How to Establish Reasonable Doubt With a Laser Read

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: FL

I challenged a speeding ticket on the basis that it was difficult for my vehicle to reach said speed. My evidence was immaterial because even though it was unlikely that I could reach the speed, it was possible (although I didn't) and I was clocked by laser at that speed.

I learned to not challenge the laser. They took the laser reading over my evidence.

My question is this: Just because the laser showed a particular number does not prove that my car was the vehicle that the laser read came from.. so technically, couldn't I challenge this (or any other speeding ticket for that matter) on the basis that the officer could be lying. I understand that it's pretty much my word against his but, legally speaking, the court must prove my guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt". Wouldn't the possibility of an untruthful cop be "reasonable doubt"..? especially given my evidence on the limitations of my vehicle..

Quote:

---

Quoting RealCoolGuy

---

Just because the laser showed a particular number does not prove that my car was the vehicle that the laser read came from..

---

Here's a link that explains (with a picture) how Police LASER works... Pretty difficult to miss that BIG red dot on your vehicle!

The officer could look at your car, never take a reading, testify that he lasered your car and you will be convicted. Not saying this happened, nor am I saying the officer is lying. My point is that the 'system' assumes the cop never is mistaken and never lies.

Just the way it is. If you think the judge is fair or impartial, you are very mistaken.

With evidence (yes the officer's testimony is evidence) that you were speeding with your assertion it was unlikely but possible that your vehicle could do that speed, it would seem unlikely they would come to any other conclusion. The standard isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" in traffic violations, just a preponderance of the evidence to indicate one side or the other.

Thanks for your replies.. that's pretty much what I thought (knew) but since the judge did state that I must be proven "guilty without reasonable doubt" I was wondering if I could submit the officer's testimony as hearsay and therefore reasonably doubtful since the evidence I submitted made my traveling at said speed "unlikely but still possible" I view the chances that the officers mistook my vehicle as "unlikely but still possible".

Quote:

---

Quoting RealCoolGuy

---

Thanks for your replies.. that's pretty much what I thought (knew) but since the judge did state that I must be proven "guilty without reasonable doubt" I was wondering if I could submit the officer's testimony as hearsay and therefore reasonably doubtful since the evidence I submitted made my traveling at said speed "unlikely but still possible" I view the chances that the officers mistook my vehicle as "unlikely but still possible".

---

You keep talking about "hearsay" but assuming HE was the one who clocked your speed AND HE was the one who testified as such (as opposed to one officer witnessing and another officer testifying), I am not sure which part of the officer's testimony do you consider "hearsay"?

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

With evidence (yes the officer's testimony is evidence) that you were speeding with your assertion it was unlikely but possible that your vehicle could do that speed, it would seem unlikely they would come to any other conclusion. The standard isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" in traffic violations, just a preponderance of the evidence to indicate one side or the other.

---

Officers testimony is "evidence", your testimony is "assertion". Remember that.

Truth is, you could have a Automotive drive system engineer who did the development work on your car testify that it was impossible to accelerate from A to B and reach speed C (assuming both sides agreed to A and B) and also testify that he dynoed your car and found it was at stock power levels.

Judge would say "well, the officer says you were speeding, guilty"


Back to your original issue- yes, it is possible that the officer measured one car, looked down to put the gun down, start the car, engage the shift, and in that moment lost sight of one car and picked yours- we've all had those mental glitches (except they never happen to trained police officers I guess)... but there is NO way short of video proof to fight such a situation.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

You keep talking about "hearsay" but assuming HE was the one who clocked your speed AND HE was the one who testified as such (as opposed to one officer witnessing and another officer testifying), I am not sure which part of the officer's testimony do you consider "hearsay"?

---

Sorry, I was using my slang-version of the term "hearsay" and not the legal definition.. I'm not that familiar with legal terms and the like (although thank you for pointing out my error)... I guess what I meant was "falsehoods" or whatever the legal term is for "lying"..

And thanks everyone once more for your responses.. My buddy has a friend who is a lawyer; I will run it by him as well. I will post here if I learn any different.

I am not sure why the previous thread was closed: http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109084 (guess it timed out or something)

...but I wanted to thank those that responded and send an update on the results of the case...

The charges were dropped because the officer could not prove that it was my vehicle. Normally, I don't think my defense would have held up but the fact that I had my vehicle checked by a mechanic put my word over his and there was reasonable doubt to my benefit. Unfortunately, the legal fees cost more than the ticket would have but at least my record is clean and a douche cop learned a lesson about abusing power..

Just curious....why is the officer a douche for doing his job? He made a mistake, happens to everybody.