldn't have to tell you that impressive looking, but bogus, computer data is easy to create.

In order to make that data admissible, you'll need a legal foundation for it. For that, you'll need an expert witness... preferably one that has no ties to you or your company so as to appear reasonably unbiased.


To answer your last question... assuming you manage to get the data admiited... Yes, proving you were going 71 in a 65, not 80 in a 65, means you just proved you were, in fact, speeding.

Amazing. I think that the only thing you got right in your "the OP is guilty!!" post was your screen name.

BTW... after seeing your signature line, it makes me wonder about your spouse.

[justalayman]

I'm not really sure how to authenticate that accuracy of the data.

You can't. That is the problem. I would be as convincing with a piece of paper with landmarks and time from a stop watch (which obviously isn;t very convincing).

The data is time stamped (no date).

making it totally useless.

I don't think I'd have a problem showing the specific point in the data where I radared by the officer going 71 not 80.

Oh, so you can pin point to the exact second theofficer zapped you? How do you know exactly when that was?

However, I'm not sure how to prove the accurance of the data in court short of bringing the judge in the car with the laptop and a stopwatch.

You would have to prove the data and the measuring device is accurate and dependable to the same level the radar is required to. It took a lot of engineering studies, testimony and proof of that.

We all know that's not going to happen.

You are right with that one.

Also, if I can somehow prove I wasn't going 80mph, would the judge throw out the ticket or say "you were still speeding" (71 in a 65)??

Here is a quick sceanrio?:

You plead not guilty to 80 mph. He asks, how do you know you were not going 80. Do you know how fast you were going? You say, 71. Judge says fine, guilty of 71 in a 65.

So when jiminca comes back and says it can;t happen like that, if he really wants it, I would have to go back quite a few years for the date, time, and judge but that exact situation (excapt for the exact numbers) did happen in the courthouse in South Bend Indiana.

I get a kick out of listening to jiminca's crap like this:

You don't have to prove that your instrumentation is accurate. You merely have to raise reasonable doubt. I wouldn't argue that the cop's radar is wrong... rather he must have clocked someone else (was there traffic??). You only have to raise the question that maybe he apprehended the wrong vehicle.

If you want to use your instrumentation as any sort of defense, yes, you would have to prove accuaracy and dependability.

Beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the threshold the state must prove. I could toss out possibilities all day in a court but just mentioning them does not present resonable doubt. You have to support the theory you present. Another car? Maybe. Do you now exactly how far the cop was from you? His angle of attack? The spread of the beam at that distance and angle? What other cars were on the road? Where were they exactly compared to your and the officers vehicles? Moving the same speed? Faster? Slower?

Jim would like to have everybody believe he can talk his way out of every ticket around. He claims to have already done this. If you want, go ahead and listen to him. It won't hurt you anymore financially other than in Indiana, you will make a preliminary appearance and plead. You them will be given a court date for your trial. That is 2 trips, minimum, to fight this.

So, it's up to you. Weigh your options and do what seems the most beneficial for you.

[efflandt]

Part of defensive driving and getting out of speeding tickets is paying attention to what is going on around you. I was pulled over in Iowa once along with another car. The officer asked if I knew how fast I was going (unsure who he clocked on radar). I wasn't sure, but said (truthfully) that the other car was starting to pass me and then backed off and pulled in behind me. He let me go.

If the data you have is not specific enough (GPS readings) or easily fabricated (with any PC and printer), would it hold up in court? Or if accepted, would it prove your guilt (of speeding, even if not 80)?

[JIMinCA]

The one thing that the NaySayers are right about is that you have to decide if you want to pursue your defense. Other than that, they are just a bunch of uninformed pesimists.

Your data is valid and it is admissable. You do have a way to relate the information you have to your vehicle during your situation... through your testimony. If you listen to the NaySayers, there would be no way a cop could ever get a conviction because he could not definitely tie a radar reading to your car specifically other than through his testimony. Also, his burden is much higher than yours. All you have to do is be reasonable, rational and sound credible. Worst case scenario is that you are found guilty. Big deal. That's what happens if you just pay the ticket also. However, the fact that the arrogant cop wouldn't even listen to you when you talked about data supporting your case would make me motivated about having my say in court.

As far as the judge finding you guilty of 71 vice 80... you weren't charged with driving 71. You were charged with driving 80. Your testimony only has to be that your speed log shows that you never even approached 80 on your entire trip.

Don't listen to the whiners that want to convict you here on this site. They are not the ones who will judge you and there standards are not the ones that will be used. Give it a try... you have nothing to loose and everything to gain.

[CdwJava]

Actually, he was charged with excessive speed. Unless the specific statute he violated was specifically for a particular speed range including going 80 in a 65, the violation is likely broad enough to justify ANY speed over the limit, unsafe, or whatever the section implies regarding the speed.

So, if he admits to 71 in a 65, the court CAN still convict provided the statute covers that speed as well as the 80.

- Carl

[justalayman]

If I had a system that was as foolproof as jim claims his ideas to be, I would be rich beyond my wildest dreams by selling the info.

jim fails to understand the reason a police officers testimony is accepted while the average defendants is considered suspect, at best, is the cop is considered to be a disinterested party where the defendent, of course, has an interest in the outcome of the trial.

He can try to spin it all he wants but that is the way it is.

Your data is meaningless to the courts.

Your testimony is always in question.

The officers is not unless you can impeach him somehow.

Yes, you can be found guilty of a lower speed as I posted earlier.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by justalayman

If I had a system that was as foolproof as jim claims his ideas to be, I would be rich beyond my wildest dreams by selling the info.

jim fails to understand the reason a police officers testimony is accepted while the average defendants is considered suspect, at best, is the cop is considered to be a disinterested party where the defendent, of course, has an interest in the outcome of the trial.

He can try to spin it all he wants but that is the way it is.

Your data is meaningless to the courts.

Your testimony is always in question.

The officers is not unless you can impeach him somehow.

Yes, you can be found guilty of a lower speed as I posted earlier.

Wow... you must have some serious issues in your life that fill you with such hostilities!!

To summarize, I have agreed with the OP that he has a valid argument but it will not be a sure win. You have basically told him he is already guilty and he shouldn't even try. Furthermore, you are far more interested in proving me wrong rather than helping the OP. What is wrong with this picture?

My suggestion... take an anti-depresant of your choice, try some meditation and possibly therapy. You have way too much bitterness in your life.