Kind of a hijack from a previous thread that talked about how much the LEO’s word stacks up against an average persons.
My question is:
Is there physical evidence recorded during a speeding ticket?
Would an LEO be able to pull up a video of me speeding?
Is there any evidence of speeding besides the traffic ticket?
When you ask for evidence you will see the radar flashing a speed that caused it to alarm. Yes the LEO may sit back and inspect his eyelids for pinholes and still catch you,
or the Bear in the air clocked you and radioed the info to the napping bear on the ground.
I thought about posting my last traffic stop but that thread you made reference to was getting long and such,
A couple years ago i watched a State Trooper pull out of a gas station 3-4 blocks ahead of me and i checked my speed and i was 5-6 mph over so i let up a bit. Then the Trooper pulled to the shoulder and when i passed him he then pulled me over and stated that i was speeding.
I told him he was full of shit and that i had seen him just as i stated above and he did the 10-45 check and then told me that it had been a long time since anyone disputed his claim. He then questioned me about my Kellogg’s Corn Flakes CDL license i was carrying at the time. It was a farm CDL that was only good for 6 months and was renewed each year for $35.00 and no testing required. He had never seen one before and i left with no ticket.
Was ticketed in South D. for 8 miles over and that trooper asked all the questions that the OP in that other thread was questioning, Where we were going Where from, what we were going to do when we got there and 10+ more Ridiculous questions, but i was towing a camping trailer that was my SIL’s and he had no title so i had no license on the thing. He looked long and hard at the trailer tongue and the plate i made with some Fire-EMS stickers on it but never asked anything about the trailer. I got an invite to the local court but sent my $125.00 in the mail.
Probably no video on a simple speeding ticket, but the LEO can testify as to what he observed, and as to whether the radar was calibrated, operated correctly, etc. Likewise he may be cross examined about his testimony.
If the officer asks if you know how fast you were going and you answer “55 mph”, that can be written on the officers copy of the ticket and produced in court as a statement that you made at the time.
Are you aware that many agencies use dual antenna radar units, one facing front, one facing backwards which clock cars approaching the squad from behind?
Also, VASCAR units can be programmed so cars approaching squads from behind can be clocked.
The clocking device is the evidence. It’s supposed to supplement what the officer saw. I know some cops turn the radar on full blast and rest their eyes, but they shouldn’t. They should be able to testify that they observed a vehicle traveling at what they estimated to be a speed over the posted limit and their observation was confirmed by [radar/lidar/vascar/etc].
There is a new video clocking unit that communicates with the highway cameras via a squad MDT. An officer can observe your vehicle, clock your speed via timing when you’re somewhere else on the highway, wait for you to pass by and then make the stop. It’s undetectable and does produce video of the violation. It also completely negates slamming on your brakes when you see a squad as he may have clocked you when you were a mile away. I’ve only seen the unit once and don’t know who makes it, so I can’t post a link at this time.
Police cruiser dashcams are pretty close to ubiquitous these days, but they aren’t all the kind that interface with the radar gun. So even if they’ve got footage of the stop, there may not be a record of the actual speed reading. They use dashcam footage to establish probable cause for DUI stops all the time, so I imagine there’s usually some footage avaliable, but usually the officer’s testimony/report is plenty.
Wouldn’t that be a measured distance speed trap, which are illegal in most states?
Spam post reported.
Where are you getting that? VASCAR is measured distance and used in many states.
Measured distance is what is used in aircraft patrols.
LEO’s main objective should be to keep the roads safe. To do that, one of their duties is to control speeding. To maximize the efficiency of their efforts, seeing as how young drivers are more likely to cause dangerous conditions, they should only stop young speeders and let the older, experienced, “I know what is safe for these road conditions” drivers go on their merry way.
It is a fact, as well, that people who break laws don’t tend to restrict their law breaking to highway offenses. By stopping and questioning younger drivers, the LEO is also screening them for wants and warrants far more likely to be leveled against younger people than older people.
In other words, there are many excellent reasons why I should be allowed to drive 80 on a four lane restricted access highway, while you should not.
Oh, okay, so I was a little confused there. There are laws banning fixed measured distance speed traps in California and Washington, but for some reason I thought they were more widespread.
In those states, they’ve decided VASCAR is okay because the officer can use any landmark for reference, not a specifically pre-marked section of highway. I’d think a fixed camera would run afoul of it, though. In California, they’re allowed to use aircraft to identify speeders, but they can’t write a ticket on that basis alone; the speed has to be confirmed by an officer on the ground. In Washington there’s a specific exception to the law for aircraft.
