Speeding, 82/65 contestation question

[RBE]

I live in CA. This ticket was outside walnut creek. Basically this is the first ticket where I wasn't actually speeding. I was being tailgated by a woman in a minivan. I sped up to pass the cars on my right, then moved over when it was safe. I saw a cop on the side of the road and he came out as soon as I passed him. He got next to me and over his loudspeaker told me to follow him--this unnerved me but I did his bidding. He pulled over me and the woman tailgating me. He told me I was doing 82 in a 65. I was certain I never got that high, so I asked him to show me his radar--which I thought they legally had to--and he refused to. He said he clocked her at 84 after me, and "she passed me very slowly, so 82 sounds about right doesn't it?"

My question is, can't I use that this guy wouldn't show me his radar in court? That's pretty sleazy in my opinion, and bs. What do you guys think? Another officer showed up, who mentioned after I told him my story it was LIDAR not radar, which makes no difference to me except that I was pretty sure they have a track record of screwing up the speed reading when you clock two cars really close to each other--say one passing the other just as the officer hits it?

 

[racer72]

The officer does not have to show you the radar or lidar. In fact, many police agencies prohibit this, it could place you and the officer in danger. I would suggest talking to a local attorney, nothing in your post suggests the ticket was not valid or warranted.

 

[RBE]

The officer does not have to show you the radar or lidar. In fact, many police agencies prohibit this, it could place you and the officer in danger. I would suggest talking to a local attorney, nothing in your post suggests the ticket was not valid or warranted.

You're kidding? They're advised against it? Well I think that's pretty dirty. That I wasn't actually going that fast makes it a point of principle or I'd traffic school it. Well I guess I'll talk to an attorney then. Any other suggestions? Thanks racer.

 

[CdwJava]

I was certain I never got that high, so I asked him to show me his radar--which I thought they legally had to--and he refused to.

He was right - he does not have to. In fact, there are a number of safety concerns (for the both the officer AND the driver) that make doing so a very bad idea.

Some officers might show the radar, others do not. I recommend against it, but there is no written policy in my agency so I cannot hold my officers accountable either way.

My question is, can't I use that this guy wouldn't show me his radar in court? That's pretty sleazy in my opinion, and bs. What do you guys think?

It's perfectly legal.

Plus, think about it ... the reading on the radar only proves what is on the radar - it does NOT prove that he clocked YOU or even the other driver at that speed. Heck, if he were inclined to lie (and I don't know why, we don' get a toaster if we get ten speed cites in a day) he could simply lock in a fast speed and save it on their all day.

Plus, the locked in speed may NOT be the highest clocked or estimated speed. And radar officers are trained in visual estimation using the radar/lidar only to confirm the visual estimation.

Another officer showed up, who mentioned after I told him my story it was LIDAR not radar, which makes no difference to me except that I was pretty sure they have a track record of screwing up the speed reading when you clock two cars really close to each other--say one passing the other just as the officer hits it?

If two cars are going about the same speed and one is doing 84 ... well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to assume the speed of the other.

- Carl

 

[RBE]

It is true that you could lock one trap in all day. Visual estimation though...

Well I guess that's all I can get out of this. Makes me furious but the choices are clear.

Thanks Carl.

 

[CdwJava]

It is true that you could lock one trap in all day. Visual estimation though...

... is perfectly valid.

Sit through a radar training course and see how many vehicles they have to successfully estimate within +/- 2 MPH to pass the training. Combine that with the radar/lidar, and it gets pretty strong.

I don't have formal radar training, so I would have a more difficult time with a visual estimation of speed (though I have made cases with visual estimation - but they were for vehicles traveling in excess of 10 MPH over the limit on residential roadways).

- Carl

 

[RBE]

... is perfectly valid.

Sit through a radar training course and see how many vehicles they have to successfully estimate within +/- 2 MPH to pass the training. Combine that with the radar/lidar, and it gets pretty strong.

I don't have formal radar training, so I would have a more difficult time with a visual estimation of speed (though I have made cases with visual estimation - but they were for vehicles traveling in excess of 10 MPH over the limit on residential roadways).

- Carl

Problem is I know police are certified in radar use when they use them but visual estimation, as valid as you want it to be, is difficult when you throw in all the variables real life--unlike a training course--have to throw at you. This reminds me of the laws california has for exhaust volume determination. Officers aren't required to use any decibel meter, their ears are enough. You're human, prone to the same errors as everyone else. I don't care how long you sit there looking at cars on a track, +- 2 mph is ridiculous, and I want him to show me the radar as proof. See you're telling me to trust his eyes first and only trust the radar as backup. My eyes can tell me anything I want them to is the problem, that's one of the wonders of the connection between the eyes and the brain. I'd trust radar far more than Lidar or someone's eyes. As long as he believes I was speeding his eyes were going to tell him that.

