What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Alaska
Just to get it out of the way, I admit no guilt.
Last September I was charged with violating Anchorage Municipal Code 9.26.030c, specifically 95 in a 55. The wording of that code is: "It is unlawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle in excess of the speed limits established by signs lawfully erected by the traffic engineer or by the State of Alaska." The AMC are available online at http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=12717&sid=2. This particular code is under Title 9, Chapter 9.26, and is entitled “Alteration of maximum limits”.
After performing a few nights researching, I decided to contest the ticket and went to court. The magistrate upon hearing the Sergeant's testimony when I attacked his certainty of stopping the correct motorcyclist told me in no uncertain terms that she had already "taken notice" the officer got the right person*. I then went after the accuracy of the instrument used to gauge my speed (the officer making a visual estimation and stating "I know when I was going over 100 miles an hour I wasn't gaining on him at all.", where the knowledge of his speed was tendered by his speedometer. The Sergeant admitted that 1) he is not currently certified to make visual estimates of vehicular speed 2) he had no certification as to the accuracy of his speedometer and 3) he has never personally checked the accuracy of his speedometer by testing it against another certified instrument.
The magistrate decided to take the facts of the case in consideration and sent out a written verdict of guilty, stating in part, "In this case, the Sergeant testified that according to his speedometer he was traveling over 100 mph and this evidence is consistent with all the other evidence presented in the case. The difference between 55 mph (the posted speed limit) and 95 mph (the speed for which Mr. ______ was cited) is substantial and I have no reasonable doubt that the speedometer was accurate at least within 40 mph. While Sergeant ______ was unable to provide an exact speed of Mr. ______'s motorcycle I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. ______ was driving at least 95 mph."
Now (finally) I get to my questions. Doesn't "the speedometer was accurate at least within 40 mph" indicate that the rider witnessed could have been driving anywhere between 60 mph and 140 mph, assuming the speedometer read 100 mph? Or does the law put a different meaning on a phrase like that? Does anyone else (given the information provided) see further grounds for appeal?
Thanks for your time and attention.
* On another tact, under direct questioning, the Sergeant admitted to not seeing the license plate of the speeding motorcycle and was unable to tender any evidence of how he determined the motorcycle he pulled over was the same one he witnessed speeding.
There are more than two miles between where the infraction was witnessed and where I was pulled over, including two road changes and multiple intersections. How stringent are the requirements for showing direct knowledge of events that transpire leading up to a speeding conviction? The Sergeant could not recall if either rider was wearing safety equipment, including a helmet or jacket. The only evidence he tendered was the make and model of the motorcycle he pulled over (from the ticket) and the fact that he identified me by my driver’s license.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Just to get it out of the way, I admit no guilt.
Last September I was charged with violating Anchorage Municipal Code 9.26.030c, specifically 95 in a 55. The wording of that code is: "It is unlawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle in excess of the speed limits established by signs lawfully erected by the traffic engineer or by the State of Alaska." The AMC are available online at http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=12717&sid=2. This particular code is under Title 9, Chapter 9.26, and is entitled “Alteration of maximum limits”.
After performing a few nights researching, I decided to contest the ticket and went to court. The magistrate upon hearing the Sergeant's testimony when I attacked his certainty of stopping the correct motorcyclist told me in no uncertain terms that she had already "taken notice" the officer got the right person*. I then went after the accuracy of the instrument used to gauge my speed (the officer making a visual estimation and stating "I know when I was going over 100 miles an hour I wasn't gaining on him at all.", where the knowledge of his speed was tendered by his speedometer. The Sergeant admitted that 1) he is not currently certified to make visual estimates of vehicular speed 2) he had no certification as to the accuracy of his speedometer and 3) he has never personally checked the accuracy of his speedometer by testing it against another certified instrument.
The magistrate decided to take the facts of the case in consideration and sent out a written verdict of guilty, stating in part, "In this case, the Sergeant testified that according to his speedometer he was traveling over 100 mph and this evidence is consistent with all the other evidence presented in the case. The difference between 55 mph (the posted speed limit) and 95 mph (the speed for which Mr. ______ was cited) is substantial and I have no reasonable doubt that the speedometer was accurate at least within 40 mph. While Sergeant ______ was unable to provide an exact speed of Mr. ______'s motorcycle I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. ______ was driving at least 95 mph."
Now (finally) I get to my questions. Doesn't "the speedometer was accurate at least within 40 mph" indicate that the rider witnessed could have been driving anywhere between 60 mph and 140 mph, assuming the speedometer read 100 mph? Or does the law put a different meaning on a phrase like that? Does anyone else (given the information provided) see further grounds for appeal?
Thanks for your time and attention.
* On another tact, under direct questioning, the Sergeant admitted to not seeing the license plate of the speeding motorcycle and was unable to tender any evidence of how he determined the motorcycle he pulled over was the same one he witnessed speeding.
There are more than two miles between where the infraction was witnessed and where I was pulled over, including two road changes and multiple intersections. How stringent are the requirements for showing direct knowledge of events that transpire leading up to a speeding conviction? The Sergeant could not recall if either rider was wearing safety equipment, including a helmet or jacket. The only evidence he tendered was the make and model of the motorcycle he pulled over (from the ticket) and the fact that he identified me by my driver’s license.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
