Oklahoma Police Speeding Ticket Procedure

What is the name of your state? Oklahoma

I've been investigating my ticket more and I need to know what is required of police in Oklahoma to issue a speeding ticket. Speeding, obviously, but what about locking radar on a vehicle? If used, will the POP feature of some radar guns be legal even though the POP feature can't be locked onto a vehicle? Apparently the POP feature was introduced in some police radar guns to defeat radar detectors but the police officer cannot lock the radar onto a vehicle in POP mode.

The reason I'm thinking that POP was used to issue my speeding ticket is because my Valentine One radar detector did not alert me to the cop's radar use. If you can give me some information as to what a police officer has to do to issue a speeding ticket in Oklahoma I would really appreciate it.

Here are links to Speed Measurement Laboratories tests and MPH Industries Bee III radar guns.

[url]http://www.speedzones.com/[/url]
[url]http://mphindustries.com/products_home/radar_pop.html[/url]

Lol, I guess everyone is just as clueless as I am. Common sense tells me that a cop has to get a lock on your vehicle to clock your speed and the POP mode of a radar gun will not lock onto a vehicle. Hell, I don't even know if the cop used this radar gun with the POP feature. All I know is that my top of the line radar detector did not alert me before he pulled me over. He may have lied and never clocked me at all and just showed me a reading from a previous stop. I've heard that cops use estimation sometimes but an estimate is an estimate, not actual information.

[tipdrill]

First of all pop radar does lock on to your car briefly. ie. pop. Its used to detect a speeder then the officer uses the traditional radar or laser to get the official reading for the ticket. Sad to say but your expensive detector does not detect pop. Therefore, your detector did not pick up the pop and the officer nailed you with laser which often does not set off your detector either.

The officer cannot use the reading from the pop radar to write a ticket. This is almost funny.

BTW, pop does not jam or prevent a detector from working.

Did you read up on those websites? POP does not lock onto a target, it has to be switched over to standard radar/laser to get an official lock on a vehicle, which my Valentine One would have picked up. You're right, my V1 doesn't detect POP, hence the reason it didn't alert me to it IF the cop used it. The cop did not use laser, he used radar. How do I know? Because he told me that he used radar.

If you read the MPH webpage I listed, it will tell you this at the bottom, "MPH recommends that the officer obtain a tracking history of a speed violator by operating the radar in normal transmit mode after determining with POP mode that the vehicle is speeding. This is because most radar case law is based on tracing a vehicle in normal radar operation. The information obtained in POP mode is accurate and reliable, but may not be supported by case law in court."

The above statement is the reason I posted this thread. And POP is designed to prevent a radar detector from picking it up but most high dollar radar detectors (except mine) will pick it up anyway.

Are you a cop?

[JETX]

See, you'll learn to NOT respond to a poster who whines.... "Why no responses?" less than 1 1/2 hours AFTER his initial post. These are the kind that expect a response..... and then get pissed off and argue if you don't answer the way they want you to.

[dequeendistress]

Sure there was not Lidar?

Yes, I'm sure there was no lidar. Thanks for the response.

[CdwJava]

Of course, we DO know that radar and lidar devices are used only to confirm a visual estimation of speed and not as the sole instrument of speed, right? It IS entirely valid to make a visual estimation of speed without the radar.

And I am always amazed at the faith people put in these radar detectors ... they have so much faith in these things that they are willing to ignore anything and everything else when they don't work. There are times that they just don't get a reading ... OR, they get a reading when they have already been hit.

If done right, you get a visual estimation on the vehicle you are tracking, you activate the radar and get a reading, and about the time the indicator on the Valentine goes off, the officer gets his reading and has his radar confirmation. All that's left is the stop and citation.

Carl

[Robbie0723]

I can see it now "... but Judge, my radar detector didn't go off so he couldn't have properly measured my speed..."

Given the training of the officers and technology in the latest speed measuring devices, radar detectors are virtually useless for anyone running faster than surrounding traffic or when alone.

[James Young]

Question for all of the LEOs in these fora:

Can you demonstrate proof that using radar/lidar positively affects the big three traffic safety rates? These are crash rate, injury rate, and fatality rate per 100 million VMT. I'll even lower the bar for you. Can you even show a correlation that indicates the use of radar/lidar lowers these rates? You would have to show two things, BOTH of which must be true to support your case. First, you'll need to show that radar/lidar actually slows drivers down from their normal speed (measured by 85th and 95th percentiles). Second, you'll need to show that those slower speeds actually result in a decline in the above three key safety rates. If either of these two conditions fails, your case is disproven.

