The BMW UUC Digest Volume 2 : Issue 702 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: car's black box admissible in court Re: car's black box admissible in court Re: car's black box admissible in court Re: car's black box admissible in court Re: car's black box admissible in court Re: car's black box admissible in court Re: car's black box admissible in court Re: car's black box admissible in court Re: car's black box admissible in court Re: car's black box admissible in court Re: <E34> aux fan
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:18:59 -0700 (PDT) From: P Kroon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: UUC Digest <[email protected]> Subject: Re: car's black box admissible in court Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Honorof ruled that the black box data were admissible, even though the police had obtained it before applying for a search warrant. Turning back Litman's argument that his client had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car and its contents, the judge ruled that Soukup's operation of the vehicle on a public highway knowingly exposed his behavior to the public. Observed by at least three witnesses, his velocity was not a private matter, the judge said." Am I the only one that finds this logic strange? Yes, his velocity isn't a private matter, but the INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE BLACK BOX arguably is. -Paul 96 328i 03 G35 98 Panoz AIV Roadster --- Gary Derian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A decent crash reconstructionist can establish the > speeds without a black > box. Black box data can be helpful, but should not > be relied on as the only > basis for speed. > > Gary Derian > > > > Got this off another listserv and thought some of > you may be interested. > > > > This kind of driving, particularly given the > drivers' ages at the time of > > the accident, does not belong on public roads. I > am so very thankful for > > DE schools for both what is taught, the safety of > the environment, and the > > opportunity to speed legally. > > > > Clarence > > West Bend, WI > > ********************************* > > > > > > Car's Black Box Evidence Ruled Admissible > > > > by Andrew Harris > > > > copyright 2005 The New York Law Journal > > > > 01-13-2005 > > > > > > Evidence gleaned from a car's "black box" -- a > computer module that, > > among other things, records a vehicle's speed in > the last five seconds > > before airbags deploy in a collision -- will be > admissible in the New > > York trial of two men charged with second-degree > murder. > > > > The defendants, Kyle Soukup and Blake Slade, were > involved in a fatal > > three-car accident while in a race on a Nassau > County, N.Y., highway on > > a night in June 2002, authorities say. > > > > The ruling in People v. Slade, No. 0666-2003, by > acting Nassau County > > Supreme Court Justice Alan M. Honorof followed a > hearing testing the > > science behind the evidence. The decision > following the hearing is one > > of the first of its kind in New York state. > > > > "It's a powerful piece of evidence," said > Assistant District Attorney > > Michael Walsh, the lead prosecutor on the case. > > > > Soukup's lawyer, Jack Litman of Litman, Asche & > Gioiella could not be > > reached for comment. His associate, Todd Terry, > said that the firm was > > not making public statements about the case. > > > > Ronald Bekoff of Garden City, N.Y.'s Hession, > Bekoff & Cooper, who > > represents Slade, could not be reached for > comment. > > > > According to the prosecutor, Soukup, now 19, and > Slade, now 22, were > > friends racing in separate cars on Route 106 > through Old Brookville, > > N.Y., in northeastern Nassau County. > > > > As they approached the Muttontown Road > intersection, Soukup, driving a > > 2002 Chevrolet Corvette at nearly 130 miles per > hour, slammed into a > > 1993 Jeep Cherokee, tearing that vehicle in half. > > > > A split second later, Slade, driving a 2002 > Mercedes, rammed into the > > front end of the Jeep, knocking it 300 yards up > the road. > > > > "You see headlights in the distance," Walsh said > of the Jeep driver's > > decision to cross the road. "You can't image how > quick they'll be on > > you." > > > > One of the Cherokee's occupants, Sophia Bretous, > was dead at the scene. > > Her companion, Jean Desir, died later that night > at the Nassau > > University Medical Center. > > > > According to Honorof's ruling, at least three > other drivers say they > > witnessed the contest and the ensuing collision. > > > > Their testimony is important too, Walsh said, > asserting that he could > > have built a case from those accounts and the > testimony of accident > > reconstruction experts. > > > > However, the black box, formally called a sensing > diagnostic module, > > enables the prosecution to establish the > Corvette's speed, engine > > revolutions, throttle position and use of the > brakes for the critical > > moments before the impact. > > > > Police officers removed the sensing module from > Soukup's wrecked car > > after it was in their possession but before they > had a search warrant. > > They later applied for and obtained a warrant > based upon witnesses' > > affidavits and information they had obtained > before entering the > > vehicle. > > > > 'FRYE' HEARING > > > > Soukup's lawyer, Litman, moved to suppress the > black box and its data as > > the products of an unlawful search and seizure. > > > > He also challenged the scientific reliability of > the data. > > > > The court held a so-called Frye hearing, derived > from the 1923 ruling in > > Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013, by the U.S. Court of > Appeals for the District > > of Columbia Circuit. > > > > Frye provides for a "general acceptance test" of > expert testimony, > > Honorof noted. It dictates that scientific > evidence is admissible only > > if the underlying methodology or scientific > principle is sufficiently > > established to have gained general acceptance in > its field. > > > > Testifying for prosecutors at the hearing was > William Russell "Rusty" > > Haight, director of the Collision Safety Institute > in San Diego. He has > > more than 23 years of experience in the science of > accident > > reconstruction, the judge said. > > > > Haight told the court he has performed more than > 100 crash tests with > > different cars made by the same manufacturer