Laser / Radar Proof??

[MemphisQueen]

What is the name of your state? Georgia

I guess I have a similar question to some of the others I've seen on the fourm, but not about requesting confirmation at the time of citation (although for people in Georgia - there is a box that the officer should check where it indicates that the "Driver requested accuracy check"). Since these things are indicated on the tickets as being recorded via radar/laser (those are two of the options on the citation - the other being patrol vehicle, which I assume just being eye balling it), if it is recorded, is there a "print out" or "confirmation" of this speed?

Otherwise it's just his word against mine. If his evidence is the laser recording, is there a way to request that this evidence be brought into court??

I've put my entire story below if you're curious, but the main thing I want to know is what proof I can request in court?

I spoke with a lawyer who said that they don't have to prove what speed you were going. Any judge will take an officers word against a civilian and that they can even "eye-ball" it and not have to record it using any devices. Is this true?
*********

I was stopped at 1am at an intersection - red light, where I fully stopped without slamming on my brakes or anything, and the officer was in a driveway about 25 feet back from the intersection (on his left) and hidden by trees (on his right). That being said - I had already passed him before (ie, I knew he was there) on my way to drop off my rent check to the office before the end of the month; therefore I KNOW I wasn't speeding b/c I was very much aware of his presence. Unfortunately I wasn't staring at my odometer the whole time as I approached the intersection (instead I watched out for other traffic!) and came to a full stop, again, without quicky reducing speed.

He accused me going 50 in a 30 and of being drunk (it was 1 am and I was tired b/c I had to drop off my rent check before leaving town in 5 hours for a road trip!), gave me the DUI test, which I of course passed. Threatened to arrest me for disorderly conduct b/c I asked him what to do if I wanted to contest it. I asked him to clarify that he would arrest me for disorderly conduct for asking a question. He then made me get out of the car - AGAIN - and threatened to impound my car and arrest me for a DUI. Half of me wanted to say 'go for it' b/c I knew there was NOTHING in my system except for Red Bull since I had been packing and cleaning - but the other half said not to waste my time b/c I had to pick up people at the airport in a few hours and get on the road - this would delay my getting out.

He then chastised me saying I probably didn't even know where he had come from - I told him I had seen him and knew exactly where he was parked and surely he had seen the other cars going slowly in traffic too b/c they appeared lost and had additionally slowed me down. He admitted that he couldn't see down to the end of the block (on the right - the direction I was coming from towards the intersection on the left). So he openly admitted he could only see the apprixmate 40 feet immediately in front of the light; where supposedly I was going 50 mph before coming to a full stop!! I have a crappy car - sorry buddy my brakes don't work like that!

Also he did not indicate on the citation that he adminstered a DUI test, even though the section is on there. Is that worth anything to support my case??

 

[Pugilist]

Go to library and get the books on how to fight tickets.

Also, if your speed was measured with radar or laser, see if GA has a speed trap law.

Pug

 

[CdwJava]

Since these things are indicated on the tickets as being recorded via radar/laser (those are two of the options on the citation - the other being patrol vehicle, which I assume just being eye balling it), if it is recorded, is there a "print out" or "confirmation" of this speed?

Otherwise it's just his word against mine. If his evidence is the laser recording, is there a way to request that this evidence be brought into court??

There are no radar or lidar units I am aware of that record and provide a print out of readings.

- Carl

 

[MemphisQueen]

Thanks y'all for your help.

It just seems odd that with as many tickets are given out daily (b/c I'm sure my one isn't the only one in the past 27 years - or likely the only person to ask the question!!), that there isn't a requirement to "prove" the speed! Why else would the instruments be mandated to be calibrated every so often and tested? There is space on the ticket to record the serial # of the instrument and everything!

Not that ALL cops are shady, but this system would seem to create the ability to allow a cop having a bad day to ticket everyone he sees at outrageous speeds. It would then simply be his/her word against the driver only! I actually thought about driving around the blocks to see if I could find the other guy going slowly - about the same speed as me to get a witness that I was not speeding, but he kept me for half an hour (see previous intimidation and threats) so I figured the guy would be long gone.....

That makes the point of "innocent until proven guilt" fairly moot - at least in traffic court. Thankfully I've never been involved in a trial, but my general understanding of the procedure is that it's not just the cop's word against a civilian - but that in general there should be evidence to support the case.

Just an interesting thought for the day - sad that I get this realization about the justice system only when you get involved in it, huh?

