Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill

    Quote Quoting ltmaniac
    View Post
    Does shooting a firearm at a stationary target at a firing range translate into hitting a moving vehicle's license plate/headlight at over 5 football field lengths away?

    I'm not being a smart aleck, I am genuinely asking the question as I am not familiar with firearms.
    You're assuming that their target practice is ALWAYS done using stationary targets. But even if it is, their Radar and LIDAR training has them working in similar environment as they would be out on the streets.

    Point is, no matter what you try, say or do in court, nothing is going to work to your advantage simply because for this type of citation, they are not even obligated to disclose or show proof of any training or certification in the use of speed measuring devices. There simply is no statutory requirement for them to mention anything other than the fact that they measured your speed and what they measured it at. Similarly, there is no calibration requirement either.

    So what are you expecting from discovery? It will simply be a waste of time, ink and paper.

    Let me also add that these methods are acceptable, have been in use for YEARS and courts all over the state will not even blink an eye to even begin question any of these methods and devices, and yet here you are allowing the forum joker, the troll, or better yet, the jack-ass, the one member who is no only clueless about any of these matters, but the one member who's every post thus far has been based on some sort of lie, you're allowing him to make this process twice as cumbersome and time consuming. You can deny it all you want, you were clocked at 20 mph in excess of the state''s maximum speed limit. Sorry to repeat what I stated in my first post here, but any reasonable person will flat out tell you that there is nothing you can do that will overcome a presumption that you will lose this case, no matter how hard you try! Suit yourself!

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    12

    Default Re: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill

    Quote Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    So what are you expecting from discovery? It will simply be a waste of time, ink and paper.
    Thanks for your input and opinion That guy.

    What you perceive to be a waste of time, may not be such a waste for other people - so that is merely your opinion and I respect that.

    Before I enter a plea, I would prefer to view the evidence that is presented against me. I hope you can understand that.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill

    Quote Quoting ltmaniac
    View Post
    Thanks for your input and opinion That guy.

    What you perceive to be a waste of time, may not be such a waste for other people - so that is merely your opinion and I respect that.

    Before I enter a plea, I would prefer to view the evidence that is presented against me. I hope you can understand that.
    You already have the evidence against you... 20 miles per hour in excess of the statutory limit of 65 mph. That is all the officer needs to testify to.

    So again, what are you expecting from discovery? The reason I am asking you this question again is simply because some people who ask about discovery are under the mistaken belief that if they do not receive discovery, that their case will get dismissed. And that, could not be farther from the truth! More so if you are doing a TBD. Simply because during that process, there is no way for you to try and compel discovery and so you are chasing after items that are not only irrelevant, but items that you are not likely to get to look at until you appear in court for a court trial.

    The only thing left for you to come back with is "I'm innocent until proven guilty"... And my answer to that is "its only a matter of time". I am being as real as anyone can be.

    But don't listen to me... Go ahead and assume like most others do, that I somehow benefit from telling you to stop wasting your time and face the music, when in fact, it has zero affect on me! In fact, come back a couple of months from now to tell me how I was wrong about it all. Do you think it affects me then? Nope... It doesn't!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    551

    Default Re: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill

    Quote Quoting ltmaniac
    View Post
    Does shooting a firearm at a stationary target at a firing range translate into hitting a moving vehicle's license plate/headlight at over 5 football field lengths away?

    I'm not being a smart aleck, I am genuinely asking the question as I am not familiar with firearms.
    Not likely, there is a lot more at play, when shooting a bullet, a lidar has no recoil and no projectile that would be effected by the environment. Aiming a LIDAR would be much easier, hence the reason an officer can be trained to hit a vehicle at a quarter mile, while very few officers could hit a target with a bullet at that distance.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    12

    Default Re: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill

    Quote Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    So again, what are you expecting from discovery? The reason I am asking you this question again is simply because some people who ask about discovery are under the mistaken belief that if they do not receive discovery, that their case will get dismissed. And that, could not be farther from the truth!
    No, I believe cdw was quite clear that the CHP are not obligated to grant a discovery request. But in his experience, he did state that they were pretty responsive. Again, I would just like to see all the evidence presented against me, which include the officers report and records of the equipment that he used to clock me at. I don't think this is too much to ask or even a waste of time, especially given the fact that my brother said the officer's back was to the road when we were at the top of the hill.