Pulling over two people at once is greedy, and I don't care how many police deny the existence of quotas, 8/29 is damn near the end of the month, and since I don't know any economics-degree-owning police to refute it, speeding tickets are a revenue function, which seems conspicuously like a quota ticket to me. I've also asked for a warning before, only to hear, "sorry, we aren't giving enough tickets lately, so I have to give you one."

Forgive the rant but I wasn't going that speed. I only moved out of the bitch's way. The citing officer saw her tailgating me, and pulled me over anyway. The geico guns are notorious for misreading, especially when cars are in close proximity. Also it may not take a rocket scientist to assume that the two cars were going a similar speed but that you can make an assumption that carries such heavy repurcussions is again ridiculous. When you count that the highway took a turn, parallax could easily amount to a visual distortion and thus misconstrual of my speed.

 

[CdwJava]

Problem is I know police are certified in radar use when they use them but visual estimation, as valid as you want it to be, is difficult when you throw in all the variables real life--unlike a training course--have to throw at you.

But, you forget - this one HAD radar to back it up.

I want him to show me the radar as proof.

What you "want" and what is required by law or policy are obviously not the same thing.

Pulling over two people at once is greedy,

No - it's practical at times. I have rarely done this, but it does happen. I DID once have 8 cars stopped at once - they kept making an illegal turn into a parking lot where I was already writing a ticket ... I had to call for backup to help!

and I don't care how many police deny the existence of quotas, 8/29 is damn near the end of the month, and since I don't know any economics-degree-owning police to refute it, speeding tickets are a revenue function, which seems conspicuously like a quota ticket to me.

I'm on the inside ... there is no quota. On the rare occasion that an agency attempts to establish any kind of number as an evaluative tool, the local police union goes nuts and takes off after the agency. When the media or the defense attorneys get a hold of the info, they cast doubt on every cite written. Ergo they don't tend to happen in CA.

As for revenue, we get between $22 and $26 from every $100 fine ... this does NOT cover the officer's overtime in court, and only occasionally covers his cost in the field. Additionally, state law caps the amount that most jurisdictions can receive and most jurisdictions reach that cap after some 8 months into the fiscal year. Not to mention that the money goes to the city's general fund and not to the police or sheriff's department - and not at all to the CHP.

When money is tight the one thing that is rarely EVER discussed is the writing of more tickets. What IS discussed is writing more PARKING tickets. Why? Because parking cites go almost exclusively into the city's general fund ... movers make more money for the courts and the state than they do for the local jurisdiction. if it were about money, I'd give all my guys golf carts and chalk sticks because THAT is where the money is!

I've also asked for a warning before, only to hear, "sorry, we aren't giving enough tickets lately, so I have to give you one."

Could have been a tongue in cheek response.

However, some agencies DO get a little miffed at the warnings. When warnings are given and traffic safety does not improve, you issue citations. Most agencies have found that issuing a few cites DOES tend to improve safety (speed, stopping, etc.). When it is obvious the police are issuing cites, it tends to rein in the behavior.

The citing officer saw her tailgating me, and pulled me over anyway. The geico guns are notorious for misreading, especially when cars are in close proximity.

What's a "geico gun"?

Radar is tough on multiple vehicles, but lidar is a narrow beam and very easy to hit two different cars ... but, since it is hand held, it is not generally done in movement so it was almost certainly radar and estimation (and, perhaps, pacing) that was used in your case. However, if he hit one of you with the lidar while stationary, that's good enough. he doesn't have to get both of you if you are both going the same speed.

Also it may not take a rocket scientist to assume that the two cars were going a similar speed but that you can make an assumption that carries such heavy repercussions is again ridiculous.

Why? If two cars are running side by side and one of them is doing 84 MPH ... ???


- Carl

 

[Maestro64]

As people pointed out the officer does not have to show the reading on the radar, and many will site department policy. I have asked this a number of time and no one had been able to produce any rules or state statutes which clearly states the officer is under no obligation to show you the radar/LIDAR readings. Even if it is department policy it does not mean it is right or legal. I agree these days there are lots of safety concerns but until someone says there is a law I would demand to see it.

