Ticket has two speeding descriptions. Which will the court or judge recognize?

[PayrollHRGuy]

The officer's testimony has more standing because the officers aren't paying a ticket one way or another.

If there had been a witness, let's say an off duty or retired officer, unrelated to you that stated, "no, I'm trained in detecting the speed of a car and the defendant's car was clearly not going over the speed limit in my estimation he was going X" you would have had useful testimony.

 

[Friendlyone]

The radar "cone" was very close to an electrical Power Substation if not affected by it. What I have read about radar interference is that being close to electrical power substations especially can affect the accuracy of the radar reading. The officer said it did not affect his reading but how would he know without tests to verify this and presented as evidence. All I had to do was present 51% reasonable doubt. I think I accomplished it but the majestrate seemed impatient with me and ruled citing case law that has to do with moving radar not stationary radar.

 

[FlyingRon]

Why would the "radar cone" be affected by an electrical substation? You're making stuff up. A substation has a strong very low frequency electromagnetic field. The radar is using microwaves and in addition the doppler effect used to measure the speed is a very specific modulation of the radar transmissions.

No, the officer is not obliged to test for your wild theories.

Actually, you only need "reasonable doubt." There's no percentage assigned to it. There's either doubt or there isn't. Some wild invented possibility, however, isn't reasonable doubt.

I'd be impatient with you as well. Your ticket is not adjudicated on the side of the highway. You'll get your day in court, but the above is silly.

 

[Zigner]

The radar "cone" was very close to an electrical Power Substation if not affected by it. What I have read about radar interference is that being close to electrical power substations especially can affect the accuracy of the radar reading. The officer said it did not affect his reading but how would he know without tests to verify this and presented as evidence. All I had to do was present 51% reasonable doubt. I think I accomplished it but the majestrate seemed impatient with me and ruled citing case law that has to do with moving radar not stationary radar.

Did you have an expert testify to your theories on interference? If not, then you're out of luck. Of course you thought you presented a reasonable doubt - that's the inherent bias in your own case A disinterested outside party felt differently...and s/he's the one that matters.

 

[Friendlyone]

Im

Well, what evidence besides your word did you have?

You have a vested interest in getting the ticket dropped. The cop gets paid the same whatever the outcome. So who would have a stronger reason to lie?

I'm not saying they lied. I'm stating that the opinion that all officers tell the truth all the time opens a door for having the ability to lie and being believed by the judge or magistrate. It becomes a scenario of "he said, but cop is always right" instead of "he said/she said".

 

[Zigner]

I'd be impatient with you as well. Your ticket is not adjudicated on the side of the highway. You'll get your day in court, but the above is silly.

He got his day in court and loss. The magistrate was impatient with the OP because he was trying to throw out wild theories with no expert testimony to back it up.

 

[Zigner]

I'm not saying they lied.

...and the rest is just whining.

 

[Friendlyone]

So

Why would the "radar cone" be affected by an electrical substation? You're making stuff up. A substation has a strong very low frequency electromagnetic field. The radar is using microwaves and in addition the doppler effect used to measure the speed is a very specific modulation of the radar transmissions.

No, the officer is not obliged to test for your wild theories.

Actually, you only need "reasonable doubt." There's no percentage assigned to it. There's either doubt or there isn't. Some wild invented possibility, however, isn't reasonable doubt.

I'd be impatient with you as well. Your ticket is not adjudicated on the side of the highway. You'll get your day in court, but the above is silly.

So in essence you are stating the spurious radar reading are never possible!? If you look on YouTube you will see plenty of radar spurious reading documented for various reasons.

 

[Friendlyone]

Yes I tried

He got his day in court and loss. The magistrate was impatient with the OP because he was trying to throw out wild theories with no expert testimony to back it up.

I tried getting expert testimony but there wasn't enough time.

 

[Zigner]

So

So in essence you are stating the spurious radar reading are never possible!? If you look on YouTube you will see plenty of radar spurious reading documented for various reasons.

Great - the time to have presented that was at your hearing and the method would have been by using an expert witness. You failed at at least one of those.

 

[Friendlyone]

Great - the time to have presented that was at your hearing and the method would have been by using an expert witness. You failed at at least one of those.

Lesson learned I guess. I have never received a traffic violation in 48 yrs of driving. I won't get any points as I was eligible for the one time Driver Improvement course which I took and passed with flying colors! Thank you all for your responses.

 

[Friendlyone]

Great - the time to have presented that was at your hearing and the method would have been by using an expert witness. You failed at at least one of those.

I forgot to mention this and brought it up last in court. My speedometer was giving my spurious readings at the time which I documented and offered to show the judge and repair receipts but the judge refused to look at them.

 

[Zigner]

I forgot to mention this and brought it up last in court. My speedometer was giving my spurious readings at the time which I documented and offered to show the judge and repair receipts but the judge refused to look at them.

You're lucky - how could you offer any valid testimony about your own speed if you coudn't trust the accuracy of your own speedometer?

 

[Friendlyone]

You're lucky - how could you offer any valid testimony about your own speed if you coudn't trust the accuracy of your own speedometer?

I had several defenses. I guess I should have brought up the defective speedometer first. I had an eyewitness testify to the speedometers going dead during recent trips. I drive disabled friends to grocery stores. Also at the time of this ticket my 19 yr old cat was dying of kidney failure, and my sister was in hospice care for terminal cancer.

 

[Zigner]

I had several defenses. I guess I should have brought up the defective speedometer first. I had an eyewitness testify to the speedometers going dead during recent trips. I drive disabled friends to grocery stores. Also at the time of this ticket my 19 yr old cat was dying of kidney failure, and my sister was in hospice care for terminal cancer.

Statements about a defective speedometer are an admission that you were knowingly driving with defective equipment.

The other matters would show that you were driving in an emotionally impaired state - one in which you could/should have known your judgment would be affected.

None of these are defenses. They are simply attempts at mitigation.

PS: I'm sorry about both your cat and your sister. I'm not trying to downplay those in any way.