Thanks for the P.M. John. Doing good here.


I've been looking at getting this radio here:

http://www.amazon.com/Cobra-75WXST-W.../dp/B00005N5WW

And a good antenna as to not clutter up my cab.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel:

That looks like a darn good C.B.! I think Cobra makes some real good C.B. radios for the money.

 

That depends, I think, on the supporting evidence. After the questioning on that issue, it was clear that the trooper who claimed to be certified on the radar unit wasn't as well versed as he said he was. I believe this weighed in my favor, as it cast a reasonable doubt on the ability of the trooper to operate the radar, and thus the accuracy of the reading obtained.

 

Never even seen a tuning fork owned by the department. They'll do that when the unit is new, before installed in the car, but the other court accepted method is testing at a known distance with a stop watch at 3 speeds twice a year, supplimented with the read-out tests before and after each shift useing the calibrated speedometer. Some magistrates like to look like they're smart and know better. It's always a possibilty to come out of there with a victory with ANY lame arguement. It doesn't cost anything and it's your right, so I always say go try it, good luck. I once respnded to a roll over with a 16 y.o. probationary driver and his 9 y.o. brother. Luckily, neither needed to go to the hospital. The kid was doing multiple donuts to impress/scare his little brother in the intersection of 2 gravel roads. There was a deep ditch and culvert the kid went into when he lost it and rolled over twice. Although he deserved reckless, I THOUGHT the point was made to the mother, so only wrote him careless to save a point. It still would have him called in for review since he was so new. They decided to fight it anyway. The magistrate stated she agreed completely with my arguement, but thought that, "that was just too many points for a new driver to start out with." I firmly believe she knew the family and somebody directed them to fight it for that reason. I should've appealed, but she had been known to pull out stuff like that from time to time. I still sent a letter to the Driver License Assessment Division, requesting his status be reviewed. It explained a misdemeanor citation had been issued at his injury accident and although the magistrate DID feel the driver was guilty, she didn't agree with the states application of the 12 point system and dismissed the charge.

 

Right, it only takes one to operate the laser, but the laser has to be stationary. There is normally a 2nd car or a team of officers to pull the vehicles over on word from the one operating the laser.

 

Lasers can be used by a single unit. Being that you operate it outside the patrol car, calls for a little more creativity when setting up for traffic. They are great for wolf-packs. One spotter can single out target vehicles quicker for numerous, waiting officers.

 

the F22 still shows up on radar, it is just a smaller signature.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Redleg:

Things must have changed on this tuning fork issue. Having worked in L.E. in two states, Texas and North Carolina, we were issued tuning forks with our radar units and were instructed and required to test our "MPH, KUSTOM" Moving/Stationary Radar Units in our cruisers both at the start of our shifts and then after each traffic stop where we used the radar to issue a citation.
As I recall, our tuning forks were "set" at 35 MPH and also at 55MPH. In radar cases that were "challenged" by a violator in court, we were almost always asked by either the defense or prosecution if that tuning fork check had been made on the units.

As Jack Thorpe already said, IMHO, the "defense" outlined by the Members here would not work here in the courts of N.C. I am not saying you guys aren't right, just that it would not work here. I have been away from Texas too long to know what is going on there.

--------
John_P

 

I think a lot tuning fork mindest comes from early radar units. Modern use digital circuits that don't work their way out of tune. I'm sure most still use them to "verify" to get out of takeing the time for physically cheking like I said above, which is costly. NHTSA, I believe recommends calibration per manufaturer guidleines of the individual unit. I believe each unit IS verified with a tuning fork before shipped, then certified upon installation. NHTSA does "recommend" checking with a fork every 3 years. We calibrate and check everything twice a year, though the state requires annually. Each officer has to go through the NHTSA 40 hour training to be certified. The michigan radar task force keeps certification of every radar in the state that is to be used for enforcement to ensure all agencies use approved methods and equipment. It seems I read that the same courts that try to require a tuning fork may also through it out if you can't prove the tuning fork certification too. I don't think it's changed, I've been out of the loop a little myself, but Michigan vs. Ferency had been the national standard establishing use of radar, certification record and tracking stadard.

 

Redleg, are you a retired L.E. Officer Sir???

 

If I felt that I had somehow been cut a break, such as the time a PSP Trooper gave me a citation for invalid registration because I had failed to sign it, rather than citing me for speeding in an obviously devoid of workers construction zone (it was 9PM, raining, 40F in november). I paid that one without complaint.