I will just point out one thing, and leave it at that. Everyone has a right to see all evidence against them and confront their accuser. In this case the evidence against you is the reading on the radar gun. If you ask to see it and the officer refuses he is now not allowing to see the evidence.

You can bring this up at court, and probably not win, but you have the right. I personally have not see any statutes or case laws saying one way or the other if this is legal.

Remember even if you did see some number on it, it does not mean squat since that speed could have been obtain any numbers of way and does not mean with 100% certainty it was your speed.

On visual estimate: Yes, most officer's who have been formally trained on the use of Radar and speeding, have been taught and evaluated on how to determine someone's speed from a visual estimate and some people are pretty good at it. I can get pretty close with in +/- 2 or 3 MPH myself. However, this can only be done under certain conditions. I'll give a simple example when it can not be done. When the car is coming right at you from some distance then add in you are also moving and people's estimate go out the window. The easiest way to estimate is from the side having a car cross in front of you.

Read this on visual estimates http://www.motorists.org/newsletter/06JanFeb.pdf I think is on page 7.

On Quotas: I would agree with CdwJava on CA, when I lived out there I never heard CA police especial the CHP having quotas, they seem to be pretty fair about it. However this is not true else where. I live in PA now and there is huge issue with the State Police creating policy that forced officer to write more and more ticket otherwise they would get lower performance rating. The way they did it was not to set quota's which is illegal in PA but to say each officer as part of their performance must issue no less than the department average for citations. PA is now being sued over it and the police union is not fighting either.

Read this about the new quota system http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/587.asp

On LIDAR: Everyone is claiming this is so accurate and it does not have the same problems as radar from the stand point of knowing who was speeding since with LIDAR you point it at one car and only one car. However it has one very serious flaw which is called slip. If the officer point it at your front license plate as trained and his arm moves say up and down and all of a sudden the beam moves from the plate to the windshield it can now register a much higher speed more than any error that radar produces. The argument I hear that this is non issue is the fact a LIDAR unit a sight in it to aim.

Trust me most officer barely pass their gun re-cert every year and they are simple aiming at a target 25 to 50 ft away. Now LIDAR they trying to hit a target the size of license plate at hundreds of feet and hold it on the car for a few second all while the car is moving and then trying to hold it steady. Trust me I use to shoot competitively and at distances of hundreds of feet a fraction of an inch moving in my position causes the bullet to miss the target by feet.

LIDAR was never meant to measure speed it was a laser range finder that was converted to measure speed by measuring the change in distance over time, problem is the distance is not reliable due to movement.

 

[CdwJava]

As people pointed out the officer does not have to show the reading on the radar, and many will site department policy. I have asked this a number of time and no one had been able to produce any rules or state statutes which clearly states the officer is under no obligation to show you the radar/LIDAR readings. Even if it is department policy it does not mean it is right or legal. I agree these days there are lots of safety concerns but until someone says there is a law I would demand to see it.

And until there is a law saying they have to show it, they won't ... unless they want to.

I don't know of any agency that cites this as written policy or law, but it is common practice and it is a practice I encourage with my officers for safety reasons.

I will just point out one thing, and leave it at that. Everyone has a right to see all evidence against them and confront their accuser. In this case the evidence against you is the reading on the radar gun. If you ask to see it and the officer refuses he is now not allowing to see the evidence.

The place to challenge the evidence i s in the courtroom and not the roadside. The officer does not even have to debate you on the merits of the offense on the roadside. In fact, I won't. As a matter of law, he does not have to show you the radar, and he does not have to show you any other evidence he might have. The place for presentation of evidence (which includes verbal testimony) is in court, not on the side of the road.

Remember even if you did see some number on it, it does not mean squat since that speed could have been obtain any numbers of way and does not mean with 100% certainty it was your speed.

Just one reason why even seeing the reading is not relevant. Others include the fact that the locked in reading may not be the highest reading on the vehicle.

When the car is coming right at you from some distance then add in you are also moving and people's estimate go out the window. The easiest way to estimate is from the side having a car cross in front of you.

It depends on the training. Some DO train for estimation in this manner.

The way they did it was not to set quota's which is illegal in PA but to say each officer as part of their performance must issue no less than the department average for citations. PA is now being sued over it and the police union is not fighting either.

I'm surprised the unions wouldn't be fighting over it. They jump on it big time out here! When establishing variable number "X" as the "goal" is still a quota.


- Carl

 

[RBE]

Well masetro thank you and you Jawa for your added contributions.

Do you mean, maestro, to say that you're hard pressed to find legislation requiring a citing officer show the radar to the citee or that you're hard pressed to find legislation forbidding?

