A KANGAROO COURT found me guilty today!

[ConvictdSpeeder]

What is the name of your state? SOUTH CAROLINA

It is incredible!!!! i still cant believe it!!!

A KANGAROO COURT found me guilty today!

Here the background: i was pulled over in SC at 63/45, the cop got me with his radar gun.

Well, no problem i thought, i will beat it at court. I decided to get a bench trial, i was well prepared, i had all the case laws from the country and i was asking all the right questions like

where are the certification documents for the radar gun?
where are the certification documents for the tuning forks?
when did you calibrate your radar gun with the tuning forks?

etc etc

Guess what??! The officer had NOTHING, not even could he show me an arrest log, he even admitted he NEVER calibrates his radar gun with tuning forks, he only uses teh internal test.
But now it comes, he even told me, the radar gun NEVER has been recertified, i looked at the judge and immediately motioned for a dismissial of my case, i even showed him lots of case laws of sister states (SC still has no case law unfortunately).

So guess what his answer was, i quote:

"Mr. XY, i do not care bout ur case laws, they all are not from SC, and we here in the state of SC do not need to recertify our radar guns, you are guilty!"

I was speechless, so please tell me now, was he right, is it really not necessary here in SC to prove any accuracy of the radar gun, or was that just a stubborn judge who acted like one in an african court room!?!?

I am thinking to appeal now, but what are the chances, if there really does not exist a law here in SC, which asks for certifications of the radar guns? I guess then i m screwed!

[JETX]

ONE question for you. Were you traveling in excess of 45 MPH at the time you were stopped??
If so, save yourself the aggravation and pay the fine.

[Crazed98]

Originally Posted by JETX

ONE question for you. Were you traveling in excess of 45 MPH at the time you were stopped??
If so, save yourself the aggravation and pay the fine.

JETX does that really matter? Whether or not he was found guilty and according to what he is saying it was unjust.

[poppakeith]

Originally Posted by Crazed98

JETX does that really matter? Whether or not he was found guilty and according to what he is saying it was unjust.

Justice was not called to question in the matter the judge was called to consider. If South Carolina law does not require callibration of radar devices, then any proof the device was not callibrated is moot. Injustice would be done if ConvictdSpeeder was not speeding. In that issue he did not put up a defence....not here, and according to what he reported not in court either. JETX's response cuts to the heart of the deal.

For good or ill, the complaint, charge of speeding, is lodged by a person, a cop, according to his individual (theoretically trained, professional, objective) judgement, aided by devices or not, that a driver deserves to be held accountable for his behavior in public....assumed in the writing of the statutes to be risky behavior. The individual driver almost never will adjudge his own behavior as risky, even habitual speeders, until after the wreck proved unavoidable. In the case at hand, I too would like to hear ConvictdSpeeder's serious assessment of what impact would result if speeders regularly skate on technicalities.

[mb94]

If your state has no case law on radar guns then the Judge is perfectly right to ignore it. It would be like you coming into court and arguing that a bunch of other states have different written laws on the matter you are being arrested for. The Judge could take it into account but by no means is he bound by the decisions of another state. What would be the point of even having state courts and state laws if that was true.

This is also why it is so important to talk to a local atty instead of just using stuff you read on the internet since what is true in one state may not be true in another.

[Crazed98]

I'll correct myself. It seems unjust. But as both of you said if there is no requirement for calibration and certification in SC then there is not much he can do.

But remember Keith these technicalities are availible because of police department's laziness or them just not wanting to spend money to get the radars and tuning forks certified.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by Crazed98

I'll correct myself. It seems unjust. But as both of you said if there is no requirement for calibration and certification in SC then there is not much he can do.

But remember Keith these technicalities are availible because of police department's laziness or them just not wanting to spend money to get the radars and tuning forks certified.

The court did not need the radar testimony.

All the officer would've had to do is testify that the defendant was speeding and that opinion was based on his expert knowledge.

End of story.

Period.

Even if.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by Crazed98

JETX does that really matter? Whether or not he was found guilty and according to what he is saying it was unjust.

Absolutely.

Here is the situation. In order to be found guilty in a criminal matter, the prosecution must show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that it is more likely that you committed the crime. That is a MUCH higher standard than that required in a civil court (which just a 'preponderence of the evidence).
So, the fact is... if you were found guilty in Criminal court... that guilt is admissable in civil court and far exceeds that required in the civil trial.

Example: OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial (with a MUCH higher requirement of evidence) and yet found guilty in the civil trial (where the level of proof is much lower).

[Crazed98]

Understood JETX. Good clarification of guilty convictions in civil court verses crimminal matters. I will be fighting a similar ticket later next month. I'll let everyone know how it pans out.

[lwpat]

SeniorJudge is correct. All the officer has to do is to say he visually estimated your speed. All the books you read neglect to mention this point. Even if the judge excluded the radar reading, he can find you guilty. To fight a ticket you have to use the law of the state. Attempting to indroduce cases from other jurisdictions only aggravates the judge. Traffic court judges are usually not attorneys and often ignore the law unless you have an attorney. You should have gone before a jury which you have the right to do in South Carolina.

You have a good chance of winning on an appeal since the radar gun had not been recertified assuming he did not testify as to a visual.

[poppakeith]

Originally Posted by lwpat

SeniorJudge is correct. All the officer has to do is to say he visually estimated your speed. All the books you read neglect to mention this point. Even if the judge excluded the radar reading, he can find you guilty. To fight a ticket you have to use the law of the state. Attempting to indroduce cases from other jurisdictions only aggravates the judge. Traffic court judges are usually not attorneys and often ignore the law unless you have an attorney. You should have gone before a jury which you have the right to do in South Carolina.

The topic is worthy of this discussion....difference in state laws. Reason other states require a measure of accuracy in equipment employed recognizes the tendency of enforcement personell to rely upon the reading or be influenced by it in "judging" speeds. If SC radar need not be worth a hoot, one wonders why the expensive stuff is hauled around, the deploying of it interfering with an officers attention and visual assessment. Could be other states are more scrupulous about adhering to accuracy and the value of same to just administration of law....ideal of constitutional law. Some states still have statutes, not yet tested and overturned on constitutional grounds, which linger from the wild west days. Sounds like SC is trailing behind the curve. And, you have a good point about getting a jury trial in this instance. Jurys are not so restricted as judges by outdated statutes and shoddy practices in enforcement proceedures.

[cepe10]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

The court did not need the radar testimony.

All the officer would've had to do is testify that the defendant was speeding and that opinion was based on his expert knowledge.

End of story.

Period.

Even if.

I'm interested in how you are coming up with the calibrated speed "guessing" as admissable evidence. Do you have high courts case law that supports that contention? All the case law judgements I have seen seem to indicate calibrated equipment and foundation is the standard to meet.

Additionally, organizations such as NHTSA, IACP do not appeare to condone such activity. Why have model performance specs for speed measurement if these supposed "experts" can just guess at speeds? Keep in mind most are not registered engineers who could even do a basic traffic study and if they did said traffic study by "guessing" in would be considered professional incompetancy and they would be the laughing stock of the field.

Can't wait until I decide to design a bridge and decide to "guess" at the structural loads, or design a highway "guessing" at the field topo instead of using the appropriate tools....

And judges, LEO's ignoring the law, constitutional rights, foundation for scientific evidence etc....??? Agree it's happening. What's all that about - I would think that would be reason to be disbarred for the judges in particular. Seems like the x-prosecutor are the worst in that respect.