Defending Against a Ticket by Claiming Another Vehicle Was in the Radar Stream
My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Michigan
I was cited on a motorbike for speeding 50mph in a 35mph zone.
I obtained a copy of the officer's notes and, among other things, he says there were no other vehicles in the radar beam. However, there was a car in front of me and I did manage to take a still picture of this with my helmet camera (you can clearly see his lights in the mirrors, to prove I took it at that time) and I'm sure the dashcam footage would also reflect this. He was stationary, and I was driving away from him with the car in front of me when I was clocked.
I plan to use this as a defense based on the fact that motorcycles have a much smaller radar signature than cars and much of my bike is plastic, which does not reflect radar signals. While the car was a good distance away, it was still in the operational area of the beam and even if there is only a small chance that the car was picked up instead of my bike, I am hoping this will cast enough doubt in the court's mind the dismiss the case.
If this falls through, I would like to use the "People v Ferency" defense and ask for proof of certification of the radar unit, as well as whether the unit was tested at both the beginning and the end of the shift. I would like to do this by asking the officer what the procedure is when he turns in his vehicle at the end of his shift, and hope that he doesn't mention testing the radar unit as part of his routine.
Any advice that you can offer would be much appreciated!
Re: Other vehicle in radar beam, Ferency defense
Quote:
Quoting
Launchpad
I obtained a copy of the officer's notes and, among other things, he says there were no other vehicles in the radar beam. However, there was a car in front of me and I did manage to take a still picture of this with my helmet camera (you can clearly see his lights in the mirrors, to prove I took it at that time) and I'm sure the dashcam footage would also reflect this. He was stationary, and I was driving away from him with the car in front of me when I was clocked.
For starters, how do you know when you were clocked? It is possible that he clocked you as you were approaching him. With some/most police cruisers having two Radar antennas, one that is front facing and one that faces the rear, I think it is in fact possible!
But let us assume that he did clock you when you say he clocked you... Which was at the same moment that you took a picture of him and the picture shows -according to you- his lights, then clearly, there were no other vehicles or objects blocking the Radar beam. If there were any, he couldn't see you and you couldn't see him/take a picture of him or his lights.
But if that is not enough, then assuming he had activated the dash cam recorder (no, it is not on all the time) and if you think that the dash cam video will confirm that there was a car in front of you, and that the officer was behind you at the time, and since you don't mention any car between you and him, then all you did there was to help him prove that, as he described in his statement, there were no other vehicles in the Radar beam.
Quote:
Quoting
Launchpad
I plan to use this as a defense based on the fact that motorcycles have a much smaller radar signature than cars and much of my bike is plastic, which does not reflect radar signals. While the car was a good distance away, it was still in the operational area of the beam and even if there is only a small chance that the car was picked up instead of my bike, I am hoping this will cast enough doubt in the court's mind the dismiss the case.
You should look up "visual estimate" and rad about what it means, and you will then understand how the officer can look at two vehicles approaching him or driving away from him and can easily determine which vehicle is travelling faster. Combine that with a Radar speed measuring device that is set to measure the speed of the fastest moving vehicle in its path regardless of its size or "signature", then your whole entire argument here just hit a stone wall. But wait...
Quote:
Quoting
Launchpad
While the car was a good distance away, it was still in the operational area of the beam and even if there is only a small chance that the car was picked up instead of my bike...
Your first defense was to pretend that there was a car in the path of the Radar beam and now you are confirming the opposite of that.
Quote:
Quoting
Launchpad
I am hoping this will cast enough doubt in the court's mind the dismiss the case.
Actually, all that did was pretty much show the court that you have zero credibility. Rest assured that will not get you a dismissal.
Quote:
Quoting
Launchpad
If this falls through, I would like to use the "People v Ferency" defense and ask for proof of certification of the radar unit, as well as whether the unit was tested at both the beginning and the end of the shift. I would like to do this by asking the officer what the procedure is when he turns in his vehicle at the end of his shift, and hope that he doesn't mention testing the radar unit as part of his routine.
So the officer is there to testify in a speeding case where he used Radar to measure the defendant's speed, the defendant had just managed to present two defense ideas that made no sense whatsoever, both of which were related to Radar, and yet you expect to ask him a vague question and assume that he will forget to mention him testing the Radar at the end of his shift?
Two reasons why that isn't likely to save the day for you... (1) if testing the Radar at the beginning and at the end of the shift is in fact a requirement under Michigan law, then the officer had already testified to that part as a way to lay the proper foundation for his speed estimate, (2) if there is such a requirement, it really does not mandate that the radar be tested at the beginning and end of the officer's shift, but simply before and after a citation is issued. So if he fails to include carrying out that procedure when he turned in his vehicle at the end of his shift, does not necessarily entail that he did not perform that procedure.
You've offered nothing that is likely to help you mitigate the charge you were cited for. Quite the opposite... You helped the officer solidify his case and make a quick conviction of your case!
Re: Other vehicle in radar beam, Ferency defense
I should clarify, what I meant by saying there was a car in the radar beam is that there was another vehicle that could have been clocked at the displayed speed, not that the car was blocking the beam between myself and the officer.
The reason I know he clocked me on the front antenna is because it was in his notes. As for the picture, I'm at work and don't have it with me but the picture is of the car in front of me and you can see the officer with lights flashing in my side mirrors.
I know the radar unit can be set to display the fastest vehicle, but who's to say that the car down the road in front of me wasn't the one who was speeding? Of course the officer can visually estimate the speed, but is it not possible that with the car a good distance up ahead and me just now passing him that he wrongly thought I was the one speeding?
It is indeed required that the officer test the unit before and after his shift. This is one of seven requirements outlined in the Michigan Court of Appeals case People v Ferency. According to the Magistrate Traffic Adjudication Manual (linked below), the court may also need to provide proof of certification of the radar unit.
The reason I want to ask what his procedure is when he turns in his vehicle at the end of his shift is because you and I both know that if I simply ask him "Do you test your radar unit at the end of your shift in the same manner you tested it at the beginning of the shift?" he will most likely say yes, whether he really does test it or not. I need to word it in a way that makes him more likely to tell the truth and less likely to just cover his own ass.
Details about the interpretation of People v Ferency can be found on page 36 of the New Magistrate Traffic Adjudication Manual: http://worldcat.org/arcviewer/1/EEX/...wer/file20.pdf - details concerning radar certification requirements are on page 38 under "Reliability of the radar device."
Re: Other vehicle in radar beam, Ferency defense
The cop will testify it was you he got 100%. Now you are screwed if that is your only line of defense.
Think some moar !
Re: Defending Against a Ticket by Claiming Another Vehicle Was in the Radar Stream
OK, so assuming you get the video entered as evidence, you are going to be required to present the entire video, not cherry pick the part you want. The prosecutor will be able to review the tape. Why do I suspect it is going to show you decreasing the distance from the vehicle in front of you as you travel. This means, assuming your argument were correct and the radar clocked the car and not you, you were actually traveling faster than the speed you were cited for.
Re: Other vehicle in radar beam, Ferency defense
Quote:
Quoting
Launchpad
I should clarify, what I meant by saying there was a car in the radar beam is that there was another vehicle that could have been clocked at the displayed speed, not that the car was blocking the beam between myself and the officer.
The reason I know he clocked me on the front antenna is because it was in his notes. As for the picture, I'm at work and don't have it with me but the picture is of the car in front of me and you can see the officer with lights flashing in my side mirrors.
I know the radar unit can be set to display the fastest vehicle, but who's to say that the car down the road in front of me wasn't the one who was speeding? Of course the officer can visually estimate the speed, but is it not possible that with the car a good distance up ahead and me just now passing him that he wrongly thought I was the one speeding?
It doresn't matter what the car ahead was going at.. If hew can visually estimate your speed at or close to 50, and his Radar display shows 50, then even if the car ahead is also going 50, he is not obligated to pull him over instead or in addition, he can pull you over and let him go.
Quote:
Quoting
Launchpad
It is indeed required that the officer test the unit before and after his shift. This is one of seven requirements outlined in the Michigan Court of Appeals case People v Ferency. According to the Magistrate Traffic Adjudication Manual (linked below), the court may also need to provide proof of certification of the radar unit.
The purpose for the test is to ensure that the unit was working properly at the time it was used to measure your speed. So whether he tested it at the beginning and end of his shift or shortly before and shortly after he issued your citation, the goal of ensuring that the unit was working properly at the time your citation was issued had been accomplished. To quote the manual you linked:
Quote:
The issue of whether the radar device was operating properly at the time of the test should be established with operator testimony that the device passed the verification tests at the beginning and end of the shift and through observation of the radar during normal operation.
That confirms what I stated earlier about him testifying to the fact that in this case and on the day he cited you the unit was tested as required. You come back and ask him about his [procedures at the end of the day... Neither that question, nor any answer he might give will change the fact that he has already established by testimony that on the day you were cited, the unit was tested as required.
You still have nothing top go on. And your best bet is to try and plea bargain your way out. Take it to trial and you are likely going to lose that and end up with a conviction. But its your case, proceed as you wish!
Re: Other vehicle in radar beam, Ferency defense
Well I do plan on talking to the prosecutor to try getting it down to a non-points violation. I know they tend to be less lenient if the officer already gave you a break on the ticket, but it's worth a shot. Maybe I can reason with them, seeing as this is my very first ticket and I'm not eligible for the driving class since I have a CDL so I am basically at their mercy.
What would be the best way to do this? Do I just show up early for the formal hearing and ask to speak to the prosecutor?