of > Soukup's Corvette. > > Comparing the data recorded by the black boxes in > those tests with > > objective external instrumentation, Haight found > sensing diagnostic > > modules "extremely reliable," the judge said. > > > > Honorof ruled that the black box data were > admissible, even though the > > police had obtained it before applying for a > search warrant. > > > > Turning back Litman's argument that his client had > a reasonable > > expectation of privacy in the car and its > contents, the judge ruled that > > Soukup's operation of the vehicle on a public > highway knowingly exposed > > his behavior to the public. Observed by at least > three witnesses, his > > velocity was not a private matter, the judge said. > > > > He noted that the police searched not only the > engine compartment > > containing the black box, but also the car's > passenger compartment, in > > which Soukup may have had a reasonable privacy > expectation. > > > > Nevertheless, the judge found that because the > detectives obtained a > > warrant based not upon information obtained from > the car, but from > > eyewitnesses and observations at the crash scene, > the search was covered > > by the "independent source rule." > > > > That rule preserves the admissibility of otherwise > tainted proof if it > > was "obtained independently from lawful activities > untainted by the > > initial illegality," the judge wrote. > > > > Walsh said he expects the case to go to trial in > March. There can be no > > appeal of the ruling unless the defendants are > convicted. > > > > Search the > ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, > founder of the BMW CCA. > > > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and > home of the Ultimate > > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com > > Search the > ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, > founder of the BMW CCA. > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and > home of the Ultimate > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com > ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:46:57 -0400 From: "Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: car's black box admissible in court Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The solution is quite simple. BMW has explosive connections on the positive battery terminal to disconnect the battery in a crash and eliminate the possibility of a fire caused by an electrical short. Hook up a similar explosive device to the black box. Car operates normally, and in the case of an accident your private information is kept private by destroying it. If it's my car, I own the parts, I own any data, and I have the right to build in whatever explosive safety devices I feel are required to protect me from crooked law-bending judges. - Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "P Kroon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "UUC Digest" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [UUC] car's black box admissible in court > "Honorof ruled that the black box data were > admissible, even though the police had obtained it > before applying for a search warrant. > > Turning back Litman's argument that his client had a > reasonable expectation of privacy in the car and its > contents, the judge ruled that Soukup's operation of > the vehicle on a public highway knowingly exposed his > behavior to the public. Observed by at least three > witnesses, his velocity was not a private matter, the > judge said." > > Am I the only one that finds this logic strange? Yes, > his velocity isn't a private matter, but the > INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE BLACK BOX arguably is. > > -Paul > 96 328i > 03 G35 > 98 Panoz AIV Roadster > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:07:17 -0400 From: "Bruno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: car's black box admissible in court Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think you are missing the point... At the end two people died because of two young punk who were thinking that public roads are like race tracks... I am in favour of black boxes in this case. If you are willing to break the law and kill innocent people then you should pay for it. Imagine if it was your wife and your kid in the car and two young kids wanted to play and killed them both, what would you think about black boxes? Bruno Webmaster of the BMW E34 Website: www.bmwe34.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 4:46 PM Subject: Re: [UUC] car's black box admissible in court > The solution is quite simple. > > BMW has explosive connections on the positive battery terminal to disconnect > the battery in a crash and eliminate the possibility of a fire caused by an > electrical short. Hook up a similar explosive device to the black box. Car > operates normally, and in the case of an accident your private information > is kept private by destroying it. If it's my car, I own the parts, I own > any data, and I have the right to build in whatever explosive safety devices > I feel are required to protect me from crooked law-bending judges. > > - Rob > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "P Kroon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "UUC Digest" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 4:18 PM > Subject: Re: [UUC] car's black box admissible in court > > > > "Honorof ruled that the black box data were > > admissible, even though the police had obtained it > > before applying for a search warrant. > > > > Turning back Litman's argument that his client had a > > reasonable expectation of privacy in the car and its > > contents, the judge ruled that Soukup's operation of > > the vehicle on a public highway knowingly exposed his > > behavior to the public. Observed by at least three > > witnesses, his velocity was not a private matter, the > > judge said." > > > > Am I the only one that finds this logic strange? Yes, > > his velocity isn't a private matter, but the > > INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE BLACK BOX arguably is. > > > > -Paul > > 96 328i > > 03 G35 > > 98 Panoz AIV Roadster > > > > Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:31:05 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bruno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: car's black box admissible in court Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So its OK to violate someone's