Does the Officer Have to Have the Radar on You for at Least Three Seconds

[slowMO]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: oregon. i heard the officer has to have you on radar for atleast 3 sec. before having a good reading. is this true ??

[That Guy]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: oregon. i heard the officer has to have you on radar for atleast 3 sec. before having a good reading. is this true ??

There is no need to keep "radar on you" simply because the way Radar works, and the way it is mounted in their vehicles, its on you whether you like it or not. So right off the bat, what you heard is "wrong".

Second, radar only takes a fraction of a second to measure a speed... So again, the 3 seconds is not required.

Also, there are some circumstances where the officer might need to track the speed to establish which car the Radar actually measured... But that could take from as little as a couple of seconds, to who knows how long if everyone is driving at a similar speed...

Most if not all officers who use radar are trained and certified in visual estimate. And the way they typically testify is that they were monitoring traffic, saw a vehicle approaching at a high rate of speed, visually estimated its speed at XX mph, activated radar and obtained as reading of YY mph. Now he has established tracking your speed, now he has (semi) independent speed measurements, and your 3 second story will not get you anywhere!


And PLEASE keep all your questions in one thread! Ddon't start a new thread for every short burst question you think of!

[PTPD22]

There is no specific tracking time requirement in any state that I am aware of. Although this seems to be a popular myth, it is just plain wishful thinking. If you believe that the circumstances were such that the officer did not obtain a clear speed measurement, you can certainly argue that in court. But, there is no set "3 second rule."

[slowMO]

k thanks for the insight . now i gotta figure out another way out of this ticket