-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:02 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Weaknesses in Today's Police Radar
Brian, You, your friend, or an attorney may want to review previous cases that have been successfully challenged. I know of one case where the court found that a large tree beside a two lane country road caused the radar gun to read inaccurately. The police car and defendant were headed towards the tree from opposite directions. Frank The odds in court are generally against you. The officer has canned testimony vetted to demonstrate that he's been trained on the radar, he checked the system, he followed observational guidelines, he didn't stop you for the radar indication only, etc. Was your friend honest? When the officer likely asked "Do you know how fast you were going?", did he answer something like "Oh certainly not 67 MPH, more like 57 MPH at the most!" DING! Direct admission of speeding; honesty doesn't mean anything when you voluntarily admit a violation. In California, you often have the option to take "traffic school", a one-day seminar that will expunge a minor violation and keep you from the REAL penalty, a hike in your insurance for several years. One reason that relatively few cases are contested is that traffic school is automatically granted if you plead guilty, pay the "administrative fee" and take the seminar. But if you choose to contest your case, the judge is not obligated to grant traffic school should you lose. There is certainty in pleading guilty, great uncertainty in contesting the case. Regardless of how you feel about the merits of the case, the smart course is to pay up and go away. The system likes it that way. For those inclined to assert themselves, I have thought that applying economic leverage is better than a technical challenge. As the accuracy of the radar is the only real "evidence" against you, you might want to demand that the radar system be impounded as evidence. Radars are little cash machines for the system, and having one impounded for quite a while as you prepare to have an expert lab check the system (you might want to mention all the problems you expect, and the continuances that you'll surely need) might just make the arrest go away for some obscure reason or other. OTOH, this is an escalation of the incident, a stand-off of wills, and common sense screams that you don't even think about this course. Our judicial system is the ultimate regulatory compliance expert. Regards (and don't ask me how I know), Ed Price [email protected] WB6WSN NARTE Certified EMC Engineer & Technician Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 (Voice) 858-505-1583 (Fax) Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
