Radar speed ticket behind the police car

[psat]

What is the name of your state?
MA

I got ticket in 30mph zone for speeding at 45mph. Speed was posted at 30mph on the roas and cop noted 90/18 traffic violation which is for special roads and conditions. I think that is incorrect, it should have been ticketed as 90/17. Am I correct?

Police car was parked on the side of street and police officer was sitting in the car looking forward (not pointing any speed gun at me). I was driving towards him and behind his parked car. My car came from behind his car and as soon as I passed the police car then police officer flashed the lights and I immediately pulled over within 30 feet of his car. He told me I was speeding and maked both "radar" and "estimated speed" on the ticket.
Can police detect speed of car by radar if my car is coming behind his car and he was not pointing any speed gun at my car?
By law he should have checked my speed for 1/8th mile (by 90/17 MA law) and he did not follow me for 1/8th mile after I passed his car then how is this ticket correct?

How should defend myself in the court?
What are my chances to win the trial?

Thanks in advance.
--------

First of all, thanks to all you replied to my original post. This is very helpful.

I have follow-up questions especially to the "cepe10" member:

1. Do police always use rear-view mirror when using radar to check speed of car coming from rear? Can radar be directly targeted to a particular car coming from behind?

2. How can "Autolock" give faulty measurement?

3. Can officer check speed for 400 feet only as mentioned in the case in your earlier message? Because MA law says for 30mph speed limit, speed needs to be checked for 1/8 mile (660 feet)? My question: Is there special law/provision that allows to check the speed with less distance than required by law in case of car coming from rear?

4. What about incorrect 90/18 code which is for special conditions done with engineering study? I think, the officer should have checked 90/17 code because speed was posted on the road.

Thanks in advance.

------

 

[CdwJava]

Radars mounted in patrol vehicles are often "dual antenna" devices. That is, they can be set to monitor speed from either the front or the back of the car, and for traffic either approaching or going away from him. If he was monitoring traffic approaching from behind, he could have lit you up as you approached him automatically without "aiming" anything.

If you think 17 applies, then you will have to argue why the speed limit was NOT an appropriately signed or designated "special regulation" as applied under the section you were cited for.

- Carl

 

[cepe10]

What is the name of your state?
MA

I got ticket in 30mph zone for speeding at 45mph. Speed was posted at 30mph on the roas and cop noted 90/18 traffic violation which is for special roads and conditions. I think that is incorrect, it should have been ticketed as 90/17. Am I correct?

Police car was parked on the side of street and police officer was sitting in the car looking forward (not pointing any speed gun at me). I was driving towards him and behind his parked car. My car came from behind his car and as soon as I passed the police car then police officer flashed the lights and I immediately pulled over within 30 feet of his car. He told me I was speeding and maked both "radar" and "estimated speed" on the ticket.
Can police detect speed of car by radar if my car is coming behind his car and he was not pointing any speed gun at my car?
By law he should have checked my speed for 1/8th mile (by 90/17 MA law) and he did not follow me for 1/8th mile after I passed his car then how is this ticket correct?

How should defend myself in the court?
What are my chances to win the trial?

Thanks in advance.

NMA of MA has a great resource page...

http://motorists.org/ma/home.html

I know the courts have ruled that using the rear view mirror for target identification is not acceptable - I'll try to find that case for you to use...

Using a rear mounted antanae is problematic for a number of other reasons as well - The LEO is not the one who mounted it (or checks the alignment) so he is oblivious to where it is actually directing the beam.

The beam is very wide...

And generally not getting a stable tracking history can give erroneous readings - thus if you can get him to testify to using autolock you can use that as a basis for a faulty measurement...NHTSA as well as case law goes into this...

Obviously if there was any other traffic (even in the opposing lanes) that would be another basis.

But ultimately the lack of proper calibration of the tuning forks used to calibrate the instrument is typically your main target...

