speeding ticket even though it wasnt speeding per se

[vcpirate99]

What is the name of your state TN.

I got pulled over on a major secondary highway that had a limit of 55mph. I was just passing a "reduced speed ahead" sign when a city police officer flashed his lights and did a u-turn to pull me over to nail me for speeding. he wrote on the ticket 58 in a 45 zone. even though, i had not passed the newer lesser speed limit sign. even on the ticket, the crossroads where he put the infraction as being at, is known to be in the higher zone. the speed does not change for a good couple of blocks. i have since taken pictures of the road and signs. I once read somewhere that if you are not impeding the flow of traffic, even if you are speeding, that a police officer does not have the right to pull you over. I also remember reading something along the same lines, if you have a headlight out, even if there is no traffic, if you are not impeding traffic, anything found from a search from a stop for the headlight being out would be considered inadmissable(I didnt have my headlight out, just remember reading that somewhere). so my question is, where would i find that info to copy or bring into court to fight the last 3mph? i question even the 58mph radar. what are my options to beating the ticket?

 

[LSCAP]

If you admit to even one mile over the limit. you're admitting guilt.

 

[DRTDEVL]

The only possibility you would have (and it's a long shot) would be using +-2mph accuracies. There *possibly* could have been up to a 4 mph difference in the radar and your actual speed due to variances in conditions and the acceptable tolerances for calibration of the equipment.

Most manufacturers list the accuracy of their radar units at "+-2mph". Most speedometer calibrations list the calibration accuracy as "+-2mph" as well. Since the officer was in motion at the time he clocked you, the radar makes up the difference by subtracting the speed registered by the patrol car and displaying the adjusted speed.

Example: Officer driving at 45 mph (as read by the OBC in the patrol car) clocks car going 55 mph the other way. The actual speed acquired by the radar unit would be 100 mph, but subtracting the 45 mph from the OBC gives a final output of 55 mph.

Now, if the patrol car's speedometer were reading 1.5 mph slower than actual speed (within legal specifications), the reading would change to 57 mph. If the radar unit's acquired reading was off by a mere 1-1.5 mph (also within spec), the reading would change to 58 mph.



Now, a warning... If the Judge is good at physics, he will know the real reason for the "+-2mph" ratings. As tires wear down, the speedometer will read faster, so that gives up to 2 mph discretion in your favor. BUT: A radar wave bouncing off a vehicle that is not traveling DIRECTLY AT THE UNIT (a.k.a. passing in the other direction on a divided highway), will actually read slower, thus negating the previous 2 mph gain you had proven.

You may be better off pleading guilty to 3 mph over, show the evidence that the speed limit was actually 55mph, and hope for compassion from the jurist. The above tactic, while possible to deftly pull off, may just end up pissing him off.

 

[Maestro64]

The most important thing you need to do is get the officer to state in court the exact location where you were when he made the measurement. Do not make any statement or ask any question what the speed limits were in various locations until the officer clearly states your location. If his identification places your car anywhere before the first 45MPH sign, your battle is 3/4 won. At this point you can rip his testimony apart about how he had no ideal where the speed limit changed and he pulled you over for thinking you were in 45MPH zone verses realizing you were still in a 55 zone. This helps destroy his credibility.

The other 1/4 of the battle is discrediting the 3 MPH you car might have been over 55MPH. As it was pointed on, do not admit to anything other than you were gong the speed limit. It sounds like he was using moving radar if that was case it filled with errors, any number of them can cause a higher speed. If you research Moving Radar you can learn about all the possible errors that come about when using it.

 

[racer72]

I once read somewhere that if you are not impeding the flow of traffic, even if you are speeding, that a police officer does not have the right to pull you over. I also remember reading something along the same lines, if you have a headlight out, even if there is no traffic, if you are not impeding traffic, anything found from a search from a stop for the headlight being out would be considered inadmissable

Purely a myth. So you are zipping by traffic at 100 mph not impeding traffic, that means an officer can't pull you over?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Your best bet would be to argue that the citation is invalid by showing proof that you were in a 55mph zone versus the 45mph zone but even then, it depends on what code section you were cited for.

