I recently got a speeding ticket which I am contesting. At the time I asked the officer if he could giving me any information on the equipment he used to determine I was speeding and he could not tell me anything regarding what equipment he used or how it worked. In researching I found the case Kelly v. State which rules the officer must also be able to explain the theory underlying the gun's speed calculation. How do I cite this to the judge when I am in court? Do I need a copy of the case,? can I just reference it? I have no idea how it works.
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
How to fight a Speeding ticket?
- Thread starter Al_Ucard
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
Just Blue
Senior Member
What State?
Texas. San Patricio County
HighwayMan
Super Secret Senior Member
Just Blue
Senior Member
What code were you cited under?
When I go to court and I ask, how do I present that they have to be able to tell me? Do I just say Kelly v. State says you have to? Never been to court im a newbie.
FlyingRon
Senior Member
Kelly doesn't say the officer has to explain anything. The officer isn't required to know how radar works, just be trained in properly using it. If you press the issue in court as to the admissibility of the scientific (RADAR) issue, then the court may hold a hearing to determine if it is valid. It is at this point the STATE (not necessarily the officer) will show that RADAR is a valid case. Still, they don't have to explain squat to YOU, only to the court.
No, you just can't stand up and say "Kelly v. State." First off, there are a whole bunch of Kelly v. State cases all but one do not apply here. Of course, the judge is likely to understand what you're getting at. Still, there's more to bringing up the admissibility than just shouting out case cites. If you want to pursue this, a lawyer is advisable.
No, you just can't stand up and say "Kelly v. State." First off, there are a whole bunch of Kelly v. State cases all but one do not apply here. Of course, the judge is likely to understand what you're getting at. Still, there's more to bringing up the admissibility than just shouting out case cites. If you want to pursue this, a lawyer is advisable.
I don't think I would take it that far. The reason I contested this was because I wasn't speeding ( when you see 3 cop cars lined up on the highway you're gonna notice right?). The cop was being a jerk and as I am not a criminal, contesting this is more of principle to me.
HighwayMan
Super Secret Senior Member
If that's going to be your defense then I can say with a fair degree of certainty that you won't get anywhere. It's an old, tired refrain that judges hear from motorists all the time.
HighwayMan
Super Secret Senior Member
Another common line people use.
Sounds as if you have no real defense, so maybe you'd better go out and spend $400 or $500 on an attorney so you can stand a fighting chance.
The way you have presented yourself here, you don't have much of a chance going at it yourself.
NeilTheCop
Member
Having written more speeding tickets than I can remember, when I went to court I would take a copy of the radar gun's last factory calibration results and a copy of my certification showing that I had been trained on how to use the gun.
The evidence I gave was always much the same "I was conducting traffic speed enforcement in a marked police car wearing a uniform and displaying my badge of office when I observed a (your car goes here) traveling at a high rate of speed. I operated my radar gun serial #xxxx which displayed the speed as xxx mph. I then activated my emergency equipment (lights and siren) and the car came to a full stop at xxxx.
You know what happened next because you were there
Never had anyone give a valid defense, they just argued with the judge which never seemed to help the judges' mood.
The evidence I gave was always much the same "I was conducting traffic speed enforcement in a marked police car wearing a uniform and displaying my badge of office when I observed a (your car goes here) traveling at a high rate of speed. I operated my radar gun serial #xxxx which displayed the speed as xxx mph. I then activated my emergency equipment (lights and siren) and the car came to a full stop at xxxx.
You know what happened next because you were there
Never had anyone give a valid defense, they just argued with the judge which never seemed to help the judges' mood.
No duh Professor that's why i'm here asking questions. I don't know anything about going to court cause ive never been to court for anything.
not2cleverRed
Obvious Observer
Oh, that attitude will just serve you splendidly.
Yes, based on the way you presented yourself here, if you are going to fight the ticket "on principle", you need to pay a lawyer to do the talking for you. You being yourself could make your situation worse.
NeilTheCop
Member
So when you get your day in court the officer will present his side of the argument first with the spiel I posted earlier.
What will your reply be?
What will your reply be?
- Status
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">