 

[cepe10]

Here's the rear view mirror ruling I was thinking of... I like the officer's "estimate" of 68 mph) rather than 65 or 75

In this case, the officer, who was trained in the independent estimate of speeds of moving vehicles, testified that he first observed the defendant's vehicle approximately 400 feet to his rear, through his rear view mirror, and that, at that point, he estimated defendant's speed to be 68 m.p.h. This court is constrained to conclude, as did Judge Van Voorhis, in his concurring opinion in People v. Dusing, (supra) 5 N.Y.2d, p. 130, 181 N.Y.S.2d p. 498, 155 N.E.2d p. 396, when he was considering the speed estimates of two officers, that: 'Looking at an automobile in the rear view mirror . . . under those circumstances supplies an insufficient foundation for opinions concerning the speed of the vehicle.' In rejecting the rear view mirror estimate of the officer, this court is cognizant of the majority opinion in Dusing (supra), p. 128, 181 N.Y.S.2d p. 495, 155 N.E.2d p. 394, but notes that in that case the Court of Appeals had under consideration two separate observations, only one of which was through a rear view mirror, and an 'appellate court's holding . . . that as a matter of law neither of the policemen had adequate opportunity to check the speed of defendant's car approaching from their rear . . .' In reversing the lower court, Judge Desmond stated: 'The relative positions of the policemen and the approaching car . . . were factors going to the weight of the officer's opinion testimony. But the testimony itself was not as a matter of law inadmissible.' The Court of Appeals did not have to reach the question of whether an independent estimate of speed through a rear view mirror alone could sustain a conviction.

At trial, in the instant case, the People were permitted to offer evidence of the officer's opinion as to the defendant's speed as seen through his rear view mirror at 400 feet. Nevertheless, without the benefit of another expert opinion, i.e., a second police officer; and faced with defendant's testimony that his speed had not exceeded 55 m.p.h., this court cannot find that the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of speeding, even where the testimony of the officer is offered to bolster the evidence of a speed reading from a radar device, the same not having been properly tested, and the estimate having been made through a rear view mirror.

 

[You Are Guilty]

What does a NY case have to do with MA traffic law?

 

[Not Guilty99]

What does a NY case have to do with MA traffic law?

What does your post have to do with any kinda of advice?

 

[You Are Guilty]

What does your post have to do with any kinda of advice?

Oh good, another member of my Fan Club (did you get your hat yet?) Since you are clearly as stupid as the other members though, let me spell this one out for you.

The case cited by Pepe in purported support of his proposition that visual speed estimation via a rearview mirror is insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict is from a New York court. New York, while also one of the original 13 colonies, is nevertheless not the same state as Massachusetts, which is where the OP received his ticket. Since NY's rules of evidence do not apply in MA, I was pointing out that using the NY case will not be particularly helpful to his defense, unless his goal was to make the judge laugh.

 

[racer72]

What does your post have to do with any kinda of advice?

We have a new record, the stupidest first post in the history of the Free Advice Forums. Please post your mailing address and you will recieve your award certificate and a check for 17 cents.

 

[Not Guilty99]

lol!

I'm glad I got to make you two feel better about yourselves!

Keep up the good work!

bwaaaaaaaaaahahhahahhaa

 

[trieroffact]

What does a NY case have to do with MA traffic law?

Personally I would say:

"Your honor, here is some appropriate case law for your consideration along with relevant case law from sister states." and hand over the case laws...


For your information real Courts often take guidance from other states. For example in
State v. Abeskaron the N.J. Superior court noted case law from other states regarding laser admissibility...

we note that the LTI Marksman was found to be scientifically reliable in several out of state cases. Goldstein v. State, 664 A.2d 375 (Md. 1994) (finding that the use of lasers to measure speed is generally accepted in the scientific community, and an inquiry into the LTI 20-20 device itself was unnecessary because the Frye test was designed to test theories and processes and should not be applied to each individual brand-name product); People v. Clemons, 642 N.Y.S.2d 760 (Justice Ct. 1995) (finding based on testimony by Dr. Gazari, that the LTI 20-20 laser was reliable and generally acceptable); People v. DePass, 629 N.Y.S.2d 367 (Village Ct. 1995) (after testimony by Dr. Gazari, the court was satisfied that the use of the Marksman laser is based upon well accepted scientific principles and that its speed readings are admissible). But see Izer v. State, 511 S.E.2d 625 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)(conviction of speeding motorist based upon evidence from a laser speed detection device was reversed because the State failed to bring forth any expert testimony to establish that using laser-based devices to calculate vehicle speed had reached a scientific stage of verifiable certainty).

 

[You Are Guilty]

You can certainly try to offer any caselaw you like, but here, I wouldn't count on the NY case having any weight. MA appears to even let lay witnesses testify as to their opinions on speed, so I doubt they'll have much of a problem with a trained officer doing so. Trying to use other states' rules of evidence is quite a bit different than using cases about substantive issues.