    Quote Quoting That Guy
    View Post
    The only thing left for you to come back with is "I'm innocent until proven guilty"... And my answer to that is "its only a matter of time". I am being as real as anyone can be.
    Thanks for being real, but the reality is that cops can be wrong too - they're human after all. Case in point my brother who was a passenger (drunk) and his "friend" crashed the car when driving. His "friend" planted the car keys on my brother and that was enough for the cops to throw the book at him which included resisting arrest and a DUI. (The former being impossible as he dislocated his shoulder and unconscious as he was put into an ambulance shortly after). After almost a two year long process, along with multiple bullying tactics from the police and prosecutor, his case was dismissed by a judge. Every one that is suspected of doing something wrong is always innocent until proven guilty and I'm glad that everyone in this country has the chance to have their day in court.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Apologies for the double post, but I am not able to edit my previous post to include this question.

    Are police officers allowed to haphazardly check speeds of cars using LIDAR? I was under the assumption that they need to believe a car is speeding in the first place to check cars using radar/lidar?

    Also, would it be reasonable to physically see if someone was going over the speed limit at a distance of 1,600ft?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,522

    Default Re: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill

    Quote Quoting ltmaniac
    View Post
    Does shooting a firearm at a stationary target at a firing range translate into hitting a moving vehicle's license plate/headlight at over 5 football field lengths away?

    I'm not being a smart aleck, I am genuinely asking the question as I am not familiar with firearms.
    Yes, they are trained to use the radar at distance. If you intend to raise a defense arguing the effectiveness of radar, be prepared to pay one or more experts to come in and testify on your behalf.

    You can certainly question the officer on his observations and qualifications to use the lidar, but if you wish to bring up issues of the ability of the lidar to function (be aimed or used) at such distance, you'll likely lose and it'll cost a lot of money.

    Officers that use the lidar have been almost always been trained in its use at range. If the officer possesses the proper training certificate, then, yes, he can use the lidar at 1,600 feet to get a good reading.

    Oh, and as a note, most agencies have moved away from training to shoot firearms at stationary targets from a simple standing position.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Quoting ltmaniac
    View Post
    Are police officers allowed to haphazardly check speeds of cars using LIDAR? I was under the assumption that they need to believe a car is speeding in the first place to check cars using radar/lidar?
    They can also run your plates, your name, and any criminal or driving record without any articulable cause.

    So, no, they don't need to believe you are speeding before they hit you with a lidar ... though, chances are he used the lidar because he believed you were speeding in the first place.

    Also, would it be reasonable to physically see if someone was going over the speed limit at a distance of 1,600ft?
    Yep.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Since you brought it up, I feel I have to discuss it ...

    Quote Quoting ltmaniac
    View Post
    my brother who was a passenger (drunk) and his "friend" crashed the car when driving. His "friend" planted the car keys on my brother
    And you know that because your brother told you? Or, did the "friend" ever confess to driving?

    That argument seems quite lame to me, but without access to the details I can't argue the likelihood one way or the other.

    and that was enough for the cops to throw the book at him which included resisting arrest and a DUI. (The former being impossible as he dislocated his shoulder and unconscious as he was put into an ambulance shortly after).
    A dislocated shoulder does NOT mean someone is incapable of resisting arrest and struggling with officers. Sorry, but even drunks, handcuffed, and handicapped people can fight, injure, and even kill officers. So, a dislocated should is not proof of a lack of resisting arrest.

    After almost a two year long process, along with multiple bullying tactics from the police and prosecutor, his case was dismissed by a judge.
    Why? Since these are misdemeanors, there would be no preliminary hearing, so at what point and for what reason did the court DISMISS the charges? I can see the DA deciding not to go forward, but that's not a dismissal. If it was as a result of a motion, what was the motion?

    A case can be discontinued for a host of reasons, but a court "dismissing" a case is rare, especially for misdemeanors.

    Every one that is suspected of doing something wrong is always innocent until proven guilty and I'm glad that everyone in this country has the chance to have their day in court.
    True. But, you also have to weigh the costs and the benefits. If you have no chance at traffic school and don't mind taking the time and days off to deal with the issue, then you have that right. In the end, the result will probably not change, but, you never know.
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    334

    Default Re: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill

    Quote Quoting ltmaniac
    View Post
    Are police officers allowed to haphazardly check speeds of cars using LIDAR? I was under the assumption that they need to believe a car is speeding in the first place to check cars using radar/lidar?
    cdwjava and I discussed this a few weeks ago and I walked away without a definite answer. What you are asking is does a police officer need probable cause before using an advanced electronic surveillance device on you? I think they do. What makes me think that is a few things. cdwjava says it is in a police officer's training that he is to do an observed estimate of a vehicle's speed prior to using his radar/lidar on it. Well, I'd like to know why? He also says that is how police are taught to testify in court. Again, why? I believe it's because they need probably cause prior to radar usage.