 

[CdwJava]

A great deal of court matters involve people testifying to the facts of the matter without any other "proof" besides their testimony - be it officer, victim, suspect, or witness. And testimony IS evidence. if there had to be something besides testimony, then nobody could be found guilty of anything. It has never worked that way ... and unless we want to live in a constant state of 24/7 surveillance with recording devices on everyone and hidden everywhere, it is not going to change soon.

- Carl

 

[CarrieT]

A great deal of court matters involve people testifying to the facts of the matter without any other "proof" besides their testimony - be it officer, victim, suspect, or witness. And testimony IS evidence. if there had to be something besides testimony, then nobody could be found guilty of anything. It has never worked that way ... and unless we want to live in a constant state of 24/7 surveillance with recording devices on everyone and hidden everywhere, it is not going to change soon.

- Carl

However, it would seem that this would be a gross miscarriage of justice, in that case.
Why would the officers 'word of honor' hold more weight and bear greater assumed integrity than that of the person allegedly speeding? (I say 'allegedly' because it IS merely the officers word against the driver of the vehicle).
The constitution DOES allow for 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'. It doesnt say 'Unless the ACCUSER who we have decided is more honest testifies that you are guilty'. I would agree with 'testimony' from a THIRD PARY (either unbiased or as witness) being acceptable, however when its a 'he said / she said' situation then the court should not be permitted to decide that one's testimony under oath is 'right' and the other one's is 'wrong'. That is NOT justice.
Of course, the question is, how to combat this when you are the one going to court as the defendant?

Carrie (going to court on just such a speeding ticket at the end of the month)

 

[CdwJava]

However, it would seem that this would be a gross miscarriage of justice, in that case.

To do otherwise would mean that almost no crime could be proescuted.

Why would the officers 'word of honor' hold more weight and bear greater assumed integrity than that of the person allegedly speeding?

Presumably because the officer has no stake in the outcome. The system operates under the general presumption that the officer is in a neutral position so his word is generally believed to be unbiased in the eyes of the court.

(I say 'allegedly' because it IS merely the officers word against the driver of the vehicle).

And if you rape me, punch me, steal from me, or commit any other criminal act, it is merely my word against yours as well.

The key comes down to credibilty, training, and experience.

I have seen people run clearly red lights and adamantly believe they did not. the difference being that I was actively looking for that violation while the driver was not ... he was toodling along and believed he made the light when, in fact, he didn't. That doesn't make the driver a liar, it just makes him wrong.

The constitution DOES allow for 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'.

Beyond a "reasonable doubt" - not an absolute doubt.

What would you do to replace the system? By your argument only white collar crimes and serious felonies that would justify the presence of a CSI team would ever stand a chance of going to court.

It doesnt say 'Unless the ACCUSER who we have decided is more honest testifies that you are guilty'. I would agree with 'testimony' from a THIRD PARY (either unbiased or as witness) being acceptable, however when its a 'he said / she said' situation then the court should not be permitted to decide that one's testimony under oath is 'right' and the other one's is 'wrong'. That is NOT justice.

Third parties can be wrong. In fact, eyewitness testimony from uninvolved parties is NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate.

And, the officer is actively LOOKING for the violation ... you, on the other hand, were probably thinking about other things rather than solely concentrating on the road and your speed.

And your opinion to the contrary, the courts have decided otherwise as to whether this is "justice" or not.

Once again, what would you do to change the system?


- Carl

 

[CarrieT]

To do otherwise would mean that almost no crime could be proescuted.
Presumably because the officer has no stake in the outcome. The system operates under the general presumption that the officer is in a neutral position so his word is generally believed to be unbiased in the eyes of the court.

I can understand the points you are trying to make, however I still do not agree with them.

Maybe the officer has no stake in the OUTCOME, however, I believe he does have a stake in the number of traffic violations he 'needs' to fullful in a certain time period, thus making the 'general assumption' that he is in a neutral position incorrect. This belief is based on reading the numerous articles, reports and news about 'officers ticket quota'.
Additionally, his word CANNOT be unbiased, as HE is the 'accuser' and the driver is the 'accused'.

And if you rape me, punch me, steal from me, or commit any other criminal act, it is merely my word against yours as well.