So what were you cited with?

Also, courts everywhere have taken judicial notice of Radar as an accurate method of measuring speed... So without looking at the calibration reports, arguing an inaccuracy and attributing it to the "physical nature" of Radar measurments will not get you close enough to a dismissal .

 

[LSCAP]

Using the worn tire excuse.
When your tires wear down they get smaller and turn faster and your speedometer reads a speed faster than you are actually going.
For me it gives me 31 mpg instead of actual 30 MPG anyway that's what the odometer says.

Plead not guilty, You have pictures. You had to do the posted speed when you got there. and deny the 58. Even one mile over, is guilty.

 

[DRTDEVL]

Using the worn tire excuse.
When your tires wear down they get smaller and turn faster and your speedometer reads a speed faster than you are actually going.
For me it gives me 31 mpg instead of actual 30 MPG anyway that's what the odometer says.

Plead not guilty, You have pictures. You had to do the posted speed when you got there. and deny the 58. Even one mile over, is guilty.

The worn tire excuse was only part of the equation, to claim worn tires could have caused the *officer's* speedometer to read fast, thus adding 2 mph or so tho the radar's output when operated in motion.

 

[LSCAP]

The officer's radar tell him/her how fast he is going, and then calculates how fast the deft was going. Has nothing to do with tires.

This one may be a gimmick. You go to court and say I wasn't doing 58 in a 45, I was doing 58 in a 55. oops Guilty .

 

[DRTDEVL]

The officer's radar tell him/her how fast he is going

...by interfacing with the OBC on the patrol car. The OBC's readings *are* affected by tire wear, just like the speedometer (they use the same sensor for speed output).

 

[I_Got_Banned]

...by interfacing with the OBC on the patrol car. The OBC's readings *are* affected by tire wear, just like the speedometer (they use the same sensor for speed output).

You're still arguing the same point?

While it is mathematically sound, you have to be mindful of few facts:

1. Speedometers on patrol vehicles are periodically calibrated. That should take care of any discrepancies caused by tire wear...

2. Radar units in patrol cars are also periodically calibrated... That should take care of any further discrepancies caused by tire wear..

3. Since any officer can find himself in a hot/high speed pursuit at any moment, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that a partol vehicle's speedometer is off by 2mph due to excessive tire wear.

4. A judge is not going to allow a defendant the time to explain mathematically how much a 1/8 inch difference could make in the Radar reading... Not unless the court accepts that testimony one coming from an expert witness.

5. The fact that courts everywhere have taken "judicial notice" to a Radar's AND Speedometer's accuracy, this discrepancy that you're speaking of is immaterial even in a case like this where a driver could be facing an amended charge of allegedly exceeding the speed limit by a mere 3 mph.

 

[vcpirate99]

i got cited for speeding.....58 in a 45 zone, moving violation with doppler radar is all the ticket reads. there is no specific code cited other than speeding and moving violation. i dont know if this helps, but the vehicle was/is a '93 standard shift regular cab truck. when i passed the sign to reduce my speed(ultimately where the supposed radar was caught), i did downshift instead of breaking(in which i normally do anyways). is there anywhere that shows downshifting increases speed momentarily?

now, a few years ago, i sat in a courtroom waiting my turn while a trial was going on. the guy who was being charged with drug possesion got out of the charge because the original stop by police was because he was doing 38 in a 35 zone at midnight. the officers terry search was considered invalid since the judge explained that the stop was illegal because the defendant wasnt impeding traffic so there shouldnt have been a stop. so the judge threw out all the charges against the defendant on the basis of the officer was wrong to pull him over because there was no one being put in danger. is there any part of that, that i could use?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

i got cited for speeding.....58 in a 45 zone, moving violation with doppler radar is all the ticket reads. there is no specific code cited other than speeding and moving violation. i dont know if this helps, but the vehicle was/is a '93 standard shift regular cab truck. when i passed the sign to reduce my speed(ultimately where the supposed radar was caught), i did downshift instead of breaking(in which i normally do anyways). is there anywhere that shows downshifting increases speed momentarily?