    An unrelated by similar example: Could the police sit hidden outside an open square of unsuspecting people and use a parabolic directional microphone and electronically eavesdrop on people's conversations and record their quiet conversation? Then use that audio as probable cause to follow them and make a subsequent arrest? I doubt it. I highly suspect they would need probable cause prior to employing advanced electronic eavesdropping equipment…which is very similar to the use of radar on traffic.

    Now, will that defense get a citation dismissed, I doubt it. The officer will simply state he did do an observed estimate prior to shooting the radar at you. How will you counter that? But I'd ask, are police trained to do an accurate observed estimates on cars traveling directly at them some 5 1/2 football fields away? If so, I'd like to see their test scores for that.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,522

    Default Re: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill

    Quote Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    What you are asking is does a police officer need probable cause before using an advanced electronic surveillance device on you? I think they do.
    And you'd be wrong. There is no statute or case law that requires "probable cause" (the standard for an arrest) or even "reasonable suspicion" (the standard for a detention, i.e. a traffic stop) before you use lidar, radar, or even run a person's name or registration info.

    What makes me think that is a few things. cdwjava says it is in a police officer's training that he is to do an observed estimate of a vehicle's speed prior to using his radar/lidar on it. Well, I'd like to know why? He also says that is how police are taught to testify in court. Again, why? I believe it's because they need probably cause prior to radar usage.
    As I said, it's the standard of training, and it appears to exceed the legal requirement. Again, there is no statute or case that requires an officer to have RS or PC before using those devices, or even one that requires them to use radar or lidar to confirm their estimation. As I have been told it is done to better train and affirm an officer's skill at visual estimation. To make the estimate and then validate it affirms the officer's visual estimation skill and allows him to better hone that particular skill because he gets immediate feedback on his estimate.

    There are a number of areas where our training exceeds the legal requirements. This would only be one of them.

    An unrelated by similar example: Could the police sit hidden outside an open square of unsuspecting people and use a parabolic directional microphone and electronically eavesdrop on people's conversations and record their quiet conversation?
    Not generally, no.

    I highly suspect they would need probable cause prior to employing advanced electronic eavesdropping equipment…which is very similar to the use of radar on traffic.
    Nope. Because your driving is a VISUAL thing and in public view. There is no expectation of privacy. That expectation of privacy is what would make the electronic eavesdropping illegal.
    **********
    Retired Cal Cop Sergeant & Teacher

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    334

    Default Re: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    And you'd be wrong. There is no statute or case law that requires "probable cause" (the standard for an arrest) or even "reasonable suspicion" (the standard for a detention, i.e. a traffic stop) before you use lidar, radar, or even run a person's name or registration info.


    As I said, it's the standard of training, and it appears to exceed the legal requirement. Again, there is no statute or case that requires an officer to have RS or PC before using those devices, or even one that requires them to use radar or lidar to confirm their estimation. As I have been told it is done to better train and affirm an officer's skill at visual estimation. To make the estimate and then validate it affirms the officer's visual estimation skill and allows him to better hone that particular skill because he gets immediate feedback on his estimate.

    There are a number of areas where our training exceeds the legal requirements. This would only be one of them.


    Not generally, no.


    Nope. Because your driving is a VISUAL thing and in public view. There is no expectation of privacy. That expectation of privacy is what would make the electronic eavesdropping illegal.
    What you say makes sense, however, why all the additional requirements for red light camera electronics. Like posted signs, minimum yellow light timing, exclusive allowances for its usage etc. With radar usage, why the requirement for posted signage and restrictions on where they can use it? Why are speed surveys so important with it usage? Why the high standard of accuracy for a radar units but no high standard of accuracy for an observed estimate? Scoring within 45mph on 12 estimations is not accuracy at all. I could probably do that. And, as many certifications go, once you pass the test, where is the followup training to keep those skills homed? All the requirements and laws that govern probable cause and surveillance equipment may not be found in CVC statutes.

    I've searched this subject and came up with nothing. But that does not mean I am satisfied.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    3,577

    Default Re: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill

    So Cal, I appreciate your comments, however misguided they are. First let me try to show how your "unrelated [but] similar example" is not applicable:

    Quote Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    Could the police sit hidden outside an open square of unsuspecting people and use a parabolic directional microphone and electronically eavesdrop on people's conversations and record their quiet but public conversations?
    I assume you are referring to the Fourth Amendment's "Right to Privacy". Your error apparently comes from a misunderstanding of an individual's "Right to Privacy". The "Right to Privacy" is the legal right to reasonable privacy in NOT having your PRIVATE affairs made PUBLIC. It has been ruled repeatedly that what a person does IN PUBLIC is NOT PRIVATE. So, do the police have the authority to record a "quiet but public" conversation? Yep! Can they subsequently use that to establish probable cause? Yep!