I also question the "safety" motive. How is it any more dangerous to stand on the side of the highway with lidar than to show up on the shoulder side of my vehicle with the lidar? If I'm going to kill an officer--which I'm not because I'm no hasty imbicile like the ghetto fools who most often do that--citing me for speeding, aren't I going to do it regardless of what the radar says? After all I'm going to get the ticket regardless of my protestation about the radar...

One odd thing was the original officer said "I got you on radar," and then changed it to "Lidar," which the second backed up. Another is that I was in a slight turn, hence my mentioning parallax, which distorts the perception of distance, and since velocity calculation depends on it, visual estimation can misconstrue speed based on it. He wrote he had me at 550 feet on the ticket. I think aiming at a license-plate sized target moving the speed of traffic should be difficult fromthat distance especially considering his arms' movement then must have had some horizontal velocity compent to it as well.

I'll leave fighting about quotas out of this, it'll go into the conspiracy theory file cabinet next to kennedy, bigfoot, and now princess di, so top men can look at it. Leave it that I understand that the agencies don't directly get the money from the ticket, but that it goes to the city or state. Now who writes budgets? Thought so. Politicians who pressure for more revenue. Explain as well the three-fold increase in cost of photo-enforced light violations. Maybe that empirically, 1/3 of tickets stick, so that a three-fold increase will cover those thrown out? Anyway.

Now, that the officer has no need to show evidence still perturbs me. I want to see the radar (or lidar)--even if it's not guaranteed to lock in the highest speed-because that is what the officer cited as his evidence--not visual estimation--and because we WEREN'T going the same speed. She was passing me--in MYvisual estimation--at least 5-8 mph faster than I was going. I may not have the training you officers do, but at least she was directly at my side rather than in front at a slight turn as my position was relative the citing officer.

I know I'm not going to win this alone just because of what you've said. It's his WORD used in court, the lidar or radar reading isn't even used. His word against mine. He need present no evidence save that, and in this star chamber, I have no chance. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt is a joke in traffic court. Let's try looking at the triadic relationship presented by the judge, the officer, and me. Which two are most likely to collude? The judge and I are or the judge and the officer? I don't want to waste my money on a lawyer but I'm still upset at this. It's a waste of my traffic school and I wasn't going that speed. What makes me say he was greedy is that if he had such a great vantage point from slightly to my left 550 feet in front of me--and there was other traffic--then he should've seen that she was tailgating me, and that whatever speed I was going, it was because I was passing the traffic on my right to move over.

 

[CdwJava]

I also question the "safety" motive. How is it any more dangerous to stand on the side of the highway with lidar than to show up on the shoulder side of my vehicle with the lidar?

It's not JUST for the officer's safety, but also for the motorist's. If I have you come back to my car, and you fall down, get hit by a car, twist your ankle, or any other assorted silly thing, *I* can be held liable. When you combine that with the possibility of distraction and assault (by the driver or a third party) it becomes a no win.

Yes, I know officers that do allow drivers back to see the unit ... it is not common practice, and I discourage it, but I am not going to forbid it.

Now who writes budgets? Thought so. Politicians who pressure for more revenue. Explain as well the three-fold increase in cost of photo-enforced light violations. Maybe that empirically, 1/3 of tickets stick, so that a three-fold increase will cover those thrown out? Anyway.

Red light camera cites are a different animal - a lot of that revenue CAN go to the city, and the expenses tend to be minimal ... however, serious injury collisions tend to drop, so it's a sort of win-win.

Since I am involved in the budget process, I can categorically aver that increasing the number of moving cites issues is NOT put on the table when budget cuts and revenue enhancement is discussed. As I said, PARKING enforcement is discussed, raising fees is discussed, but increasing movers (which also increases staff time for processing, overtime for court, overtime for writing cites and occasionally towing, and has a cap on the total received). It's one of those things that the agency knows it will get ... if we get it in 12 months as opposed to 8 months, what's it matter?

Now, that the officer has no need to show evidence still perturbs me.

Most crimes occur and are prosecuted without physical evidence. Testimony IS evidence. The court can evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and their observations. The defense may certainly bring up whatever theories or observations they wish and maybe the court will find the argument compelling enough to find reasonable doubt. To compel visual evidence of every traffic violation would effectively preclude ANY traffic enforcement at all.


- Carl

 

[Maestro64]

Well masetro thank you and you Jawa for your added contributions.

