[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
FIRST OFF: I do not advocate unsafe or reckless driving. I am posting this ONLY to the performance board where the readers might be a little more receptive. We've had enough discussions of speeding on public roads and I think both groups (the "take it to the track" and the kill-story clans) have valid arguments but little new to add. Let's no rehash those old topics. If anyone wants to discuss this post with me, feel free to do so offline (my address is bostenson@advdoc.com).
So, on to the content.
In March I received a 15 mph speeding ticket.
After many delays, the trial date finally came. I fought one ticket previously, going all the way to trial. I lost that one though I tought I put up a pretty good case.
This time, I attacked on 4 points:
1) My discovery request was not fulfilled as the prosecution failed to provide FCC license information or officers training certificates.
2) The testimony regarding RADAR should be striken due to the lack of any proof that the county was authorized to operate RADAR.
3) The officers training on the use of RADAR was inadequate.
4) Based on the officers testimony, the conditions were ripe for a moving cosine error.
I should have filed for a dismissal or continuance on point 1. Once the trial commenced, the judge would not accept this argument. Next time I'll have better court procedure and will make this a valid issue.
The prosecution did bring up a case, Connecticut vs. Anonymous (or was it Anonymous vs. Conneticut) that the county did not need FCC authorization. Point 2 became moot. I will need to research this one before I do this again. I'd love to get a dismissal on grounds that the RADAR was used illegally.
I was able to admit into evidence a NHTSA report on RADAR use, over the prosecutions objections. This report acknowledged that RADAR is a valid technology however errors do occur and substantial training should take place as the only way to mitigate those errors is a throughly trained RADAR operator. It also goes on to recommend ongoing RADAR training.
So, on point 3, training, I was able to really beat them up as the officer testified that:
1) He was originally trained 17 years ago but could not remember the details of his training, e.g. format, number of students, instructor, what model gun was used, etc. The course was 1 day long.
2) He received "a couple hours" of in-car training when he joined the local sheriffs office.
3) He had once received a little ongoing training but could not remember any details.
4) He had never been trained on this particular RADAR unit (Kustom Eagle).
5) He had "once seen" the manufacturers manual but couldn't recall anything from it.
6) He could not describe the concept of RADAR whatsoever.
7) He acknowledged that errors occur, usually resulting in a blank screen
8) He stated he'd never seen a reading that wasn't correct, except when the screen was blank.
9) He later stated that if you targeted a vehicle at an angle then the reading would not reflect the true speed, contradicting point 8.
10) He stated that RADAR would not pass through low brush or trees.
11) He stated the only means of checking for an error is to pull the trigger and try again which he didn't do in my case.
12) He admitted a larger object will sometimes reflect, as might signs or other objects.
13) He was not familiar with the range of his unit, the beam width or any other basic specification.
14) He was not familiar with cosine errors (point 9 is a cosine error), panning errors or batching errors.
On the 4th point, moving cosine error, he set the terrain up perfectly for my case. Given some of his testimony above and the NHTSA report I used, I was able to construct a reasonable case that a moving cosine error could have occurred.
In the end, the FCC stuff was for naught but I was able to make a strong argument that the officer was not trained properly and did not have sufficient training to recognize when errors occured, particularly any variation of a cosine error. I was also able to construct a possible case for a moving cosine error, largely based on his testimony. I was able to argue strongly that he had no possible correction for any sort of error as:
1) I was able to argue that his ability to visually ascertain my speed was extremely suspect given his testimony that he clocked me within "2-3" seconds of seeing me, that his visual range for this is limited to 500-1000 feet and we had a closing speed of 150+ ft per second AND he stated that when he clocked me, that I was still directly in front of him.
2) He stated he took only 1 reading and then pulled me over.
After nearly 2 hours for the trial (I had ~200 questions), the judge has taken all of this "under advisement" and I should get a final verdict within a week. I think that the judge is verifying the integrity of my NHTSA report (it was off the internet and I'm surprised he let it be admitted) and I think my chances of a aquittal are better than even. I've got my fingers crossed but even if I lose, it was a good moral victory.
The officer commented to me, as I left the court, that it was the best citizen-run case he'd ever seen in 17 years. Of course, I got a similar comment on my ticket 2 years ago and lost that one. Lesson from that ticket: the laws of physics are suspended once you enter a court room. I wonder if physicists are aware of this and have a special corollary for this phenomenon.
Anyway, in general, the moving cosine argument can be a very powerful strategy against mobile radar when the vehicles are approaching at a high speed (opposite directions).
PS: I'm not saying I was actually speeding but if I were, it was on an empty road with excellent side visibility (snow covered corn fields), dry pavement and NO other traffic. The officer approached around a corner (which I might have been slowing for) with a mobile instant-on KA band RADAR unit (Kustom Eagle). The V1 picked it up but alas, it was too late.
Bryce (who just cost the county WAY more than the $90 they MIGHT get from me)
00 9-5 Aero
85 900S
83 Alfa Spider
posted by 63.142.22...
, Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:33:10
, Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:15:16, Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:12:01
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
