Kangaroo court maybe?

[Tee]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

In this case I was directly behind the highway patrol officer for about 3 miles on the over pass north of Garden City. I was going 50 miles an hour since that is how fast he was going and I was not about to pass him. My passenger in the truck even remarked at how slow we were going. As we reached the curve on the east side of Garden, the officer pulled over, got behind me then pulled me over.

If he clocked you behind him, then I have a question: Did he use radar or did he pace you? IF he used radar with you behind him, then he must have used his rear antenna. I have noticed that all the cops now have REAR antennas on their radars and they have recently been using the rear antennas to clock speeders.

Rear antennas are often less accurate than forward antennas because it's more difficult to ascertain the vehicle you are pointing at, especially around a curve. It's possible that the vehicle that is reading 71 is a different vehicle than you think. Since you were on a curve, you have to deal with the "cosine effect", whereas in straight direction it's much less existent, or not at all.

If I were you, I'd file a "de novo" appeal and concentrate on more than just the officers calibration. Some other points I'd consider questioning on:

Was rear antenna used? If so, was the vehicle re-clocked with forward antenna after it passed?

What was the drivers certification status at the time of citing?

What were the road conditions? Straight on, curve? Other cars around that could have returned the reading? Train or other moving obstacles? Traffic conditions -heavy?

Did the officer offer to let you see the radar? Was 71 "locked" or "momentarily observed"? (could indicate false reading or other vehicle)

I would avoid putting all your eggs in one basket and relying solely on the radars calibration. The new radars calibrate themselves internally every time they are powered on and can even be done after each stop. But understand that calibration does not equate to 100% accuracy or even proper usage and interpretation by the officer. Understand that the cop "interprets" the radar and can easily misinterpret its indication of the culprit vehicle.

Good luck!!

[bobby84_00]

you do not have to be certified to use radar in kansas.. prob 80 - 90% of oficers aren't. basicly all the cert does is explain the basic principles of the doppler effect. in most jurisdictions officers are not required to keep a log of violaters they stop. and with the type of radar the KHP uses the new STALKER, it will read an ERROR mesage or something to that effect unless they've changed the read out.
Another key part in the doppler radar system is the effect of weather and RFI ( radio interferance ). RFI will usualy not let ur radar get any readings or if u do get a reading it's usualy way out of wack. basic rule is that once u believe a violater to be speeding. u activate ur radar listen for the tone ( goos tone means u have a good " lock on" and check your display. and if your speed is showing correct and the RFI light is not on then the violaters speed is correct.

[NoLongerInRadioGuy]

If you are having an RFI problem, most radar units will not give you any kind of a reading, besides "RFI".

Most depratments do not have any kind of logged calibration check when it comes to radars. However, it is standard protocol for officers (at least here!) to using the tuning forks to CHECK the calibration on their radar unit at the (minimum) begining of their shift. Some officers check it at the beginning, and after each traffic stop they do. 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.

We all use machines to make our jobs easier - isnt the fact that an officer will testify, under oath, that to the best of his knowledge the machine he used was correctly, enough? I am not saying you are guilty or innocent - many things can affect a radar reading, and a visual estimate is also standard when getting a speed. It's kinda like asking the judge to believe your word based on your word alone, against the word of an officer when he also testifies that the radar he used was working correctly.

[Flying Dutchman]

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.

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.

[TheWizzard]

Flying dutchman... do you need a hobby? Sounds like you have a problem admitting when you are wrong. Must be everybody elses fault.. not yours. Ive heard once you start questioning the police or thejudges.. you only piss them off more. I think someone else hit the nail on the head. Pay the ticket move on and slow down. This is nuts.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by TheWizzard

Flying dutchman... do you need a hobby? Sounds like you have a problem admitting when you are wrong. Must be everybody elses fault.. not yours. Ive heard once you start questioning the police or thejudges.. you only piss them off more. I think someone else hit the nail on the head. Pay the ticket move on and slow down. This is nuts.

Learn to read what was said before you judge.

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

The only reason I am fighting this is because I was not speeding. I have been caught speeding, and I have paid every ticket I received because that is what I was doing. In this case I was directly behind the highway patrol officer for about 3 miles on the over pass north of Garden City. I was going 50 miles an hour since that is how fast he was going and I was not about to pass him. My passenger in the truck even remarked at how slow we were going. As we reached the curve on the east side of Garden, the officer pulled over, got behind me then pulled me over. He informed me that he clocked me doing 71 around the corner. I said I couldn't have since I was right behind him. He asked me if I had been drinking (I hadn't) and asked me why I was traveling on the highway. (?) He gave me the ticket and told me good luck.

So, either he was lying or his radar was wrong. Trying to prove he was lying (which I know the game too. Big difference between 70 or less in a 50 and 71 in a 50) would be futile. It would be my word and my passenger's word against his which never works. In court he said he tested the radar, but did not know what time. Also, he tested the radar the next day but again did not know what time. He could not remember, though, if he cited anyone else that shift....

[bobby84_00]

the forks hav a specific reading they should show on the unit display... and the number is stamped into the fork.. i think one is 30 and one is 55. if the unit does not read that number the radar unit is turned into a supervisor to be sent off and checked

[Flying Dutchman]

Flying dutchman... do you need a hobby? Sounds like you have a problem admitting when you are wrong. Must be everybody elses fault.. not yours. Ive heard once you start questioning the police or thejudges.. you only piss them off more. I think someone else hit the nail on the head. Pay the ticket move on and slow down. This is nuts.

Sounds like you have a problem, not me. If you read the posts you will see that I am not blaming the officer of any wrongdoing. I am not blaming the judge nor the prosecutor. I asked from the beginning if officers had logs for the radar. From the responses of officers the answer is no. It is not the officers responsibility to bring the logs, maintenance logs, or whatever. It is the states responsibility to bring them as a matter of FOUNDATION, which is my whole point. Now, if you wish to pay the fine and the ensuing raise in my insurance premiums, by all means i will let you. If you think that a trial, or court, is a waist of time then more power to you if you ever have to go. This was started as a discussion, not a blame game. It has turned out to be a very good discussion IMO.

[Flying Dutchman]

Thank you bobby. That answers a good question that I had, I appreciate it. I also appreciate the information the officers have given for it clears up alot of things.

[pootsy]

Hey he said he was not speeding, if he was not speeding why should he plead guilty? Now if you were speeding and are just trying to get by with it, then own up to it and move on.