Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket

    Quote Quoting jk
    View Post
    I sure hope you aren't selling your book. Your "understanding" of lidar speedn
    detectors is poor at best.

    You should check out the specs on the lidar used and calculate just how large the "spot" was. The minimal error caused by not hitting the "exact point" (if you calculate the actual size of the spot you will realize how invalid your claims are) will not cause an error large enough to make a difference. You should also realize that there are several hundred, at least, measurements taken during a speed check, all in less than half a second, which allows for a very accurate measurement.
    I did look up specs and calculated a beam width of ~10 feet for my situation.

    Lidar *can* be accurate, but the devices have to be used properly. The CHP publish an operating manual and the lidar device manufacturers publish operating instructions, too. I obtained copies and the officer did NOT follow the instructions. Accordingly, the measurement can't be expected to be accurate.

    cdwjava you are correct, argument is untested. But I still won. :-)

    It's true that motorists can be cited by officers who don't use tripods. However, that fact alone has no bearing on the accuracy of the measurement. And the documentation I read recommends that supports are used.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket

    So a beam width of 10 feet? Your statement of the light "must hit
    the exact same point on the car" fails if the beam width is 10 feet. A car is about 6' wide.

    I don't know the distance involved for you but to have a beam width of 10 feet you would have to be at least 700 yards (at the max allowable divergence of 5 milliradian (per federal rule) . 1 milliraidian @ 100 yards results in approx 3.6" ). You said you you were several hundred feet away. At 600 feet (200 yards) the beam would be about 36". (3.6 x 5 x 2) at the max allowable divergence. Your argument of hitting the exact same spot fails at that distance as well.

    And realize that is at the max divergence as allowed by law. The actual beam width is likely smaller.

    LTI (a lidar smd manufacturer) states their beam width is about 3 feet at 1000 feet.

    If your book is as imprecise as your calculations, well, let's just say it wouldn't be worth the sales price if it were free.

    As to you winning. You got lucky. The cop didn't show. If
    the cop showed, using the arguments you've provided so far, there is no reason to believe you would have won.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket

    And, of course, your lidar argument is entirely untested because the officer did not show and the matter was dropped. Not to mention the fact that a tripod is NOT required for the use of a lidar! I have no idea where you got that impression.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket

    Quote Quoting rtg20
    View Post

    On trial day, I arrived ready to argue that the speed measurement had been obtained without any regard for CHP procedure. The officer no-showed (not sure if the DA told him not to appear) so I won. :-)
    You are fortunate that the officer did not show and the court gave you a win by default. Had you proceeded with your argument you likely would have lost. CHP procedure is not law and the failure of the officer to follow CHP procedure is not a violation of your rights nor cause for dismissal of the charges against you. It seems though that your real argument was that the officer’s method of determining your speed was not reliable and you were planning to use the failure to follow CHP procedure as proof that the measurement was not reliable. That would not have succeeded. Just because the CHP procedure was not followed does not logically allow a conclusion that the speed measurement was not reliable. Rather, you would need to provide scientific evidence as to how lidar works, what steps must be done to get an accurate reading, and how what the officer did would result in the reading not being reliable. For that, you cannot simply point to CHP procedures or books on how lidar works. You must instead have an expert witness testify to those things. That is what the rules of evidence require. So even if you might have been right that officer’s reading was not reliable, you likely would have lost because you didn’t know the rules of evidence and didn’t have an expert witness to get the evidence you needed before the court to prove your point. This is one of the reasons that pro se litigants tend to fail in court. They screw up on procedure.

