Quote:
|
As long as the numbers match the forks, it is believed the unit is in good working condition - which is what the officer will testify in court.
|
Which is correct, and he did, which he should have done. No problem there at all. We are not questioning the officer's good faith....merely questioning if the unit was actually working properly.
Quote:
|
isnt the fact that an officer will testify, under oath, that to the best of his knowledge the machine he used was correctly, enough?
|
It is if the only evidence needed was "good faith". If you test the radar with a fork set at 30 mph, and the radar reads it at 28, for example, you then calibrate the radar to read 30 right? You re-test it and it now reads 30. As far as you know it is correct. Now, if the fork was damaged and it actually reads at 28, and you have reset or calibrated the radar to read 30, the radar is off. A ticket is specific, not a close guess. That is reasonable doubt therefore making the reading, not the officer, not accurate. If the forks for the radar have been with the unit at all times (which I am sure it was) and the officer took control of that unit and is using the same forks, he would not know if they were off because the unit has been calibrated to those forks all the time. That is why the forks are supposed to be checked at reasonable times to see if they are accurate. Every 3 years is not a reasonable time, as this case shows why. If the radar re-calibrates itself all the time, then why even use the forks? You have to have them as the set speed. A person's word is just that, word. You have to take the total situation into account. Do you have a person sign a waiver of Miranda? Why not just have the officer's word? Do you have them sign a confession? Burden of proof is just that, and the state has that burden. On the grand scale of things, traffic tickets are way at the bottom which is fine. That does not, though, make the burden any less.