However, the citation I mentioned involved being cited in the middle of a pack of cars, with the radar being shot through a tree at roadsigns.

Under cross examination, the trooper claimed/admitted the following:

Certified to train on this radar
Did not know effective range
Did not know effective scope
Did not know how radar "picked a target"
Could not verify which target radar bounced off of

In PA, the radar must have the certification which you describe, and must be field tested with the tuning fork prior to that days use. For those that don't know, the tuning fork resonates at a certain frequency, creating an echo that reads a certain speed on the disply via the doppler effect. Traffic radar measures the change in frequency from the outgoing signal and incoming echo.

The logic is as follows: If a tuning fork, held in a hand, produces an echo that reads a measured speed, it is possible that other "fixed" objects produce an speed reading as well. In photos, it became obvious that readings could have come from the tree, the signs, and the three vehicles around me. In addition, the scope and range of the radar could have picked echos from the overpass traffic, the opposing traffic, and traffic using an exit ramp.

Given that there were so many target options presented, and that the trooper could not disagree with this fact, there was reasonable doubt as to what/whose speed was measured.

In the closing argument, the prosecution asserted that I had not proven anything, and that I should therefore be found guilty. My reply:

"Your Honor, as far as I know, that is the Flag of the United States. In our justice system, I am innocent until proven guilty. I don't have to prove anything. However, they do. What they have proven is that they do not know the operating parameters of the radar, what it is receiving an echo from, and how that echo is read as a speed. I believe that is reasonable doubt, which I am required to provide."

 

I support our local LEO, and am personal friends with the Chief where I live, and know on a first name basis almost all the officers in the three local departments. I also am friends with the County Sheriff, and have worked as a citizen with all departments on occassion to solve crimes, track individuals, and give info on possible drug dealings. I have a direct connect line to the Sheriff, the local police and the comm center. I feel I must mention the above so that its clear I am not biased against LE.

But the fact is clear from the occassions I have opposed LE, that facts can be "lost" or misrepresented by LE. I had one officer tell me, "If I tried that case, you would have been guilty". Ok, so what would he have done differently? "Nothing." Well, then the result would be the same.

It would be hard to say exactly where else my defense would work, as no one has 1) tried it, and 2) knows how the presiding justice would receive it, 3) knows if the officer is better trained than the one I encountered. IMO, claiming that something wouldn't work in (enter jurisdiction here) is just so much bravado, and has no basis in fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAX 340:

I didn't mean to upset you here Sir! And FWIW, I wasn't trying to argue with you on the point of the tuning forks. But after having worked here in N.C. L.E. for over seven years and having seen a somewhat similar issue come up with the radar in District Court here where I live and seeing that case not make it through based on the current law here, that is what I was basing my statements on. Now like you said, in other states, who knows?

 

MAX, I wasn't trying to call you lame, I was just flavoring the sentance and gave a lame arguement that won as an example. I know good officers make mistakes and there are some bad ones, I have no issue with anybody fighting a ticket. A lot of it is just still on the books without question. The early radars (I never used one) needed to be kept in tune, but digital circuits aren't something that just go otu of whack, though they could get hot and burn up. Who's to say a fork wasn't dropped by a prior officer? Is it still in tune? You still need to do the other checks before and after. If at the end of the shift, you find a questionable unit, you remove it and the citations for the day get tossed. EDIT: And normally, you'll see a problem as it starts and get it swapped out before the shift ends or find something else to do til then.
John, not retired, but off the road for awhile now dispatching, because of an off duty accident.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redleg:

O.K., thank you Sir!

 

Likewise, I was not implying that all LEO's were bad except those that I know. Fact is, a couple of them I've opposed and won, and we've worked well together on other projects. My friend who is Chief says that he enjoys my defense of what I've encountered, as he learns how to deal with future cases.

Now, lest it sound as though I'm some sort of scoflaw, most of my cases were due to a heavy foot, and a local junk vehicle ordinance. Thats another story altogether.

Generally, I find that my best talent, and I believe any private citizen as well, is to foster the belief by the "bad guys" that a car doesn't have to be white with crazy graphics and lights to be someone watching whats going on. We appreciate that some guys wear uniforms and carry guns, and the locals appreciate that some guys drive big trucks and are willing to track idiots all over town until a cruiser can intercept. I'd much rather be doing that than opposing an officer in court.