(TallTom @ Oct. 26 2006,20:10) OK I am going to suggest that everything in your story is as you say it is and that you weren't speeding. I'll chime in the info to help your argument. I used to calibrate radar guns. They are pretty much as accurate as they will ever be if they are calibrated and pass the self test. However what else they have done is make the user (LEO) very lazy. Yes the Shreveport officer above follows the proper procedure of the tuning fork at the begin and end of shift. However that is only a procedural warm blanket requirement. That officer is simply fulfilling the legal obligation to satisfy its field operation. He forgets about 85% of the radar theory of operation he is taught in class, simply because nobody requires they give a real crap about it out in the field.
I can make a garbage can register speed on a fully functional radar gun. The user has much more responsibilty for verification than the radar gun does. Radar guns are easy to fool, easy to misuse and easy to get false readings from. 95% of radar tickets are improperly issued. Not that the radar gun was wrong, but the user was flat to lazy to follow the procedure in which they were trained to use the gun. They take the lazy way out by depending on the gun to tell them the speed and then attach that to you. In Florida (and most other states) the officer is supposed to visually track you to determine speed and then verify the calculation using the gun. They skip over the first part of that requirement because, well because it is too much effort. They have to count and use math and verify all by a trained procedure. Heck that is work they can avoid. Noone in the field but them know how they are using that radar gun. Unless you are capable of arguning differently before a judge.
Now comes the hard part for you. You have to know how they are supposed to use that radar gun, how that radar gun works in theory and prove they didn't properly evaluate your speed as the law spells out they are required to. It is not hard to do, but you have to have it down cold in court, because the judge also does not know how to look at your argument evidence very well either (hardly anyone evers argues it). The officer on the other hand always knows that if he can show he/she is certified and trained in the use of the measuring equipment and the equipment is current that is almost always the extent of the evidence the judge ever considers.
In the case cited by the Shreveport officer, he neglected to take into account the pan angle which attaches a pan error calculation that he is responsible for knowing. He most likely simply would have had the gun set on "4" running wide open and when it sounds off, he places the most likely car he sees in his view as the offending culprit. There are many components left out of his described scenario that can bring into question the result of that radar gun. There is no scenario of a vehicle coming across a radar beam that will allow for unquestioned accuracy.
Radar guns return on the largest target in its field. If you are the only target and the gun is aimed within the guidelines of proper line of sight, you are going to get pinged a VERY accurate result back. If however you the motorcycle is say 1/2 mile away and there are surrounding cars or trucks, both in front and in back of you that gun is now returning on a LOT of targets, and you are the smallest target it is using to return a result. There is PLENTY of room for error here. That officer has the obligation by law to determine visually first that YOU are in fact the offending speeder and then verify that deduction with the radar gun set to properly isolate you the target. This visual portion is called a tracking history and can take anywhere from 3 to 6 or 7 seconds to be done properly, depending on the skill and conditions present.. THEN the gun is used to verify his trained eye measurement.
For that to be done by the method they are told to use (trained by the book), takes an additional 3-4 seconds at least. Using simple math you can determine your speed and distance in relation to that half mile. 95% of the time you can prove that the officer was not actually using trained procedural methods of speed detection, because the distance you covered simply can't mathmatically match the time required to properly determine your vehicles speed "by the book".
To simplify the reality, what usually happens is the officer sits in his vehicle or drives in the case of a moving vehicle and runs his radar at the most liberal settings they have, which is generally about a mile of distance out and no filtering components taken into account. He may or may not see you first but he most assuredly looks when his gun goes beep. When he hears that beep, which by the way is an operator set speed level, he just says OK your it because you look like your going faster than the rest of the cars around you. He pulls you over and the rest you know. That is nothing like what they are supposed to do in trained legal reality, but nobody knows that but them. They take the laziest approach possible, knowing full well they have no accountability for the reality of that ticket.
In court you do not have to prove what your speed was, you just have to prove that there is no way the officer knows what it was with legal accuracy. He/she has a legally binding responsibility to PROVE your speed before they cite you and that withstand evaluation in court.
While I will not admit or deny if I have ever actually been speeding, I will admit that I knew that 1 of the 5 times radar was used, I knew I was not going to be able to discredit the result of the cited speed. There were no arguable circumstances that allowed me to discredit the officer. I never went to court to argue it because it was unwinnable. But the 4 other times, I have been able to prove they really have no idea how fast I was actually going in order to write a proper speeding ticket and have had the ticket dismissed easily.
When I go to court I have the operators manuals for the guns, the training courses they took, the questions they are tested and expected to pass, spreadsheets of time and distance tables, photos, traffic enginering tables etc. You go prepared and you go to discredit that officers ability. It isn't hard to do but it doesn't happen without YOU being fully prepared and aware of how to argue it. I have pissed off more than one cop in court.
I can tell you that ALWAYS ALWAYS the judge likes preparedness and supporting evidence better than you say one thing and the cop says another.