No it doesn't... Not unless you have your foot on the gas pedal as you release the clutch...

But wait a second, I think you're getting lost in your own story now... In your first post, you stated:

1. “I was just passing a "reduced speed ahead"
2. “even though, i had not passed the newer lesser speed limit sign”.
3. “even on the ticket, the crossroads where he put the infraction as being at, is known to be in the higher zone”.
4. “... the speed does not change for a good couple of blocks.”

Now you're saying you downshifted to lower your speed, even though you were still in the 55mph zone, just barely “passing a 'reduced speed ahead' sign” and while knowing that the lower speed limit was still “a good couple of blocks away”???

now, a few years ago, i sat in a courtroom waiting my turn while a trial was going on. the guy who was being charged with drug possesion got out of the charge because the original stop by police was because he was doing 38 in a 35 zone at midnight. the officers terry search was considered invalid since the judge explained that the stop was illegal because the defendant wasnt impeding traffic so there shouldnt have been a stop. so the judge threw out all the charges against the defendant on the basis of the officer was wrong to pull him over because there was no one being put in danger. is there any part of that, that i could use?

Sounds like a different version of the story you mentioned in your first post... Excluding the headlight part. Still, that story doesn't make sense... Why would an officer cite a driver for driving 38 in 35 and then have the judge throw the case out because the defendant was not impeding traffic?

Without even knowing which case you're speaking of I can tell you it went something like this: the driver was stopped for violating the basic speed law... And while the speed limit is typically stated on such a citation, the actual violation is more about the defendant driving at a speed that is not reasonable, not prudent or one which endangered person or property.

So the officer cited the driver for driving at the 38mph speed and testifying that the defendant was driving at a speed that is either unreasonable, imprudent or that he endangered person or property. The judge may have ruled that at midnight, a speed of 38mph could not have endangered anyone, and that was reasonable and/or prudent. So he dismissed the speeding violation and ruled the stop unlawful thereby dismissing the possession charge.

And by the way, an "impeding traffic" violation is the opposite of a "speeding" violation...

 

[DRTDEVL]

You're still arguing the same point?

While it is mathematically sound, you have to be mindful of few facts:

1. Speedometers on patrol vehicles are periodically calibrated. That should take care of any discrepancies caused by tire wear...

2. Radar units in patrol cars are also periodically calibrated... That should take care of any further discrepancies caused by tire wear..

3. Since any officer can find himself in a hot/high speed pursuit at any moment, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that a partol vehicle's speedometer is off by 2mph due to excessive tire wear.

4. A judge is not going to allow a defendant the time to explain mathematically how much a 1/8 inch difference could make in the Radar reading... Not unless the court accepts that testimony one coming from an expert witness.

5. The fact that courts everywhere have taken "judicial notice" to a Radar's AND Speedometer's accuracy, this discrepancy that you're speaking of is immaterial even in a case like this where a driver could be facing an amended charge of allegedly exceeding the speed limit by a mere 3 mph.

But you're missing the point that the calibration is only accurate by +-2 mph. These TWO units working in unison would thereby only be accurate +-4 mph, hence the point of the argument. If he can convince the judge that he was, in fact, in a 55 zone, this argument can come into play to eliminate the additional 3 mph, as he could mathematically been going 54 mph, even with properly calibrated equipment.

The BEST accuracy claim on the market today is by the Decatur Genesis 2 Police Radar In-car Moving Traffic Safety Radar System, and that's +-1 mph stationary and +-2 mph when moving:

Performance Specification:
Stationary Accuracy: +/-1 MPH
Moving Accuracy: +/- 2 MPH
Target Speed Range: 10-210 MPH
Patrol Speed Range: 5-100 MPH
Speed Sampling Rate: 100 Samples/Sec.