    So, you're driving your vehicle on a public street or highway. Does law enforcement have the authority to use "an advanced electronic surveillance device" to determine if the driver of that vehicle is breaking the law? Yep!

    Now, to address your initial point:

    Quote Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    What you are asking is does a police officer need probable cause before using an advanced electronic surveillance device on you? I think they do. What makes me think that is a few things. cdwjava says it is in a police officer's training that he is to do an observed estimate of a vehicle's speed prior to using his radar/lidar on it. Well, I'd like to know why? He also says that is how police are taught to testify in court. Again, why? I believe it's because they need probably cause prior to radar usage.
    You obviously do not understand the proper use of RADAR to obtain evidence of speed and how that evidence needs to be presented in court. In order to introduce RADAR evidence of speed, certain foundation elements are required. First, the theory of Doppler RADAR has been well established and courts can take judicial notice of that element.

    Next, the individual RADAR unit must be "authenticated". That is, the prosecution must show that the individual device was in proper working order at the time of use. This actually consists of two items: it must be shown that the device is "periodically" calibrated along with any tuning forks used to subsequently check the device; next, it must be shown that the device is tested for proper operation and the calibration checked near the time of use.

    Finally, it must be shown that the device was measuring the speed of the individual vehicle driven by the person who was cited.

    I believe this last item is the source of your confusion. In order to legally identify the individual vehicle, the officer must establish a "tracking history". The major drawback to using RADAR is that the RADAR is NOT selective in its targeting. At 250 feet a RADAR beam can cover EVERY lane of a four-lane highway. Some devices, such as the Kustom Talon, cannot even distinguish whether a target is approaching or receding. Considering the potential for a vast number of vehicles to be within the beam, to prove in court that the defendant's vehicle was, indeed, the vehicle whose speed was being measured, a tracking history is performed as follows:

    Quote Quoting Kustom Falcon User's Manual
    Once the radar has been properly set up and tested (see preceding sections), it is ready for use. Acquiring and displaying valid target speeds requires obtaining a proper tracking history, as described below:

    1. Visually observe target vehicle and estimate its speed.

    Recheck antenna aim.

    Observe other vehicles which may be in the radar beam and which are potential targets (or may block the radar's "view" of the selected target), especially those, which are larger, closer, or much faster than the selected target.

    Be alert to terrain or roadside features that can cause interference, incorrect readings, or display blanking. (Such features include power lines, radio/TV transmitters, bridges, guardrails, signs, buildings and other large reflectors, etc.)

    2. Listen to the Doppler audio. The pitch of the tone should correspond to the visual estimate made above. The tone should be clear and strong; scratchy, "buzzy", or garbled tones could indicate interference of some sort.

    3. Check the radar display. The reading should closely match the visual estimate and the pitch of the audio tone.
    You can see that the "visual estimate" is the first step in establishing a "tracking history", which, in turn, is used to assure proper identification of the suspect vehicle. It is NOT even related to "probable cause".

    Now, let me move on to LIDAR. LIDAR does NOT suffer from the same "beam spread" as RADAR -- at 1,000 feet the beam is only 3 feet in diameter. The probability that the reading was taken from a different vehicle is remote. In my opinion, there is absolutely NO NEED for a "tracking history" when using LIDAR. However, until we get a court case that establishes that LIDAR evidence is acceptable without a tracking history, I imagine that law enforcement will stick with "tradition" and present the evidence as though it were RADAR and perform the "visual estimate" -- even though it is not necessary.

    Oops, I got called away while I was in the middle of writing this. When I did a "preview", I noticed some additional comments:

    Quote Quoting So Cal
    View Post
    Why all the additional requirements for red light camera electronics. Like posted signs, minimum yellow light timing, exclusive allowances for its usage etc.
    I believe, having attended several of the legislative sessions where these bills were being considered, that these are concessions to the vast majority of people who don't want a "Big Brother"-type state watching over our every move.

    I also see you've removed the words "but public" from your original post (see first quoted passage above). However, my comments stand.

    Barry
    Where am I going? And why am I in this handbasket?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Speeding Tickets: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill, VC 22350
    By rtran91 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 02-11-2013, 09:22 AM
  2. Speeding Tickets: Ticketed for Speeding While Going Downhill
    By bvaidu in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-24-2012, 02:36 PM
  3. Speeding Tickets: Ticketed for Speeding at the End of a Downhill Slope
    By stochastic21 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-10-2010, 12:23 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: 30% Incline Downhill Speeding Ticket
    By element256 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-03-2008, 09:46 AM
  5. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket Due To Downhill Acceleration
    By Sunny3000 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-06-2008, 11:51 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources