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.