rights if you have already found them guilty? You can't be in favor of black boxes "in this case" because the consequences were tragic. You have to always be in favor of them because you believe their contents are public domain. Besides, black boxes aren't reliable. As I noted, a good reconstruction will determine speeds without them. Gary Derian >I think you are missing the point... At the end two people died because of > two young punk who were thinking that public roads are like race tracks... > I am in favour of black boxes in this case. If you are willing to break > the > law and kill innocent people then you should pay for it. > > Imagine if it was your wife and your kid in the car and two young kids > wanted to play and killed them both, what would you think about black > boxes? > > Bruno > Webmaster of the BMW E34 Website: www.bmwe34.net > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 4:46 PM > Subject: Re: [UUC] car's black box admissible in court > > >> The solution is quite simple. >> >> BMW has explosive connections on the positive battery terminal to > disconnect >> the battery in a crash and eliminate the possibility of a fire caused by > an >> electrical short. Hook up a similar explosive device to the black box. > Car >> operates normally, and in the case of an accident your private >> information >> is kept private by destroying it. If it's my car, I own the parts, I own >> any data, and I have the right to build in whatever explosive safety > devices >> I feel are required to protect me from crooked law-bending judges. >> >> - Rob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:49:53 -0400 From: "Bruno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "UUC Digest" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: car's black box admissible in court Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So if you can reconstruct the accident (which you can in most cases), why being so upset about revealing your speed and if you were braking or not... What is so secret about it? What is in the black box that you want to hide? The way I look at it, if you want to speed and take risks then you should be ready to pay the price. What kinf of rights do you have in the black box? If they aren't reliable I do agree that they shouldn't be used, but with today's technology I don't see how they wouldn't... Bruno Webmaster of the BMW E34 Website: www.bmwe34.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bruno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [UUC] car's black box admissible in court > So its OK to violate someone's rights if you have already found them guilty? > > You can't be in favor of black boxes "in this case" because the consequences > were tragic. You have to always be in favor of them because you believe > their contents are public domain. > > Besides, black boxes aren't reliable. As I noted, a good reconstruction > will determine speeds without them. > > Gary Derian > > >I think you are missing the point... At the end two people died because of > > two young punk who were thinking that public roads are like race tracks... > > I am in favour of black boxes in this case. If you are willing to break > > the > > law and kill innocent people then you should pay for it. > > > > Imagine if it was your wife and your kid in the car and two young kids > > wanted to play and killed them both, what would you think about black > > boxes? > > > > Bruno > > Webmaster of the BMW E34 Website: www.bmwe34.net > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 4:46 PM > > Subject: Re: [UUC] car's black box admissible in court > > > > > >> The solution is quite simple. > >> > >> BMW has explosive connections on the positive battery terminal to > > disconnect > >> the battery in a crash and eliminate the possibility of a fire caused by > > an > >> electrical short. Hook up a similar explosive device to the black box. > > Car > >> operates normally, and in the case of an accident your private > >> information > >> is kept private by destroying it. If it's my car, I own the parts, I own > >> any data, and I have the right to build in whatever explosive safety > > devices > >> I feel are required to protect me from crooked law-bending judges. > >> > >> - Rob > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:45:40 -0400 From: "Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: car's black box admissible in court Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I wish I had said it that well. - Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You can't be in favor of black boxes "in this case" because the consequences > were tragic. You have to always be in favor of them because you believe > their contents are public domain. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:43:04 -0400 From: "Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: car's black box admissible in court Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The deaths of people at the hands of irresponsible individuals is a tragic event. Yet I refuse to have a knee-jerk reaction based on emotion that further reduces the freedoms that are supposedly part of being a mature and responsible American. Part of those freedoms is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the right to overthrow unjust laws. I will state publicly that I flout unjust laws every day while maintaining very safe and reasonable behavior. I, and nobody else for that matter, should ever confuse "law" with "right" or "just". Many laws have little more than a superficial relationship to intelligent decisions and are more often based on revenue collection or otherwise supporting the interests of those involved in making the laws. Taking this hysterical example of "what if it was your wife and kid" to the extreme, why don't we just upgrade the black boxes to control the car? Make speed limit signs broadcast their value via radio and have the black box limit the maximum speed of the vehicle. Let the police have remote shutdown capability of your car so that they may inspect your private property at any time. Put a tracking device that reports your whereabouts of your car at all times to the Central Police Authority. If you're always legal, you've got nothing to worry about, right? Just think how safe your wife and kid will be, secure in the knowledge that nobody is free to make decisions about activities which could threaten them. Paradise on Earth. I can't wait