Another Keystone Cops speeding ticket beaten.
- Thread starter TallTom
- Start date
TallTom
Registered
I will answer your question. However, please realize that each circumstance will be different for each event. In no way will I suggest that this will fit all the time. Don't assume this is your only way to defend yourself.
I had a easel and a 2X4 foot drawing of the highway and asked him to place my vehicle on the drawing as it was cited. I then asked him to place his vehicle on the same drawing in relation to mine. He did that. I needed him to commit to the position of his vehicle as far as orientation to the highway and the traffic he was citing. He placed him self at an approximate 45 degree behind a sign and some green buffer scrub and shrub. That was all a set up to get him to commit himself. I asked him what equipment he was using. Stalker ATR Stationary Unit and he immediately provided the calibration records and field tuning log as he was trained to do. I didn't care, didn't need it. They are ALWAYS going to be properly calibrated and the log will ALWAYS show they do thier field tunes daily as trained.
I indicated I wasn't going to be needing to see those. I asked him where was my vehicle when he determined my speed of 83. He looked at the ticket and said I was cited for 70, as did the judge. I then produced my witness statements that said he clearly said he told me he clocked me at 83 and cut me a favor and wrote me for 70. That was submitted into evidence. That was my first minor win. I asked if he made a habit of altering the facts of the case in order to gain more favorable ticket payoffs? That tightened his jaw up a bit. He indicated that they are allowed to show discretion in the field when writing tickets. Which they are. So why didn't you do me a favor as you put it and not write me a ticket. Well because you were speeding. Did I have a bad driving record, any prior speeding tickets? No sir. Was I wearing my seatbelts? Yes sir. You could have allowed me to get a warning if you so chose. Yes sir. Ok officer answer the question please. He indicated that he cited me at approximately 1/2 of a mile when his unit went off. I asked him again to be specifric . He committed that the Stalker went off at approximately 1/2 of a mile at which time he verified and pulled me over. What sensitivity setting was your unit set to officer. 4 was the answer. (4 is almost always where they keep it set to.). Officer do you know the range that you are capable of at that setting? Yes about 1 mile in proper conditions. Also the right answer. Officer why did your gun not go off at a mile if it was set at 4? Were there any conditions present that you knew of that would not have allowed for that full mile of range to be locking in on my vehicle? No there wasn't. How then did you know that it was a 1/2 mile and not a full mile?.... I went right to...officer do you know what the cosine angle is on that model? The what? The cosine angle? No I am not sure I do. Ok officer. Do you know why that can affect the reading and distance of your radar unit? He sort of studied that in his mind and in that pause I said your honor I'd like to introduce into evidence the operators manual for the Stalker ATR and the state training manual they are taught in class into evidence. That made him (the officer)visibly change his posture and demeanor.
Officer did you just testify that the gun went off at this point. Yes. And you cited me when you pulled me over? Yes. Ok officer on Page 12 of the user manual does it indicate that you have a responsibilty to visually determine my speed prior to using the radar to further verify your observation? Umm errr OK yes I see it does. Ok and officer does that also not get covered in your training manual as I began to open it up to the chapter and page, the judge stopped and asked the officer. Did you visually see with your own eyes the speed at which the vehicle was travelling before hearing your unit go off? No your honor it isn't possible in the position I was in, in relation to the road at the 1/2 of a mile point. I saw the vehicle when it was about 1/4 of a mile from me and had no other targets to question as being possible. (Thank you officer that is allI needed without even having to be the one that asked). He then asked the officer was the vehicle travelling at 83 or 70 and how do you know that? Well your honor I believe my equipment to be accurate and it indicated 83. I gave the driver some discretion in the field. The judge looked at the cop and looked at me and asked if I had any more questions? I said Yes your honor about 20 or so more. He said it won't be necessary I already have enough reasonable doubt right now.
Thank you Mr. Gibbs, case dismissed. That was that. I think the judge knew that there was no point there already was a enough problems with the cops testimony.