Found here: Decatur Genesis 2 Police Radar In-car Moving Traffic Safety Radar System K Ka KaDB KDB G2S-K G2S-Ka G2S-KaDB G2S-KDB

The second closest is also the most common radar unit in use in Tennessee, the Stalker Dual SL:

Accuracy:
+1, -2 mph stationary, ±2 mph moving

From: http://www.stalkerradar.com/pdf/dual_specifications.pdf



Now, we get to even BETTER facts! I just did the research and found this little gem. In Tennessee, the ordering specifications for Police Pursuit Cruisers only calls for the following:

SPEEDOMETER: SHALL BE CALIBRATED TO WITHIN +/-3 M.P.H ACCURACY. SCALE GRADUATIONS TO BE LINEAR AND OF 2 M.P.H. INCREMENTS. 0 T0 160 M.P.H. SCALE MINIMUM. CALIBRATED DIGITAL IS ACCEPTABLE.

Found here: Purchasing SWC: VEHICLES, POLICE PURSUIT 2009 MODEL YEAR

So, in addition to my previous argument, this adds an additional 1 mph to the accuracy specifications , only providing proper calibration accuracy of +-5 mph, clearly more than the 3 mph the OP needs to overcome for "Reasonable Doubt". All he has to do is produce the specification sheet of the actual radar unit model used by the officer and the contract specifications for the ordering of Police Pursuit Cruisers in Tennessee to honestly make a case for reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the 58 mph claim (the spec sheets will give him a window of 53-63 mph).

Why not allow him to try? He was only accused of 58 mph, can prove the location was a 55 mph zone, and has product specifications that allow for a greater variance in accuracy than he is accused of. Judicial Notice of accuracy, sure... But the spec sheets tell the jurist what the accuracy is of the exact units in question. He won't claim incorrect calibration, only that the units in question, when properly working in unison, are only accurate to +-5 mph as stated by the State of Tennessee and the Radar unit's manufacturer.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

But you're missing the point that the calibration is only accurate by +-2 mph. These TWO units working in unison would thereby only be accurate +-4 mph, hence the point of the argument. If he can convince the judge that he was, in fact, in a 55 zone, this argument can come into play to eliminate the additional 3 mph, as he could mathematically been going 54 mph, even with properly calibrated equipment.

The BEST accuracy claim on the market today is by the Decatur Genesis 2 Police Radar In-car Moving Traffic Safety Radar System, and that's +-1 mph stationary and +-2 mph when moving:

Found here: Decatur Genesis 2 Police Radar In-car Moving Traffic Safety Radar System K Ka KaDB KDB G2S-K G2S-Ka G2S-KaDB G2S-KDB

The second closest is also the most common radar unit in use in Tennessee, the Stalker Dual SL:

From: http://www.stalkerradar.com/pdf/dual_specifications.pdf

Now, we get to even BETTER facts! I just did the research and found this little gem. In Tennessee, the ordering specifications for Police Pursuit Cruisers only calls for the following:

Found here: Purchasing SWC: VEHICLES, POLICE PURSUIT 2009 MODEL YEAR

So, in addition to my previous argument, this adds an additional 1 mph to the accuracy specifications , only providing proper calibration accuracy of +-5 mph, clearly more than the 3 mph the OP needs to overcome for "Reasonable Doubt". All he has to do is produce the specification sheet of the actual radar unit model used by the officer and the contract specifications for the ordering of Police Pursuit Cruisers in Tennessee to honestly make a case for reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the 58 mph claim (the spec sheets will give him a window of 53-63 mph).

Great bit of research there but watch this....

For every error value that you researched and quoted, there is a "+" value and a "-" value... So while while assuming a +/- 5mph error, and if you try to argue that the OP's speed of 58mph could have been 53mph due to the stated error rate, you are also suggesting that his recorded speed of 58mph, could have been 63mph... Average both values that are "possible" and you're back at 58mph.

That is why judges won't allow you the time to present such an argument.

Why not allow him to try?

Its not for me to "allow" him or "not allow" him!!!

That is up to the Judge!