Do you mean, maestro, to say that you're hard pressed to find legislation requiring a citing officer show the radar to the citee or that you're hard pressed to find legislation forbidding?

The answer is both, I found nothing either way and I have not come across any cases or information where someone challenged the fact they were not afforded the opportunity to view the reading and this was grounds for a dismissal or affirming the conviction.

CdwJava, is correct about the time to view evidence is in the court and this is another thing the officers and courts stand behind. However think about it this way if they search your car and said they found something illegal while you are standing there and never show it to you and said you'll have your chance to see what they found at court this would not be acceptable and courts have through things like this out.

However, keep in mind when your freedom is on the line the courts generally follow a much stricter rules and procedures than they do in traffic violation.

I have to agree with CdwJava the real reason is the officer or the local government does not want a law suits on their hands if something happen to you while your trying see the reading. I personal seen police and others do things which you would say is highly unethical/unusual because a lawyer from an insurance company said to do something.

The problem you have and everyone else including the courts is you're being cited because of some number showing up on a display and we have to take everyone's word for it that it is true and accurate and it actually happened.

I personally do not understand why the measuring device can not have printer on it with a date and time stamp with your speed and today add GPS for location, all these types of questions would go away. However, if this was done I think a lot less tickets would be issued, especially in towns where the police and towns keep most of the money.

Also, I do not by the safety thing in all cases especial in CA where there are lots of officers on motorcycles and they are using hand held units which are battery operated, why they can not walk up to your car with the unit in hand, you can be guaranty that all LIDAR are hand held.

One last thing on this subject, and CdwJava, might even know about this, police are currently testing out systems which they can take pictures while moving and have it read your plate and run a report on the plate in real time, they will also be able to record your speed and have a picture of your plate and the speed you're going and the locations. you are probably 10 to 15 away from seeing these systems showing up all over the place, so welcome to 1984.

One odd thing was the original officer said "I got you on radar," and then changed it to "Lidar," which the second backed up.

Since LIDAR is pretty new it might have been a verbal mistake on the officer part, do not put too much weight on that statement, plus he wrote a distance down so that means it was LIDAR.

Also, I believe in CA there is no judicial notice on LIDAR, what this means is the courts do not except it as being fact and a proven technology so you can challenge the accuracy of it and the state has to have expert witnesses contest to the fact it is accurate under the conditions it was used in your case, CdwJava can probably tell you if that is true, it is what I have read.

I know I'm not going to win this alone just because of what you've said. It's his WORD used in court, the lidar or radar reading isn't even used. His word against mine. He need present no evidence save that, and in this star chamber, I have no chance. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt is a joke in traffic court. Let's try looking at the triadic relationship presented by the judge, the officer, and me. Which two are most likely to collude? The judge and I are or the judge and the officer? I don't want to waste my money on a lawyer but I'm still upset at this. It's a waste of my traffic school and I wasn't going that speed. What makes me say he was greedy is that if he had such a great vantage point from slightly to my left 550 feet in front of me--and there was other traffic--then he should've seen that she was tailgating me, and that whatever speed I was going, it was because I was passing the traffic on my right to move over.

I can tell you I have read and personally seen judges get upset with the officers even if it appears they are drinking buddies especial if the officer has screwed up or tries to do things that is obviously wrong to protect is conviction rate. It is not always against you, what you need to do when you walk in is make friends with the judge and be a straight shooter and not make him think your trying to pull a fast one.

One last thing if you want to learn about LIDAR and how to fight it there is a guy at this site who have lots of information about how they are used and all the sources of errors.

http://www.radardetector.net/

 

[Maestro64]

Red light camera cites are a different animal - a lot of that revenue CAN go to the city, and the expenses tend to be minimal ... however, serious injury collisions tend to drop, so it's a sort of win-win.

These are not turning out to be win-win. Reports are coming out now red-light cameras have not reduce accidents, the side impact one are down since people are not running a red light and hitting someone entering from the perpendicular direction, however, rear end one are up since people are slamming on the brake while the light is yellow and they do not want to be caught in the intersection after it turns red. Some communities are starting to shut them down because of this. All these did was exchange one bad behavior for another.

 

[Zigner]

She was passing me--in MYvisual estimation--at least 5-8 mph faster than I was going. I may not have the training you officers do, but at least she was directly at my side rather than in front at a slight turn as my position was relative the citing officer.

And THAT is exactly why you will lose. All the rest is fluff. The officer clocked the other driver at 84, you say she was 5-8 mph faster than you. That puts you at 76-79 mph.
Now, tell me again how you weren't speeding?