No. Rape leaves visible marks/signs. As does physical violence. Theft also leaves a trail (usually) as does most any other criminal act. In order to CONVICT someone of any of the above crimes, SOLID evidence would need to be presented (dna, semen, photos, past history of, paper trail, eyewitnesses to the crime etc etc etc). And even then, sometimes there is not enough evidence to get a conviction. Those are NOT a case of 'your word against mine'. Nor would ANY court convict someone based on you saying 'he hit me' without any kind of evidence, or tangible 'proof'.

The key comes down to credibilty, training, and experience.

And why does the officers credibility weigh more heavily than mine? I have had no tickets since I received my liscense when I was a teen. My experience behind the wheel is proven by my clean driving record. Granted there are people who receive 2 and 3 tickets a year (or whatever) and I would agree that based on past history that person has a tendency to speed. However, for the sake of JUSTICE, the court needs to look at what they can PROVE this driver did. And that would necessitate more than just the officers 'word'.
Additionally, at the time of ticketing an officer can choose to NOT give a ticket even if warranted. Or an officer can choose to write a ticket for 1 mile over the speed limit. This would suggest that whether a ticket is given is at the 'whim' of the officer at the time. This does not support credibility on the part of the officer.

Beyond a "reasonable doubt" - not an absolute doubt.

The officers 'word of honor' is NOT 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Otherwise MY word of honor would create a 'reasonable doubt'.

What would you do to replace the system? By your argument only white collar crimes and serious felonies that would justify the presence of a CSI team would ever stand a chance of going to court..

That is not true. My argument is based on the contitutional right of each person in the USA to be deemed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. I made no delineation between white collar crimes, serious felonies or crimes needing a CSI team.

By YOUR argument, OJ would have found himself with a far different verdict, were an officer hanging around who had experience, training and credibility and who was watching for murder and mayhem, regardless of any other evidence to the contrary

Third parties can be wrong. In fact, eyewitness testimony from uninvolved parties is NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate...

However, if you get enough eyewitnesses and all the stories are corroborated, then you CAN get a full enough 'picture' of the 'truth' upon which to generate a decisive theory as to what actually happened.
Additionally, officers are not infallible.. in fact they are notoriously fallible as evidenced by the number of violations ticketed erroneously

And, the officer is actively LOOKING for the violation ... you, on the other hand, were probably thinking about other things rather than solely concentrating on the road and your speed....

Without wishing to 'pirate' the OPs thread, actually in my case you are incorrect, as I saw the officers lights flashing, as he was giving a ticket to another person who he had stopped, and so I did a self check for my own speed and verified that I was not speeding. Thus when the officer stopped me a couple of blocks further on, I did another self check and therefore knew for a FACT he was incorrect when he stated he had clocked me going 17 miles OVER the speed limit. However that is my case, and may not be the case with others.

And your opinion to the contrary, the courts have decided otherwise as to whether this is "justice" or not.....

Is that true though? IF it goes to 'trial', and IF the officer does not appear, then the violation can be dismissed. That is because the 'accused' is given the right to 'face his accuser'. The officer being put in the role of 'accuser'. Which then signifies that the officer is NOT an impartial entity.

Once again, what would you do to change the sytem?

I think the system is slowly being changed already for the reasons Ive given above. We have the 'red light camara' and the flash speed camaras now in place. These are items that give tangible and credible (+/-) 'proof' of violation. I think the radar is too general to be able to be used as any kind of proof, as it requires, in heavy traffic, an eyeball judgment call on the part of the officer as to WHICH car in the 'bunch' of cars was the violator. The lidar, while a useful tool, cannot be deemed 'proof' unless there was a printout, irrefutable proof as such, that the car was speeding. (ie: that liscense plate printed on the readout, was travelling at that speed).
I also believe that the system, with regards traffic violations, is set up as a financially rewarding scheme on the part of the courts. When you think about it, if 100 tickets are given out for speeding, maybe 3/4 of those ticketed would simply pay the fine and get on with their lives because its too much hassle to go to court, take time off from work, or make the effort to protest their innocence. Or maybe they know they were speeding and therefore are willing to pay for the poor choice.
Of those 25% who show up on the date indicated on the ticket, at least half will plead to lesser for a reduced fine. That is still income for that ticket. The balance are, like myself, willing to go to court and believe in justice being upheld... that a judge might remember that the burden of proof of wrongdoing is on the accuser not on the accused.
However, still, in those 100 tickets the court has reaped a bountiful harvest... and for very little effort.
Naturally my 'numbers' are incorrect as I havent done any research on the subject, however the principle is sound.

