Trial

Message

#1 Post by **Bob78164** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:36 pm

I was in trial Tuesday morning. Ms. 63 got a speeding ticket, measured (according to the ticket) by laser and visual observation. Only one minor detail. She didn't do it.

The laser device locked on (according to its report) at 722 feet, and that was the distance of the visual observation as well. I didn't have much trouble discrediting the visual observation -- who's going to believe that <U>anyone</U> can accurately estimate the speed of an object moving toward you at a distance of two and a half football fields? I may have discredited the laser gun measurement as well.

The judge took the case under submission, and we haven't received the decision yet. He seemed quite interested in my theory of the case (the gun measured the wrong car) and Ms. 63 had good (and persuasively presented) reason for her considerable confidence that she was not and could not have been speeding when she was measured. So I have some hope. --Bob

BackInTex · #2 Post by **BackInTex** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:43 am

I've always wondered about this type of thing. When I was in the army we qualified with M-16s at various ranges. Myself and only two or three others could consistently hit the targets at 300 yards.

Locking a laser at the same range, on a moving target would seem to be as difficult or even more since most of the time these cops are standing and not using anything for support. And if there are two cars side-by-side, whos to know which target is 'locked'?

And who's to say that the 'locked' target wasnt from 10 seconds before and the cop decided not to pull that car over?

traininvain · #3 Post by **traininvain** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:55 pm

I actually ask a friend of mine who is a cop whether it's possible for these types of mistakes to be made. My thinking was that it isn't really possible for someone to accurately visually estimate the speed of a car. He told me they regularly practice both the visually side and the radar gun side. Oh and the guns are recalibrated regularly too.

Good luck though. If she is innocent then maybe the judge will weigh the evidence and find in your favor.

#4 Post by **Bob78164** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:07 pm

traininvain wrote:I actually ask a friend of mine who is a cop whether it's possible for these types of mistakes to be made. My thinking was that it isn't really possible for someone to accurately visually estimate the speed of a car. He told me they regularly practice both the visually side and the radar gun side. Oh and the guns are recalibrated regularly too.

But can they do so at a distance of 722 feet, with the car heading more or less directly at them? I'm pretty sure that the judge agreed with me that that's not plausible. And calibration only affects the accuracy of the speed measurement.

My argument is that the gun didn't hit what it was aiming at. At a distance of 722 feet, it doesn't take much of an error to miss, and the cop agreed that his aim (at the muzzle) might have been off by as much as half an inch. The laser gun is approximately 10 inches long, so that works out to be an error of 1 part in 20, which (over a distance of 722 feet) is an error of more than 36 feet. So he thought he was measuring my wife's car, but in fact the gun was (or could have been) measuring the car three lanes over. --Bob

TheCalvinator24 · #5 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:29 pm

Don't their lasers put a red dot on the target vehicle? Our Officers' do. I'm waiting for the digital cameras to be included in the laser guns. Of course, some drivers will still swear it wasn't their car that was speeding.

I am more curious about what your wife's "good (and persuasively presented) reason for her considerable confidence that she was not and could not have been speeding when she was measured" was.

#6 Post by **Bob78164** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:41 pm

TheCalvinator24 wrote:Don't their lasers put a red dot on the target vehicle? Our Officers' do. I'm waiting for the digital cameras to be included in the laser guns. Of course, some drivers will still swear it wasn't their car that was speeding.

I am more curious about what your wife's "good (and persuasively presented) reason for her considerable confidence that she was not and could not have been speeding when she was measured" was.

The laser's scope has a red dot, which the officer is trained to place on the target vehicle. But the calibration report doesn't validate that the scope (and therefore the red dot) is aligned with the laser itself with sufficient accuracy to ensure a hit on a car at a distance of two and a half football fields. And that's reasonable doubt, which I believe is the standard even for an infraction.

To be clear on this, by the way, an outside observer wouldn't see the red dot at all. It's part of the scope's optics, kind of like the crosshairs on a traditional scope. And it's entirely possible for the crosshairs of a traditional scope to be centered on the target and for the shot still to be a miss.

When she got the ticket, we had just rented an apartment for use as a waystation, because The Little Guy's then-new school is 90 minutes away (in rush hour traffic). The building turns out to be one of three side-by-side-by-side, and Ms. 63 was trying to figure out which one of the buildings had the correct address. So when the cop claims he tagged her, she was in fact cruising by quite slowly trying to spot a building number. She certainly wasn't going at 54 mph, which was the reading on the laser gun. --Bob

Bob Juch · #7 Post by **Bob Juch** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:35 pm

It sounds like you're on sound technical grounds as well as circumstantial ones.

Nice avatar! I've got one just like it.

#8 Post by **Bob78164** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:41 pm

We got the decision today. It was basically a split decision. The judge found Ms. 63 guilty, but suspended the fine. So Ms. 63 now has a point on her license, but at least we won't have to pay the fine. --Bob

jayhawker536 · #9 Post by **jayhawker536** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:33 pm

Bob, this story reminds me of myself, many years ago. It was 1972 in Daytona Beach when I received my very first speeding ticket. I was supposely clocked going 35 in a 25.

My argument in court was how he stopped me, he literally jumped from behind a palmetto shrub by the side of the road, right in front of my vehicle and yelled at me to pull it over.

Not to mention how very stupid that was, what if I had just robbed a bank? One dead stupid officer. That same day at lunch, right down from the newspaper where I worked, a child on his bike dodged from behind a dumpster into my lane of traffic. I had just pulled out from the office and could not have been going more than 15 mph but when I slammed on my brakes my rear end swerved, it did not swerve when I slammed on my brakes to prevent hitting the stupid officer. Of course I had to pay the ticket but have always contended that I could not have been going 35.

The year I moved back to Kansas I saw on the news that Florida police officers were having trouble with their radar guns, clocking trees going 70 mph.

TheCalvinator24 · #10 Post by **TheCalvinator24** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:07 pm

Bob78164 wrote:We got the decision today. It was basically a split decision. The judge found Ms. 63 guilty, but suspended the fine. So Ms. 63 now has a point on her license, but at least we won't have to pay the fine. --Bob

Do you have to pay the Court Costs?

In Texas, what the judge did would make it an illegal sentence. If there is a conviction, ther emoust be a fine of at least $1.

What the Judge ruled tells me two things.

1) He really had a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

but

2) He didn't want it to appear that he disbelieved the Officer.

#11 Post by **Bob78164** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:29 am

TheCalvinator24 wrote:Do you have to pay the Court Costs?

. . . .

What the Judge ruled tells me two things.

1) He really had a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

but

2) He didn't want it to appear that he disbelieved the Officer.

Not a penny. I read it the same way. --Bob

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #12 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 8:22 am

It's a shame that she got a point on her license. I hope that your car insurance doesn't go up a lot.