  5. #5

    Default Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    You are fortunate that the officer did not show and the court gave you a win by default. Had you proceeded with your argument you likely would have lost. CHP procedure is not law and the failure of the officer to follow CHP procedure is not a violation of your rights nor cause for dismissal of the charges against you. It seems though that your real argument was that the officer’s method of determining your speed was not reliable and you were planning to use the failure to follow CHP procedure as proof that the measurement was not reliable. That would not have succeeded. Just because the CHP procedure was not followed does not logically allow a conclusion that the speed measurement was not reliable. Rather, you would need to provide scientific evidence as to how lidar works, what steps must be done to get an accurate reading, and how what the officer did would result in the reading not being reliable. For that, you cannot simply point to CHP procedures or books on how lidar works. You must instead have an expert witness testify to those things. That is what the rules of evidence require. So even if you might have been right that officer’s reading was not reliable, you likely would have lost because you didn’t know the rules of evidence and didn’t have an expert witness to get the evidence you needed before the court to prove your point.
    OK, but it's the state's job to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. All I needed to do was establish reasonable doubt. It's true that, logically, failure to follow procedure does not necessarily mean that the reading was definitely wrong. But does failure to follow procedure with regard to items specifically identified as being important for accurate measurements not at the very least cast some doubt on the accuracy on the measurement? Guess we'll never know...

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post

    This is one of the reasons that pro se litigants tend to fail in court. They screw up on procedure.
    Agreed, but bear in mind that in this case, I nailed the procedures for: trial by written declaration; trial de novo; requesting a new judge; discovery (x3); motions to dismiss (x2). That's one reason why I wrote the book - to share what I learned about procedures.

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    So, you obtained his training info and the syllabus used in his training course?

    When I was a training manager, I recall my officers being trained in visual estimation on freeway speeds as well as lower speeds, and there were a significant number of such estimations. And, since we are not talking about even +/- 2 MPH, we are talking about deviations of, perhaps, 5 MPH, I suspect the court would be comfortable with their estimation. I was not radar trained (though I was a collision investigator), so I do not have firsthand radar training experience, but, most of my officers were.
    I only got limited info: a list of the speeds at which the officer's visual estimation abilities were tested (and his estimates, which were pretty good). Not the syllabus that I recall.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: How I Beat My California Speeding Ticket

    Your calculations are incorrect based on your stated situstion. As to the beam being wider "depending on how it is used"; it is an invalid statement. The beam width is a set factor based on the divergence angle built into the equipment. Since federal regulation limits the beam divergence to 5 milliradian, the beam will be no wider than the numbers I provided and most likely less since the 5 milliradian is a maximum allowable divergence. The LTI claim suggests their equipment is limited to nearly half the legally allowed maximum divergence.

    Your argument of it hiitting the mirror, the top of the windshield, etc causing an error shows you, and the sources you are citing, simply do not understand how lidar works. It doesn't matter what the reflective area is. The time required to measure the speed of the vehicle is so short the reading obtained will result from a reflection from the same point. In addition so many measurements are take and utilized in the internal calculations used to derive your speed, any error you suggest being present is compensated for by an overwhelming number of checks and calculations used in the resulting speed displayed by the device.

    Btw: citing a source that is not legally reliable or incorrect does not make your statement dependable or valuable. It simply extends the incorrect statement.


    Re: "Nailing the procedures". Really? Not sure I would call completing the simple tasks listed properly "nailing the procedures". I suppose you could but if you feel so strongly about the actions, I suspect each morning you put on your shoes and tie them properly you sit back, look at your accomplishment and say; NAILED IT. Not impresssive.


    re: your belief of why you won

    so rather than attempt to argue your technical defense has any merit, your entitire book can be summarized in a few simple words;

    I believe delaying any involved trial as long as possible may result in winning your case. I have nothing but my one successful speeding ticket defense to suggest this. I have no researched evidence showing their is any validity to my claim but my suggestion is; drag it out as long as you can and it, in my uneducated opinion, will give you the best opportunity at a win.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Pretrial Motions: Can You Get a Dismissal Based on an Error on a Ticket
    By Cb90 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-04-2017, 08:02 PM
  2. Speeding Tickets: Does the Ticketing Officer Have to Show You the Radar for Speeding Ticket
    By jyeh74 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-21-2014, 09:08 AM
  3. Speeding Tickets: Fighting a Speeding Ticket Based on ETS (Traffic Survey) and Officer's Mistake
    By 98redrang in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 11-09-2013, 05:56 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: Getting a Dismissal of a California VC 22349(B) Speeding Ticket
    By JackA in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 05-24-2011, 10:07 PM
  5. Speeding Tickets: California LIDAR Speeding Ticket - Officer Not in Vehicle
    By SandSP in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-16-2009, 09:21 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources