'No Corpus Delicti' as a Defense to a Ticket

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

I have never seen where any court has outlawed the use of radar, lidar, etc., as a violation of the confrontation clause, so if a camera is as effective electronically, how are they different?

---

The main difference is that radar and lidar are SUPPOSEDLY used to verify an officer's visual estimate of your speed. Now, in reality, that's not how they are used -- I've watched several radar traps and know that the officer is TOTALLY relying on the radar reading. When the officer writes it up, though, it ALWAYS reads something like, "I observed the suspect vehicle and visually estimated its speed at 45. I activated my radar unit, which indicated a speed of 47...."

In that case, it is the officer that you can confront in court, while a photo radar cannot be cross-examined, asked about its qualifications, training, etc. I believe that photo radar is only legal in AZ, BTW. WA allows photo radar in school zones, but the photo CANNOT show the driver, and the presumption that the registered owner was driving is overcome by a sworn statement that "it wasn't me".

But, I agree with Cyjeff. I think OP should try this defense and come back and let us know how it worked.

Barry

Not winning is not the same as not being right.

While not exactly civil traffic ticket issues there was a case taken to the Supreme Court on 4th amendment basis. The court basically side stepped the issue which in the end still allowed it. It was about being pulled over and detained by an officer in a civil traffic pull over with no probable cause. The court found that while not exactly following the letter of the law they believed that there was no harm in being pulled over in such cases to enforce non criminal ordinances and statues.

After all how much is there in our laws that were believed to be just fine and ok until someone fought it all the way.

Simple fact is that no one except the really bored or rich would ever appeal or sue the state for a civil traffic violation and not especially to the Supreme Court.

I think the point of the one thing I was reading on with the 2 questions was that of standing. Since most civil actions have a claim of damage be it physical, mental, financial, & conditional then where is the damage in speeding? In thinking on it I have found no damage to persons or property caused by speed and speed alone. Then there is who the damaged party is? Can the damaged party prove harm? Like the suits about wire tapping the judge ruled they had no standing because they could not show they were one of the ones being tapped even though the lists were secret so how could anyone know?

at any rate I have filed a motion to abate though i found that form late and it is likely moot now that I have a court date so we shall see how it goes.

Quote:

---

Quoting Vidalr

---

While not exactly civil traffic ticket issues there was a case taken to the Supreme Court on 4th amendment basis. The court basically side stepped the issue which in the end still allowed it. It was about being pulled over and detained by an officer in a civil traffic pull over with no probable cause. The court found that while not exactly following the letter of the law they believed that there was no harm in being pulled over in such cases to enforce non criminal ordinances and statues.

---

Can you please supply us with the cite for the case you refer to?

Good luck with your motion,

Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting Vidalr

---

Not winning is not the same as not being right.

While not exactly civil traffic ticket issues there was a case taken to the Supreme Court on 4th amendment basis. The court basically side stepped the issue which in the end still allowed it. It was about being pulled over and detained by an officer in a civil traffic pull over with no probable cause. The court found that while not exactly following the letter of the law they believed that there was no harm in being pulled over in such cases to enforce non criminal ordinances and statues.

---

If such a case exists, and please cite it, a violation of any traffic offense, regardless of the classification, is probable cause to seize (stop) a motor vehicle.

On the issue of "sidestep" the Court has ruled in the past IF they can decide a case on a non constitutional basis, they will.