Your question, though, was how would I change the system.

I would give the officers a means of proving violation, which would stand up in court. I would REQUIRE any officer who writes a ticket to appear in court to offer proof for giving the ticket (in otherwords, apply consequential responsibility to the officer for each ticket he writes) I would also require that the accused appear in court to offer a defense, regardless of their wishes. I believe that if everyone had to show up in court, and couldnt just get off with paying the fine, more people would contest an erroneous ticket, and the court system would see that too many negligible tickets were being written, thus clogging the courts and eventually only truly warranted violations would be ticketed. I would also ensure that justice was served at all times according to the constitution, upholding a citizens rights regardless of the degree of 'crime' that has been allegedly committed, rather than disregarding the accused rights for certain violations with the intent to maintain the continuation of income via a "golden goose'.

Carrie




- Carl[/QUOTE]

 

[CdwJava]

I can understand the points you are trying to make, however I still do not agree with them.

Maybe not ... but that's the state of the law.

Maybe the officer has no stake in the OUTCOME, however, I believe he does have a stake in the number of traffic violations he 'needs' to fullful in a certain time period

That's not true (legally) in any jursidiction I know of. In most (quite possible, ALL) states there are statutes specificlly prohibiting quotas.

thus making the 'general assumption' that he is in a neutral position incorrect.

Provided your presumption about a quota is correct, then I agree it MIGHT lead to SOME speculation about the veracity of all an officer's cites. However, it is not that difficult to make lgitimate cites, so why risk a career to make something up?

This belief is based on reading the numerous articles, reports and news about 'officers ticket quota'.

Locally? While I can't speak for GA, I do know that every other state I am aware of prohibits them. When they pop up in others guises (such as 'platoon goals', or, 'department objectives') they tend to get attacked by either the officers, the media, or the attorneys ... they don't seem to last too long out here when they are tried in any way, shape or form.

But, not being from GA I don't know whether the same holds true in your neck o' the woods.

No. Rape leaves visible marks/signs.

Clearly you have not participated in many rape trials. The vast majority of them contain NO clear evidence if any evidence at all.

Theft also leaves a trail (usually) as does most any other criminal act.

Not true. Most thefts go unsolved prcisely because they can't be proven. Even credit card and check fraud is hard to prove and those DO leave paper trails ... but they are very convoluted and often open to interpretation.

In order to CONVICT someone of any of the above crimes, SOLID evidence would need to be presented

Generally, but not always true. Statements ARE evidence.

MOST cases do not contain compelling physical evidence. Real life is not television. And traffic cases almost NEVER contain physical evidence. I mean, what are the odds that an officer will have a video camera AND have it turned on pointing at the suspect when the violation occurs?

Nor would ANY court convict someone based on you saying 'he hit me' without any kind of evidence, or tangible 'proof'.

Most such "he said, she said" cases don't get to court. But, when they do, it usually weighs on the believability of the parties involved.

And why does the officers credibility weigh more heavily than mine? I have had no tickets since I received my liscense when I was a teen.

Because he was watching for the violation - it's what he does. You were driving from point A to point B concerning your mind with other things while trying to drive as safely as you could - or as you chose to. The simple fact is that when we are not looking FOR the violation, we are also rarely concerning ourselves with the details of our own driving.

My experience behind the wheel is proven by my clean driving record.

No, it proves only that you had either not been caught before or were lucky.

Dahmer and Bundy had immaculate records when they were popped for multiple murders. The record does not mean innocence.

Additionally, at the time of ticketing an officer can choose to NOT give a ticket even if warranted. Or an officer can choose to write a ticket for 1 mile over the speed limit. This would suggest that whether a ticket is given is at the 'whim' of the officer at the time. This does not support credibility on the part of the officer.

It is called "discretion". In some areas officers are granted wide latitude ... in others, none at all. The idea is that the officer is supposed to effect the future driving of the individual. If the stop is sufficient to make that impact, the officer is generally given the latitude to "warn" the subject and let them off without a cite. For some people, that isn't a viable option. And in other cases the agency may be dealing with a high-problem area and they may be opting for a 'no warning' policy. We do that from time to time out here, too.

My argument is based on the contitutional right of each person in the USA to be deemed INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. I made no delineation between white collar crimes, serious felonies or crimes needing a CSI team.

Once again, a person may be proven guilty by guilt beyond a REASONABLE doubt ... not by ANY doubt.