until the system is updated further, put the same technology on an ankle bracelet that everyone must wear at all times. Safe, safe, safe, Freedom is Bondage. We're from the Government, we're here to help. Now to be even more serious; true safety does not come from the oppression of mindless control... it comes from the freedom of education, learning and developing a concept of right and wrong and _you_ control your actions, not having some corrupt legislative body and their illegal use of technology (which _you_ get to pay for) control your actions. - Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [UUC] car's black box admissible in court > I think you are missing the point... At the end two people died because of > two young punk who were thinking that public roads are like race tracks... > I am in favour of black boxes in this case. If you are willing to break the > law and kill innocent people then you should pay for it. > > Imagine if it was your wife and your kid in the car and two young kids > wanted to play and killed them both, what would you think about black boxes? > > Bruno > Webmaster of the BMW E34 Website: www.bmwe34.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:49:56 -0400 From: Brian Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: car's black box admissible in court Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A bill was introduced proposing exactly what you describe a few years back in (surprise!) California. They wanted all cars sold in CA equipped with a remote shutdown device so the police could disable the car of a fleeing suspect. I guess those are the kind of bright ideas you get from legislators when there's a live televised car chase on TV nearly every day. How long do you think it would be before the system got hacked and was used for carjackings, etc? A day? Brian '94 325ic (I'll decide when to shut it off, thanks.) Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks wrote: >Let the police have remote shutdown capability of your car so that they may >inspect your private property at any >time. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:00:12 +0000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "P Kroon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "UUC Digest" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: car's black box admissible in court Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This sounds like an opportunistic maneuver to establish precedent for admissibility of black box data for other future purposes. What if it was a cop rather than a disinterested eye-witness declared themself that they saw a vehicle moving "too fast" and then demanding black box data to prosecute his case? Would the same judge allow a driver to use black box data in their own defense if it was the prosecution who was objecting, such as a hotly contested radar case where laws declaring the admissibility of radar are well stacked in the state's, rather than the defendant's, favor? Barry > -----Original Message----- > From: P Kroon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 08:18 PM > To: 'UUC Digest' > Subject: Re: [UUC] car's black box admissible in court > "Honorof ruled that the black box data were > admissible, even though the police had obtained it > before applying for a search warrant. > Turning back Litman's argument that his client had a > reasonable expectation of privacy in the car and its > contents, the judge ruled that Soukup's operation of > the vehicle on a public highway knowingly exposed his > behavior to the public. Observed by at least three > witnesses, his velocity was not a private matter, the > judge said." > Am I the only one that finds this logic strange? Yes, > his velocity isn't a private matter, but the > INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE BLACK BOX arguably is. > -Paul > 96 328i > 03 G35 > 98 Panoz AIV Roadster ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:07:14 +0000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Bruno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "UUC Digest" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: car's black box admissible in court Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Its about the legal system trampling and pissing on the constitution. If we allow legal precedent to state that police don't have to abide by the laws, then we're falling right into the hands of the authors of the Patriot Act. To quote Marshall Mcluhan, 1984 happened in 1935, just that nobody noticed. To quote some old poem I wrote in college, "55 save gas, my ass, Nixon's last laugh" If only the country and the press would wake up like they did after Watergate and a new Deep Throat arise to enlighten America with the truth as most of the rest of the world's other democratic governments see it, and reveal openly and unarguably with what open defiance of the constitution, laws, the once near sacred chambers of the US Supreme Court, and even the hallowed rules of debate in the US Senate, our current presidency is trying to destroy. Now back to my techy geeky occupation that helps pay for the gas which has doubled in cost since Shrub took office, and then to bicycle home from work burning none of it. Argh, a good political rant like some of you hate and others of you wish some fool like me would dare venture to post. Barry > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 09:49 PM > To: 'Gary Derian', 'UUC Digest' > Subject: Re: [UUC] car's black box admissible in court > > So if you can reconstruct the accident (which you can in most cases), why > being so upset about revealing your speed and if you were braking or not... > What is so secret about it? What is in the black box that you want to hide? > The way I look at it, if you want to speed and take risks then you should be > ready to pay the price. > > What kinf of rights do you have in the black box? > > If they aren't reliable I do agree that they shouldn't be used, but with > today's technology I don't see how they wouldn't... > > Bruno ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:55:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Jonathan Brush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: <E34> aux fan Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thanks all for your good advice. Now I have all I need to go forward. Regards, Jon ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(11 messages) **********
