PA speeding ,radar over 3 lanes

[sargentpi]

my state is PA. quick question, i was in the far left lane (there is 3 lanes going the direction i was going) the officer was on the side of the road on the far right side. so do i have any defense that either its not reliable to radar over three lanes, that he shouldve found a place to sit on the left side of the road since there is some traffic and that gives some doubt. if not, i guess i can at least ask for the calibration date. if anyone knows, thanks

 

[AlanShore]

my state is PA. quick question, i was in the far left lane (there is 3 lanes going the direction i was going) the officer was on the side of the road on the far right side. so do i have any defense that either its not reliable to radar over three lanes, that he shouldve found a place to sit on the left side of the road since there is some traffic and that gives some doubt.

NO, you have no defense.

 

[sargentpi]

alan ur wrong

according to the national highway traffic safety administration, "because the devices are not target specific, but rely on the operator for accuracy, they are more difficult to use in congested areas. training can help officers use radar in congested trafic areas but will be more difficult than using it in less congested areas." So you know it all aka moron lol the law is about interpretation so to me them saying "it is difficult to use" means reasonable doubt as i was in the far left lane and it is reasonable to assume there were at least one or more cars in the middle or far right lane which his radar could have hit so bingo NOT GUILTY. thanks for nothing, i figured it out myself as usual ;-)

 

[Zigner]

it is reasonable to assume there were at least one or more cars in the middle or far right lane which his radar could have hit

You shouldn't answer unless you can give something even resembling accurate advice.
You cannot "assume" there were other vehicles between the OP and the police officer. In fact, how much you wanna bet the officer will testify there were no other vehicles to interfere with his usage of the unit?

 

[loulblades]

The radar serial #, calibration date and calibration station is on your ticket. If you plead not guilty and have a hearing, a calibration certificate must be presented that corresponds to that info.

 

[AlanShore]

according to the national highway traffic safety administration, "because the devices are not target specific, but rely on the operator for accuracy, they are more difficult to use in congested areas. training can help officers use radar in congested trafic areas but will be more difficult than using it in less congested areas." So you know it all aka moron lol the law is about interpretation so to me them saying "it is difficult to use" means reasonable doubt as i was in the far left lane and it is reasonable to assume there were at least one or more cars in the middle or far right lane which his radar could have hit so bingo NOT GUILTY. thanks for nothing, i figured it out myself as usual ;-)

Yes and you should let legal professionals interpret the law, not you. You come here not looking for advice but just for someone to agree with you. Not to mention most officers go through radar training thus your argument to assert reasonable doubt is completely irrelevant, not to mention your argument is based upon what side of the road the officer was on. You have no defense, Your the legal moron. Another one of 99% who come here just looking for someone to agree with him.

so do i have any defense that either its not reliable to radar over three lanes, that he shouldve found a place to sit on the left side of the road since there is some traffic and that gives some doubt.

Yes judge I am not guilty judge because the officer should have caught me speeding from the left side not the right side, because I am not sure but there could have been some traffic that may have interrupted radar and gives me some doubts. HAHAHAHAHA. Go to court with that defense, watch the cop, judge and da, laugh and you get found guilty. With big fine, big court cost, and big points.

 

[camdenle]

according to the national highway traffic safety administration, "because the devices are not target specific, but rely on the operator for accuracy, they are more difficult to use in congested areas. training can help officers use radar in congested trafic areas but will be more difficult than using it in less congested areas." So you know it all aka moron lol the law is about interpretation so to me them saying "it is difficult to use" means reasonable doubt as i was in the far left lane and it is reasonable to assume there were at least one or more cars in the middle or far right lane which his radar could have hit so bingo NOT GUILTY. thanks for nothing, i figured it out myself as usual ;-)

KeepKeep in mind some of these poster's are not knowledgeable at all in traffic law or US constitutional law (burden of proof, foundation for evidence, etc) - there subscribe to a feudal lord system in which everyone is guilty They don't care what the International Association of Chiefs of Police or the National Highway Transportation Safety Admin or the Case law says

Keep in mind in PA - They have testing center for the Radar units themselves...and have a foundational requirement to bring in the certified copy of the current calibration report...

http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA3368.html

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Gail DENNY, Appellant.

"We therefore hold that in order for results of a radar device to be properly admissible at trial, the Commonwealth must offer evidence, independent of the certificate of accuracy, to show that the testing facility has been appointed by the Department of Transportation as an official testing station pursuant to the requirements of section 3368(d) of [372 Pa.Super. 323] the Vehicle Code. This independent evidence may consist of either a separate document from the Secretary of Transportation under seal or a citation to the Pennsylvania Bulletin which lists the station as an official testing station.

Judgment of sentence vacated."

Email or Private Message me and I can get you the case law...

There is a chance of (A) the officer not showing, (B) the officer not bringing the proper documentation - they often "forget" this requirement for various reasons, and (C) even if convicted the judge gives you some relief just for showing up and being diligent...

 

[loulblades]

Gail v Denny requires the officer to provide independent proof that a cal. station was appointed by the DOT. This is usually done when the officer provides judicial notice that the station is listed in the current PA Bulletin. This was reaffirmed in Comm. v Kaufman.

Also see Comm. v Gernshiemer, Comm. v Gussey, Comm. v Kittelberger, Comm. v Nardei and Comm v Cummings

 

[camdenle]

Gail v Denny requires the officer to provide independent proof that a cal. station was appointed by the DOT. This is usually done when the officer provides judicial notice that the station is listed in the current PA Bulletin. This was reaffirmed in Comm. v Kaufman.

Also see Comm. v Gernshiemer, Comm. v Gussey, Comm. v Kittelberger, Comm. v Nardei and Comm v Cummings

Very True! I was thinking of Comm v. Cummings regarding the certificate issue...

The sole issue on appeal is whether in a prosecution for driving in excess of the maximum speed limit, the Commonwealth may enter into evidence a photocopy of the certificate of timing device accuracy required by 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3368(d). We hold that the lower court correctly rejected the evidentiary offer of the photocopy in this case and, accordingly, affirm the order below dismissing the prosecution.

 

[AlanShore]

Its not that we believe everyone is guilty or that we don't know case law (cause most people on this forum, know much more law than you), its that "real" lawyers dont fight traffic tickets like that, they call their buddy the da and get them reduced. They dont go to trial for traffic tickets. Plus the OP here is guilty like most others.

 

[loulblades]

...its that "real" lawyers dont fight traffic tickets like that, they call their buddy the da and get them reduced. They dont go to trial for traffic tickets. Plus the OP here is guilty like most others.

In PA, the "da" doesn't get involved in most traffic tickets at the hearing level.

Although I have never used a "real" lawyer to fight my speeding tickets, my brother did, went to the hearing (with lawyer in tow) and the charge was dismissed when it was determined by the cal. certificate that the cal. date was beyond the required time.

Also "guilty" is up to the judge or magistrate to determine.