By YOUR argument, OJ would have found himself with a far different verdict, were an officer hanging around who had experience, training and credibility and who was watching for murder and mayhem, regardless of any other evidence to the contrary

Had an officer witnessed the murder, it may well have turned out diofferently. As it was, a murderer was set free because of a compination of poor practice by the cops, an excellent defense team, some questionable decisions by the prosecution, and a jury that was looking for any reason to acquit.

And evidence to the contrary can always be brought up to instill reasonable doubt ... as was done in the OJ case. They brought up all sorts of ridiculous issues that a jury believed provided reasonable doubt ... so, even with strong evidence of guilt he was still convicted.

Additionally, officers are not infallible.. in fact they are notoriously fallible as evidenced by the number of violations ticketed erroneously

I'd be curious to know what study was conducted that showed a large number of erroneously issued tickets. The methodology in that must be ... unusual.

And while officers may not be infallible, were their statements not be granted greater weight than the defendent's the system would collapse and there could be no traffic enforcement at all.

However that is my case, and may not be the case with others.

And you may be right - and his estimate may be wrong ... I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is your contention that there is some kind of wrong being done when the court grants the officer greater weight.

Your story could provide ample doubt ... if the officer was busy with something else, he could not have had his full attention on your activity. Having not read or concerned myself with the details of your specific circumstance, I have no comment on it.

Is that true though? IF it goes to 'trial', and IF the officer does not appear, then the violation can be dismissed.

Generally, yes. The specifics are slightly different in different states, however. And if the officer is absent with cause, the court may be within its right to re-schedule. You will have to read up on the rules for traffic court in GA.

We have the 'red light camara' and the flash speed camaras now in place.

We have the red light cameras as well - in a few places. But there are a horde of legal issues involved with them and they do not catch anything else BUT red light violators at a small handful of intersections in major cities.

I think the radar is too general to be able to be used as any kind of proof, as it requires, in heavy traffic, an eyeball judgment call on the part of the officer as to WHICH car in the 'bunch' of cars was the violator.

You may think so, but if there is a batch of 4 cars rolling toward you and you hit them for 75 MPH and one fo them is edging through the pack, it may not be all that much of a stretch to say that the one edging through was doing 80. Rarely is there a pack of cars that are not doing roughly the same unless one is running through traffic like a slalom and happens to be working his way through the pack ... and he's the one that will catch the officer's attention.

The lidar, while a useful tool, cannot be deemed 'proof' unless there was a printout, irrefutable proof as such, that the car was speeding.

That's not true, either. Maybe some day we'll have that ... but, for the moment, there are not any models widely offered that do that. Legally, it IS proof - whether you want to believe it or not.

I would give the officers a means of proving violation, which would stand up in court.

You mean, aside from the currently tried and true method of testimony? Like what? A 360 degree camera that is on 24/7?

A camera does not good unless it is both on AND aiming at the violation the instant it is made. Many violations occur outside those conditions.

I would REQUIRE any officer who writes a ticket to appear in court to offer proof for giving the ticket (in otherwords, apply consequential responsibility to the officer for each ticket he writes) I would also require that the accused appear in court to offer a defense, regardless of their wishes.

Officers are already required to appear in most states ... in some states they are not as the violations are civil or they have some other procedure. And if every traffic case went to court, the system would collapse ... not enough courts.

The courts and the defense attorneys are there to try and maintain that everyone's "rights" are protected. You may not like the current status of criminal justice but you have to operate within it ... or, work to change it.

As for financial gain ... well, it may be different in your state, but out here local law enforcement LOSES money on traffic enforcement. If we wanted to make money, I'd give my officers chalk sticks and golf carts ... the REAL money is in parking violations! We get more $$$ per violation (almost ALL of it, in fact), they don't go to court, and they cost very little to issue.

- Carl

 

[MemphisQueen]

Well, this has been an interesting discusison to say the least!

And as I (obviously) dont know much about the technical legal issues behind much of what occurs, I do agree with the contention that if the officers are using a specific device (as opposed to "eye balling" it, which is what I assume the "patrol vehicle" method is on the ticket), then that device should provide residual proof (as opposed to the officer's - yeah the screen flashed 70!).

