Moving Radar Error?

[miznor]

What is the name of your state? Washington

What is the name of your state? Washington

I was traveling ND on I5, I was in the rigt lane at 55mph After changing lanes I then sped up to 65 over taking 2 cars in the right. After about 30 sec I hit cruise control and continue NB About 20 to 30 yards ahead in the right lane in front of a full sized pick-up truck I saw a cop. Since I wan't too far over the limit of 60 I figured I was ok. The trooper then slowed down pulled off the road, pulled back on the road got behind me. and after 20 to 30 seconds pulled me over and said I was speeding doing 76 in a 60 zone. The speed law in WA are not absolute but I know that dosen't mean a whole lot to a judge or a police officer. but if I didn't endanger anyone nor did I drive recklessly and considering the "Moving Radar Error" : Cosine Error Theory:
Actual Speed x Cosine of Incidence Angle = Radar's Shown Speed

Cosine of 37 degrees is 0.80
50 MPH x 0.80 = 40 MPH
and also

patrol speed is lower
it will ADD that error on to the target speed. So the target speed (YOU) will
read higher than you were actually traveling. Here's the theory and a
problem:

Moving Radar Theory:
Closing Speed - Patrol Speed = Target Speed

The ACTUAL speeds for these are:
Patrol Car Speed - 60 MPH
Target Car Speed - 60 MPH
Closing Speed - 120 MPH

I do recal when I was approaching from the far left the trooper was trying to slow down.

My question is can I win this if I fight it?
and do I have a chance in hell?

 

[David Jonathan]

the sine/cosine theory is one that doesn't work anymore, there are electronics built into radar units that automatically calculate the angle and rate of deflection - this was done because patrol cars couldn't properly calculate vehicles moving up or down hills.

The moving radar theory was also debunked with the advancement of the electronics that allowed for the automatic sine/cosine calculations. Most (and I say most, because it's not always ALL) radar systems are tied into the cars computer, VIA the speed output signal on the computer relaying the information to the dashboard indicator, which as we all know is calibrated to read it's true and correct speed. This is done on an eddy current style chassis dynamometer (mustangdyne sells most of these for government usage, often found in emissions testing stations across the USA)

The only way to effectivly get around any type of radar is with a litharge based paint (not just clearcoat) or with an active microwave jammer - Unfortunately, both are highly illegal.

YOU may be able to get away with it, if you have your speedometer calibrated, and can prove that it was not accurate at the time, but you have since gotten it repaired. Tire size, gear ratios, and many other factors can play into this, and even then, you may still have to pay the speeding ticket.

--Dave.

 

[cepe10]

I'd attack the calibration of the tuning forks used to calibrate the radar unit and the speedometer calibration of the patrol vehicle -

The trooper will likely not show up in court and thus be able to testify to the foundation of the radar evidence - even if he was a trechinican qualified to do so. He will only send in a paper.

I fought and won a similar case while in graduate school in WA state - with a moving patrol vehicle going the opposite direction - there is also the interferences issues (harmonics) and impropoer target identification - moving radar is the most complex and thus the easiest to screw up the measurement...

the highway safety deskbook goes into this...and Faubion is a good resource as well

http://members.cox.net/reconokc/radar.html

Check out this site as well:
http://www.kcll.org/researchhelp/researchguides/trafficinfractions.html

There is a cottage industry of lawyers in WA as well for traffic infractions - and they do fairly well http://www.mucklestone.com/

 

[Robbie0723]

Hard to believe this could be possible... but if you are sure he used a hand held radar in a moving vehicle, I think you are home free, the patrol car's velocity would be added to yours if so.

In any case fight it. A lawyer has the best chance to advise and defend.

Oh, someone will be along later to tell you to start your own thread next time

 

[David Jonathan]

Hard to believe this could be possible... but if you are sure he used a hand held radar in a moving vehicle, I think you are home free, the patrol car's velocity would be added to yours if so.

In any case fight it. A lawyer has the best chance to advise and defend.

Oh, someone will be along later to tell you to start your own thread next time

If you fight this ticket, you will lose, unless the radar gun itself can be proven faulty ...

how much money are you willing to spend on Expert witnesses?

--Dave.

 

[racer72]

Please do not follow Cepe's advice.

The trooper will likely not show up in court and thus be able to testify to the foundation of the radar evidence

In Washington, the officer is not required to show up unless subpoena'd by the defendant. If you don't subpeona him, he won't be there. The prosecuting attorney will be there as the presenter of evidence, using the officer's signed and sworn statement, against you. There is no requirement for the presentation of the radar evidence unless the defense wants to use it as evidence. Cepe's one experience doesn't mean crap. I attend traffic court at a miniumum of once a month for laughs and grins, he hasn't been to a court in this state in years. If you have an otherwise clean driving record, ask for a deferrment. Keep your nose clean for a year and the ticket disappears.

 

[racer72]

Racer - Do you know if the same is true for Ohio?

I don't give a damn about Ohio. You hijacked a thread that wasn't yours. Start your own next time.

 

[cepe10]

There is no requirement for the presentation of the radar evidence unless the defense wants to use it as evidence.

Beware, Again the LEO apologists are misrepresenting the facts. I'm sure a quick call to a legal proffessional in the area like mucklestone http://www.mucklestone.com/ can verify this for you.

There is a requirement to support radar measurements in Washington State as supported in city of bellevue v. hellenthal, the IRLJ, and numerous other case law. There is a requirement to provide foundation for evidence in EVERY state.

The STATE has the buirden of proof.

Unless he wants to provide certification the State has to provide an expert witness as state specifically in the IRLJ.

You should supeona the officer - otherwise he will send in a form. And challenge the unit calibration - there is a good chance it has not been calibrated for speed accuracy - kustom signals won't even certify their own units anymore.

That being said you can also try for the deferment but you only get one every 7 years.

 

[racer72]

There is a requirement to support radar measurements in Washington State as supported in city of bellevue v. hellenthal, the IRLJ, and numerous other case law. There is a requirement to provide foundation for evidence in EVERY state.

This is part of the signed and sworn statement submitted by the officer, it is generally not brought up unless the defense wished to challenge it, which is rare from my experience. A copy of the statement is supplied to each defendant prior to court.