 

[WindyAruba]

this may help as well...

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/traffic.html

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/DownTheRoadWeb/images/SpeedMeasuringDevice.pdf

2.4 Tuning Fork Calibration
When tested in accordance with §5.4, the measured frequency of each tuning fork shall
be within ±½ % of that specified by the manufacturer (§2.2.2.3) in the certificate of
calibration for that tuning fork.

So if proof is not provided that the tuning forks used to calibrate the unit are currently certified and accurate the evidience should be inadmissable.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Last edited by m ****** : Yesterday at 03:27 PM.

So which member of my fan club didn't like the "zoo" comment? Hit too close to home?

 

[trieroffact]

You can certainly try to offer any caselaw you like, but here, I wouldn't count on the NY case having any weight. MA appears to even let lay witnesses testify as to their opinions on speed, so I doubt they'll have much of a problem with a trained officer doing so. Trying to use other states' rules of evidence is quite a bit different than using cases about substantive issues.

If a state has no appropriate case law or even if it does they can and most certainly do take guidance from other superior courts across the country.

Also, FYI traffic law is necessarily going to be guided by federal constraints and guidelines. It would be confusing if stop signs varied dramatically from state to state thus the MUTCD – manual for uniform traffic control devices. Radar and Lidar operation are guided as well on a national level by the IACP (international association of chiefs of police) as well as the NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Administration). Most agencies have a training process based on IACP/NHTSA endorsement and use devices on the approved and certified listings.

From this standpoint the Perlman decision from the NY high court can certainly be taken into consideration in a MA court. It should carry a lot more wiat than a layperson saying "we are allowed" without any supporting authority, unless it is a complete kangeroo kourt

In this example the MD court take guidance from previous case law in Ohio, Kansas, LA etc. with regard to a traffic law consideration.

Myers v. Bright, 327 Md. 395, 609 A.2d 1182 (Md.App. 08/06/1992)
“To be sure, there was testimony that the pickup truck driver waved Bright on. But Bright cannot attribute the accident solely to him. The situation that confronted Bright "is one that occurs to motorists every day." Van Jura v. Row, 175 Ohio St. 41, 191 N.E.2d 536, 537 (1963). Someone wanting to make a left turn is not relieved of responsibility because another motorist signals that the coast is clear. Bright's "obligation, as he moved left across the path of other vehicles, was to keep a lookout for such traffic, and not depend upon the act of another." 191 N.E.2d at 538. See also Kemp v. Armstrong,40 Md. App. 542, 546, 392 A.2d 1161, 1164 (1978), cert. denied, 284 Md. 741 (1979) (One driver signaled another that the way was clear for a U-turn; it wasn't, and an accident ensued. Statutory duty "with respect to changing lanes can not be delegated to other drivers on the highway."); Dawson v. Griffin, 249 Kan. 115, 816 P.2d 374, 379 (1991) (Truck driver's hand signal unclear as to whether it was a guarantee of safety or a courteous gesture to indicate driver was yielding the right of way; nevertheless, the signaled driver "had a nondelegable duty to yield to oncoming traffic while making a left turn; and the only reasonable and safe thing to assume from a hand wave is, ' I won't hit you.'"); Government Emp. Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 351 So.2d 809, 810 (La.App. 1977) ("Mr. Decuir's signal was intended to give Mr. Thomas permission to pass in front of Mr. Decuir's stopped truck. Mr. Thomas cannot be relieved thereby of his obligation to keep a proper lookout for oncoming traffic in other lanes of traffic. His misinterpretation of Mr. Decuir's courteous.”

In the case being discussed MA has no appropriate case law governing the use of rear view windows for target identification. The NY high court addresses this issue directly and thus is a good resource for consideration in any state. For this reason, and given that using the rear view window for accurate target identification is ridiculous in itself and is not endorsed by any agency in the U.S., presenting high court case law for the court to aid in considering the matter is in no way out of line.

And by all means this need not be the entire defense...

 

[trieroffact]

now this is too funny...

The Mass. authority on radar specifically relies on the NY Perlman case

Commonwealth v. Kathleen Whynaught, 377 Mass. 14 (1979)

We assume that Judges will closely examine the nature of all testing procedures and that they will be guided in their admission decisions by the quality of the tests performed, rather than by their quantity. See People v. Perlman, supra at 978.