I’m not sure but I think you’re thinking of photo radar when you say “fixed measured distance speed traps”. Those are illegal in a couple states. But they’re different from camera enforcement that is actually manned.
And your post contradicts itself. If VASCAR is legal why wouldn’t writing a ticket from aircraft enforcement be? That’s what’s used in the plane, a VASCAR unit. In states that use it there are permanently painted lines on the highway. They’re just little horizontal stripes coming off the shoulder line. Most people don’t notice them unless they look for them specifically.
If you’re talking about not letting some drivers on limited access roads at all, you may have a debatable point. If you’re talking about you going 80 and a 20 year old going 55, you’re insane.
No, what I mean is that in California and Washington, the police aren’t allowed to write tickets based on timing cars as they pass a pre-measured and marked section of highway. Here’s the relevant California statues (40801 and the first part of 40802): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=40001-41000&file=40800-40808
From what I understand, the VASCAR device can be used two ways. One is when the officer is driving behind a car and he pushes one button to record the time it takes a car to pass two landmarks and then pushes another to record the distance as his own car passes. Alternatively, it can be used simply to record the time a car takes to pass a known distance. In California and Washington, using the device in the first way to aid in pacing a car is acceptable, but the second one of using it with pre-measured sections of road is not.
That also means that radar cameras are probably okay (although I don’t know if either state has them) but speed cameras that take two timed pictures to calculate speed are not. I believe the device you were describing earlier in the thread where a camera helps record the time it takes a car to travel from some place further up the highway also wouldn’t be kosher in those states. But, like I said earlier, I thought there were a large number of states that were like that, but apparently there aren’t.
Wow. What a bunch of gobbldygook that law is.
For one thing, timing from one permanent point to another is a reliable way to get an accurate speed and has been used forever for lots of reasons beyond catching speeders. I wonder what their reasoning is for this law.
I searched the web and could only find California to be the only state to outlaw this method. If there are others I couldn’t find it. In fact, I believe at one time VASCAR was the only thing municiple police could use in Pennsylvania.
I’ve never used it myself, but the state patrol here in Wisconsin use it all the time.
Oakminster:
Ha! As if that were still necessary. These days, cops can take some sort of class in estimating vehicle speeds and testify based on their having passed the class.
Nope, simply saying that cops usually have a choice in who they cut out of the herd, and they don’t waste time with old farts, they go for the young guy they might make a little less likely to wipe out someone else’s family, all things being equal, not 80 vs. 55
“These days?” 
It’s called visual estimation training and it’s been around since at least the 50’s.
Being certified in the training enhances an officers credibility. But in reality, anyone who runs radar long enough picks up the skill on their own without it.
This is crap. I have little idea what’s in the drivers seat until I get to the window.
Nowadays, the built-in GPS in your cell phone could be used as strong evidence to prove that you were going faster than the posted speed )and exactly where & when). Police could subpoena that info from your phone company.
I don’t know that this has actually been done in court yet, but it likely will someday. I believe that cell phone records have been used in some Transportation Department investigations.
Here’s the Washington version: RCW 46.61.470: Speed traps defined, certain types permitted—Measured courses, speed measuring devices, timing from aircraft.
Basically the laws are holdovers from the days when covert speed enforcement was viewed as a bit unsporting. In the 1920’s, small town speed traps had a bit of a heyday, much to the chagrin of the still mostly urban and wealthy car owners. Since the distance over time traps were the only real practical method for a speed trap that might only be a few blocks long, the AAA and other auto groups got them banned in many states. That left pacing by marked patrol cars as the only acceptable method, which wasn’t really practical for small towns nor particularly time efficient.
By the time radar guns came along in the 50’s, though, the political situation had changed quite a bit. The state and big city agencies wanted in on the action and the insurance companies were pushing for meaningful traffic enforcement. So radar guns never got added to the speed trap ban statutes, even though there’s not really any practical difference between a speed trap that uses radar or one that uses stopwatches. I thought it said in whatever automotive history book I read this all in that a lot of states still had the old archaic speed trap laws on the books, but googling only seems to turn up California and Washington so I don’t know if the other states have finally gotten around to striking them off the books or if I was just misremembering or what.
I know when stopped by CHP about 5 years ago, they record the conversation, hence the “Do you know why I stopped you.” Do you know how fast you were going?" etc. to use against you if you fight the ticket.