Please show your work and your sources.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by James Young

Please show your work and your sources.

Not only is your post rude and disruptive by trying to hijack someone elses thread, but WE DO NOT DO HOMEWORK!! Do your own!!

[CdwJava]

First, I do not have to prove anything ... my job is to enforce the laws with the tools provided - and radar and lidar devices are excellent tools at confirming visual estimation of speed. And it can be easily proven that unsafe speed is a common cause of many (most?) collisions.

I do not have to prove that lidar or radar does any of those things. That is NOT the function of the devices. It is the effective enforcement of speed and other traffic laws that results in decreased damage, death and injury. It is not measured in the tools we use, but in the enforcement.

The tools are a means to an end. And in addition to radars and lidars, we use pens and pads of paper formed in to citation books ... by themselves, these tools also do nothing to slow people down and prevent accidents. But, taken togather, they work pretty well.

Carl

[James Young]

JetX writes:

Not only is your post rude and disruptive by trying to hijack someone elses thread, but WE DO NOT DO HOMEWORK!! Do your own!!

No hijack is in progress. Whether it’s “rude” or not is irrelevant.

I’ve done my homework and have done so probably longer than most of the posters have been alive. The LEOs are public employees imposing a public policy and are the ones making the positive assertion; therefore the burden of proof is theirs.

[James Young]

CdwJava writes:

First, I do not have to prove anything ... my job is to enforce the laws with the tools provided - and radar and lidar devices are excellent tools at confirming visual estimation of speed.

No, you don’t have to prove anything as you can always hide behind the arrogance of the badge. However, if you want to be credible, you do need to prove the assumptions underlying your actions.


And it can be easily proven that unsafe speed is a common cause of many (most?) collisions. [emphasis added]

But “unsafe speed” is not what modern LEOs patrol for and we both know it. They’re looking for the easy catch, they guy running 75 mph in a 65 mph zone where the 95th percentile is probably 75 mph anyway. Or they’re running a speed trap with artificially low limits to generate a few extra dollars for their village coffers in places such as New Rome, OH and Stringtown, OK. Those are not “unsafe speeds.”

Even the vitriolic anti-speed NHTSA can’t prove that speeding is the cause of many, much less “most” crashes. They and IIHS have been trying to do this for years, cherry-picking data, misreporting, even manufacturing data, and they have failed to prove the connection between speed and crash causation. Speed by any measure – median, mean, 85th and 95th percentile – has increased since we have been keeping records and the fatality rates have declined to an all-time low. The conclusion is inescapable: speed and speed control are irrelevant to traffic safety.


I do not have to prove that lidar or radar does any of those things. That is NOT the function of the devices. It is the effective enforcement of speed and other traffic laws that results in decreased damage, death and injury. It is not measured in the tools we use, but in the enforcement.


The tools are a means to an end. And in addition to radars and lidars, we use pens and pads of paper formed in to citation books ... by themselves, these tools also do nothing to slow people down and prevent accidents. But, taken togather, they work pretty well.

You cannot prove or even improve your case by simply restating it. That’s what I’m trying to get you to prove: that enforcement results in an improvement in traffic safety. If it does then you should be able to show it. If it does not then we need to take a different policy tack. Using bad tools and bad policy to reach some end is fundamentally dishonest. However, the institutional behavior of traffic law enforcement has been willing, even eager, to ignore efficacy in the name of expediency since at least 1974.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by James Young

No hijack is in progress.

Than how else would you explain the FACT that this thread was not started by you, your post has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the thread... and that your post is diverting the forums attention FROM the original post... and poster??
That, from any direction, is HIJACKING this posters thread.

Whether it’s “rude” or not is irrelevant.

Not to the 'victim' (original poster) who may have had additional questions or concerns about HIS subject.

I’ve done my homework and have done so probably longer than most of the posters have been alive. The LEOs are public employees imposing a public policy and are the ones making the positive assertion; therefore the burden of proof is theirs.

Simply, 'they' don't owe you anything and have NO obligation to prove crap to you.
And even if we (as a former LEO) did, we have NO obligation to you in Oklahoma (since NONE of the LEO's on this forum are from there).