Re: California - Speeding 22349(A) - 68 on 65
I'll only comment on a couple of things here.
You are still misunderstanding the effect of cosine. Any cosine effect will ALWAYS show a radar reading that is slower than the tracked vehicle's actual speed. So, any cosine effect means that you were traveling FASTER than 68, not slower.
I understand what you are saying and, no, it is not the same as cosine. Radar waves travel (for all intents and purposes) at the speed of light. The radar device only needs to measure the difference in reflection time between two beams - which are pulsing at in the GHz (billion per second) range - to determine a target's speed (although they are programmed to use much more than two pulses). So, it only takes a split second to acquire an accurate reading. To put that in perspective, police radar manufacturers also make (cheaper and less sophisticated) "sport" models of their radar units. Their most well known use is to measure the speed of a baseball pitch. Think about how long it takes a baseball to travel between a MLB pitcher's hand and the catcher's mitt! Yet, a hand-held radar unit (again, cheaper and less sophisticated than those marketed to police) can accurately measure the speed of the pitch.
Now, it is true that police are trained to acquire a "clear and steady" reading of the target's speed...meaning that the displayed speed cannot be changing more dramatically than could be reasonably accounted for by a vehicle's acceleration or deceleration (which can happen if the radar unit is displaying readings from two or more targets in quick succession rather than locking on to just one target). I know of no requirement for any specific time for that "clear and steady" reading to be observed - certainly not 3-5 seconds. However, if you have the policy and procedure manual for the agency that issued your citation - and they were dumb enough to actually make that 3-5 seconds a policy requirement - then you can certainly argue that the officer was not operating the radar in accordance with his/her department policy...and that might well be enough to get the radar evidence excluded!
You are correct and I believe that this is your best argument (although certainly not a slam-dunk dismissal). Police are not allowed to let the radar unit conduct their initial observation. A cop has to first observe a vehicle that he/she suspects is traveling faster than the allowed speed limit. THEN they can use the radar to verify that their initial suspicion is correct. However, it doesn't take long for a good, old fashioned, Mark I eyeball to acquire a target and estimate velocity. By your own estimate of the distance the officer could have observed your vehicle (traveling at the speed you were cited for), the officer had between 3-4 seconds to acquire your vehicle with his/her eyes, think "that one looks a bit fast," pull the trigger on his/her radar unit, and look down at the displayed speed. That's quick, but doable. It's all going to depend on your ability to convince the judge that it was too quick.
Behind the badge is a person. Behind the person is an ego. This is as it should be, person at the center and ego to the back.