You wouldn't want to go to a doctor and have him look at you and say "you look like you have diabetes" and that's it - the result of that would be to change your diet, receive costly prescriptions for insulin, test your blood sugar levels daily, etc. it will affect your future. instead you would demand to have lab results PROVING the diagnosis.

it's the same concept to me - if he has an instrument that's calibrated such that an officer can target a car and "Read" it's speed, then that reading should be captured more than just on the "screen" - it wouldn't take much to install a digital chip that would record each "capture" that could be downloaded back at the station with a printout detailing the time (and the time is always recorded on the ticket by the officer) and the speed for correlation to the citation. this would serve as proof.

it just seems silly to me to have these instruments that have to be calibrated every so often by law and are designed only to capture speed - yet they can't provide for a residual confirmation of that "captured speed".

 

[CdwJava]

Such a "chip" would not be proof of anything other than that the officer took a reading from some vehicle at the that speed ... it would NOT prove that he read YOUR vehicle at that time and that speed.

And radar training uses the radar/lidar as a tool to confirm the officer's visual estimation of speed - not the other way around. When an officer testifies it is generally that he observed a vehicle, estimated its speed, and then confirmed that visual estimation with the radar/lidar.

Arguing what the law SHOULD be or COULD be is neither here nor there. The status if the law is as it is ... until it is changed.

- Carl

 

[CarrieT]

And while officers may not be infallible, were their statements not be granted greater weight than the defendent's the system would collapse and there could be no traffic enforcement at all.



And you may be right - and his estimate may be wrong ... I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is your contention that there is some kind of wrong being done when the court grants the officer greater weight.

I remember reading about Women getting the right to vote I read about how some of the reasons given why they couldnt was because they were INFERIOR beings to men. (dont forget the racial issue either).
Just because the law may be this way now, does not mean that it is JUSTICE. As it is NOT justice when one persons word holds greater integrity, honor and weight in court than anothers without verifiable proof.
Im not arguing what the law IS, Carl, Im arguing why its WRONG. And yes a wrong IS being done when the court grants the officer greater weight. IF you were to carry that out into the world, then it would mean that .... in other issues, one persons word, integrity and honor would carry greater weight for making important decisions. Will we see a judges word holding greater weight than a jury's for the sake of capital punishment because a jury is 'inexperienced' and the judge is 'looking for inconsistencies' ?
Is the husbands word to carry more weight than the wifes? The Boys in the family more than the girls? Where does the line get drawn? How far will this misjustice spread?
As long as people sit back and accept that 'this is just the way it is' then it IS the way it will continue. Until the court collapses under the weight of all the cases it has to deal with due to officers being required to take responsibility for and PROVE the validity of the tickets they issue, then this IS the way it will remain, unfortunately.
By the way, the original poster is in GA I believe. Im in Medford.

Carrie

 

[CdwJava]

Just because the law may be this way now, does not mean that it is JUSTICE.

In YOUR opinion. In the court's it is the law. This is not the same as a civil rights issue so please don't throw THAT straw dog into the mix.

As it is NOT justice when one persons word holds greater integrity, honor and weight in court than anothers without verifiable proof.

Testimony IS evidence. We tend to give credence to those aprties that have no perceptable stake in the outcome. If testimony is not permitted as evidence - and the testimony of an uninvolved party such as a neutral witness or officer - then the system would collapse as almost no crime COULD be prosecuted ... certainly no traffic offense coul dever be pursued.

How could any traffic enforcement realistically be done if an officer's testimony was not given at least a little more credence than the defendant's?

Im not arguing what the law IS, Carl, Im arguing why its WRONG.

And this sight is about what the law IS, not what the law might be some day when all pervasive and invasive technology is deployed that allows a 24/7 360 degree observation of all or most areas.

And yes a wrong IS being done when the court grants the officer greater weight.

I disagree.

IF you were to carry that out into the world, then it would mean that .... in other issues, one persons word, integrity and honor would carry greater weight for making important decisions.

It already does! People with specific training, experience, abilities, etc. are naturally given more credence in other areas of life. And integrity has nothing to do with it ... one can be wrong and still be honest - they are simply mistaken.

Will we see a judges word holding greater weight than a jury's for the sake of capital punishment because a jury is 'inexperienced' and the judge is 'looking for inconsistencies' ?

They have different jobs, so the judge already holds a lot of weight in this regard as he has some discretion in sentencing already (dependin gon state law).

Is the husbands word to carry more weight than the wifes? The Boys in the family more than the girls? Where does the line get drawn? How far will this misjustice spread?

Irrelevant arguments. There are circumstances where one can argue that one person should have a greater say than anothers ... not all situations are equal.