The cop sits in the car, the gun goes off, they pull you over. Not the way it is supposed to be done, but that is the way they do it almost always. What they are supposed to do is be vigilant and observe a vehicle they believe to be speeding and visually prove to themselves by what is called a visual tracking history and by law it is supposed to be done and THEN they use the radar to verify what they visually have measured. But to do it right requires, they actually look at the road and target a vehicle before the radar verifies it and well heck that takes like math and they can't read magazines and stuff like that if they are watching the damn road for those darn speeders.
I could have torn apart the 83 measurement in about another 10 minutes or so if it would have been necessary, but I think the judge knew that there was no point.
Yeah driving down took 7 hours. Yes I stayed in a hotel and had food and spent about the same if not more as the fine would have been, but I have no points, no insurance rate hike, no stupid school to waste my time on and a little peace of mind that that cop may be a lttle less eager next time. Heck I took my cruiser down enjoyed the Keys a little stopped in Ft. Lauderdale on the way back and had a some silicone parts on full display for the evening. It wasn't so awful a trip all in all.
If you get a ticket, only you can decide if its worth it to you to fight. I went there fully armed and prepared to show I was not about to get jacked up for $187 just because it was a matter of them saying I did something.
Had he written me for 70 and had a better attitude about things I probably would have paid it. I was probbaly doing 70ish I admit that. But no way was it 83 and no way is he doing me a favor by writing me a ticket.
WOW!! nice job TallTom
I would not have known enough to pull something like that off.
My hats off to you..
While I have always been of the mindset that if I am speeding and I get caught then I deserve a ticket if one is given to me.
But in your case, if the leo's are not playing by the rules just to rake in money, then I think what you did was awesome..
I would not have known enough to pull something like that off.
My hats off to you..
While I have always been of the mindset that if I am speeding and I get caught then I deserve a ticket if one is given to me.
But in your case, if the leo's are not playing by the rules just to rake in money, then I think what you did was awesome..
TallTom
Registered
My feelings are in line with what fastoys says. If more of us learned the rules of engagement and can solidly challange these guys, the less likely they are to write sloppy tickets. Part of why I can do a decent job of arguing is I used to calibrate the guns. Radar is pretty prone to false readings. I can't as strongly defend on the use of Lidar etc as far as the equipment weaknesses because I don't know them. But the law here in Florida anda lot of other states is written to make the human measurement the one the courts need. You can't question a radar gun in court. The law requires that the cop be competent. And they are trained to be competent. What happens out in the field is only accountable to the cop in that car. They take the easy path to things whenever they can get away with it, knowing full well that 9 out of 10 of us have no idea how to even defend ourselves let alone go to the trouble to.
Not all cops are lazy. But yes they take shortcuts if they think it will go unnoticed.
As to teaching him to do a better job as suggested above. Doubtful. They have to be of the mindset to want to learn to do a better job. When an LEO is of the mindset that they are beyond being challanged by the likes of a civillian, the only time they learn to do a better job is when it becomes part of thier performance review.
They laughed it off in court when the judge shut it down in my favor. They could care less that I went to all that trouble. They go out and do what they do as soon as court os over. They really don't have consequences. I don't think it will change until the courts decide to bill the LEO court cost for every ticket that gets defeated in court. They charge me court cost if I lose, why not charge them? That will get the attention of the dept. very quickly if bad tickets cost them money to lose. I can pretty much gaurantee that the chief will sit every cop down and make sure they understand their job better.
Not all cops are lazy. But yes they take shortcuts if they think it will go unnoticed.
As to teaching him to do a better job as suggested above. Doubtful. They have to be of the mindset to want to learn to do a better job. When an LEO is of the mindset that they are beyond being challanged by the likes of a civillian, the only time they learn to do a better job is when it becomes part of thier performance review.
They laughed it off in court when the judge shut it down in my favor. They could care less that I went to all that trouble. They go out and do what they do as soon as court os over. They really don't have consequences. I don't think it will change until the courts decide to bill the LEO court cost for every ticket that gets defeated in court. They charge me court cost if I lose, why not charge them? That will get the attention of the dept. very quickly if bad tickets cost them money to lose. I can pretty much gaurantee that the chief will sit every cop down and make sure they understand their job better.
Similar threads