As long as people sit back and accept that 'this is just the way it is' then it IS the way it will continue.

Then hire an attorney and challenge the whole system ... you will find that unless the officers in your area have had their integrity under wholesale assault, or the individual officer in your matter has been tainted, the officer will likely be granted the benefit of the doubt. but he will still have to make his case. If it is "I THINK she was speeding," the chances are the case will be dismissed. If he articulates why he believes you were speeding and it seems articulate and well thought out, his argument will likely hold greater weight than yours ./.. unless you have a similarly convincing explanation to demonstrate why you were NOT speeding.

Until the court collapses under the weight of all the cases it has to deal with due to officers being required to take responsibility for and PROVE the validity of the tickets they issue, then this IS the way it will remain, unfortunately.
By the way, the original poster is in GA I believe. Im in Medford.

Once again, testimony IS evidence ... and PROOF involves all things INCLUDING the credibility of verbal testimony. To discard that verbal testimony of a party with no stake in the outcome (the officer) would result in NO traffic enforcement at all, and many fewer criminal prosecutions for any offense.

If the only "proof" was the officer's testimony, and that testimony is given no more weight than the suspect's, then all a suspect would have to say is, "He planted the dope on me!" and a jury or judge would have no choice but to acquit.

The state of the law is that a charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, NOT beyond ANY doubt. To raise that burden of proof is to encourage anarchy.

- Carl

 

[CarrieT]

Testimony IS evidence. We tend to give credence to those aprties that have no perceptable stake in the outcome. If testimony is not permitted as evidence - and the testimony of an uninvolved party such as a neutral witness or officer - then the system would collapse as almost no crime COULD be prosecuted ... certainly no traffic offense coul dever be pursued.

Maybe this is where you and I are at loggerheads, as I dont agree that the officer is an impartial/uninvolved/neutral party. The officer is the ACCUSER. The officer is the one who's reputation/word/integrity and possibly his job, is at stake IF he were found to be making bogus traffic citations, therefore he does have a perceptable stake in the outcome. IMHO, as you said.

How could any traffic enforcement realistically be done if an officer's testimony was not given at least a little more credence than the defendant's?

The same as any other criminal accusation. With PROOF. With Testamony, sure, but not just ONE persons word against another, and certainly not the word of the accuser/arresting officer.
Testamony has to be corroborated, in a court, for it to count. Sure, someone can testify that 'Martha Stewart did in fact KNOW....' however, without other corroborating testamony or proof she wouldnt have been convicted..

It already does! People with specific training, experience, abilities, etc. are naturally given more credence in other areas of life.

Yes, you are right - I really liked the OPs analogy of the doctor and the diabetes diagnosis. Because no one would take the doctors word without tests being done even while in his experience he would most likely be right

Once again, testimony IS evidence ... and PROOF involves all things INCLUDING the credibility of verbal testimony. To discard that verbal testimony of a party with no stake in the outcome (the officer) would result in NO traffic enforcement at all, and many fewer criminal prosecutions for any offense.

Your arguement is based on your belief that the officer has no stake in the outcome (perhaps because you are an officer and therefore are trained to believe that). I, on the other hand, believe differently, perhaps because Im not an officer and therefore was not trained to believe as such.
However, a sentence from your previous reply stuck in my head - and sheds a bit more light on your thought processes. You stated that 30 years of not having had a ticket, was not proof of my driving experience, but rather was merely because I was lucky or smart enough to have not been 'caught'. The same idea I am trying to understand here, which is that of 'guilty until proven innocent' rather than what the constitution declares as my right of just the opposite. I havent received a ticket in 30 years, because I am a defensive, safe, careful and law abiding driver. I think there are few officers who could say the same for themselves when off duty

If the only "proof" was the officer's testimony, and that testimony is given no more weight than the suspect's, then all a suspect would have to say is, "He planted the dope on me!" and a jury or judge would have no choice but to acquit

lol I didnt realise that all a court needed to convict a suspect for drug charges was the officers testimony that the suspect had dope

The state of the law is that a charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, NOT beyond ANY doubt. To raise that burden of proof is to encourage anarchy.

Yes. A charge must be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words it must be PROVEN. Not that it can accept soley the testimony of the accuser, AS proof.
And I dont agree with your belief that to raise the standards would be encouragement of anarchy. "As a human race we needs must aspire to the highest degree of honesty and righteousness, always always."

I think, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic, as your 'belief' (that last statement') is moving into the realm of a bit scary.

But thank you very much for your insight and the benefit of your experience, as I appreciate your willingness to share that information.

Carrie

 

[CdwJava]

Maybe this is where you and I are at loggerheads, as I dont agree that the officer is an impartial/uninvolved/neutral party. The officer is the ACCUSER. The officer is the one who's reputation/word/integrity and possibly his job, is at stake IF he were found to be making bogus traffic citations, therefore he does have a perceptable stake in the outcome.

The question then becomes, "Why would he make it up?" He could be wrong, but why make it up?

Yes, an argument CAN be made that he did just that ... this usually comes as a result of other publicized problems with the agency or the officer involved. But without that assumption of neutrality, the system would shut down.

To give the officer's statements no greater weight then the defendants would, as I said, result in very few arrests and prosecutions for ANY offense.

Testamony has to be corroborated, in a court, for it to count.

No, it does not. It's nice if it is, but it very often is not.

If I stop Johnny Joe Doper for having no bike light and find that he's on probation, do a search, and discover dope, it's just my word against his that the dope was his. if he is allowed to say, "It wasn't mine," and have that hold the same weight, then why do any enforcement at all?

Sure, someone can testify that 'Martha Stewart did in fact KNOW....' however, without other corroborating testamony or proof she wouldnt have been convicted..

Testimony must be corrobarated with some probable cause to believe a crime occurred. In other words, if you were to walk up to me and confess to killing John Smith, but I can't find Smith's body or anything to tie you to such a killing (or that their had even BEEN a killing) you cannot be brought to trial.

Once again, your level of proof would shut the system down.

Your arguement is based on your belief that the officer has no stake in the outcome (perhaps because you are an officer and therefore are trained to believe that).

Actually, the courts have said it.

However, a sentence from your previous reply stuck in my head - and sheds a bit more light on your thought processes. You stated that 30 years of not having had a ticket, was not proof of my driving experience, but rather was merely because I was lucky or smart enough to have not been 'caught'.

No, I didn't say it did not shed light on your experience, it does not prove that you are a good driver - there IS a difference. Similarly, the fact that Ted Bundy had never been arrested before does not prove that he was not a serial killer ... because he was.

The same idea I am trying to understand here, which is that of 'guilty until proven innocent' rather than what the constitution declares as my right of just the opposite.

A court has to presume innocence - the police and the DA do not. It is our general function to remain neutral and impartial, but it is not always going to happen. Sometimes we plainly believe people are guilty.

I havent received a ticket in 30 years, because I am a defensive, safe, careful and law abiding driver. I think there are few officers who could say the same for themselves when off duty

Besides me, I presume.

And it may well be that you are a good, safe, driver. But the fact that you have not received a ticket does not necessarily follow that you are a safe driver - the lack of a record does not prove innocence.

lol I didnt realise that all a court needed to convict a suspect for drug charges was the officers testimony that the suspect had dope

Having the dope helps, too.

But in many DUI and drug influence cases the ONLY evidence may be the officer's testimony. In my state this varies by county, and I have made convictions on both without a chemical test. But then, my training and experience was such that our DA and the county courts excepted my observations as expert testimony. That is not to say that the defense never tried to counter it, but that they were unable to successfully do so.

Yes. A charge must be PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words it must be PROVEN. Not that it can accept soley the testimony of the accuser, AS proof.

As I have repeatedly said, testimony is evidence. In a traffic matter, it is up to the judge to weight the value and credibility of the parties involved ... in a superior court matter it is up to a jury to weigh the statements and ALL other evidence (which includes statements).

And I dont agree with your belief that to raise the standards would be encouragement of anarchy. "As a human race we needs must aspire to the highest degree of honesty and righteousness, always always."

I don't disagree with the quote. But, once more, to accept your level of corrobrated proof would render officers on patrol moot, traffic enforcement would be moot, most crimes would be unable to be prosecuted, and we would have to resort to waiting for the big crime to come down or establishing roving bands of CSI teams to respond to even minor offenses ... and even then, the evidence is arguable and comes down to one person's word (the criminalist's) over another (the suspect proclaiming innocence).

Fortunately, the world we live in still operates from a standard of reasonableness and not an inaccessable ideal. There may come a time when we have the technology for the kind of surveillance you want, but that time is nowhere near and it likely won't come to pass in my lifetime.

- Carl