Kangaroo court maybe?

[Flying Dutchman]

Ok all you law enforcement officers, answer me a question since I am apparently dumb:

If you issue a speeding ticket, and it goes to trial.........if you are asked to produce your radar log, or whatever log you use to document when you tested the radar, by the defense, are you not supposed to produce it?

I was told in court today that Kansas law states that an officer DOES NOT need to show the log or show proof of documenting testing of the radar equipment. News to me. Since the judge, prosecutor nor the officer could site exactly what that law is, I think it is wrong.

Also........I was unaware that testing, or having the tuning forks tested for calibration, wear and tear, or damage, is every three years. I remembered it being 3 to 6 months. Basically, if the fork is damaged (which can only be determined by a technician specializing in that field) (and it has only to be dropped to knock it off calibration) and that same damaged fork is used to test the equipment, then the tests would be in-accurate everytime the fork is used. Imagine sending the fork in and finding out it was out of calibration. There is no way to find out when it was out, so legally one would assume that every test done by the fork since it's last check would be invalid. 3 years of tickets all invallid.

Well, in Garden City, if you go to court be prepared to be told that the officer does not have to prove the equipment was tested......that the officer (state) does not have to prove the radar they used was even the one in the vehicle..........that Supreme Court case law requiring the state to produce logs is not considered applicable in Kansas (According to the judge). This is going to be a very fun appeal. Just wondering if any officers are told this also.

[Bubba]

I'm sure the Supreme Court justices will be glad to know that a judge in Kansas doesn't think their rulings (law) is applicable.

[Tee]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

Ok all you law enforcement officers, answer me a question since I am apparently dumb:

If you issue a speeding ticket, and it goes to trial.........if you are asked to produce your radar log, or whatever log you use to document when you tested the radar, by the defense, are you not supposed to produce it?

I was told in court today that Kansas law states that an officer DOES NOT need to show the log or show proof of documenting testing of the radar equipment. News to me. Since the judge, prosecutor nor the officer could site exactly what that law is, I think it is wrong.

Also........I was unaware that testing, or having the tuning forks tested for calibration, wear and tear, or damage, is every three years. I remembered it being 3 to 6 months. Basically, if the fork is damaged (which can only be determined by a technician specializing in that field) (and it has only to be dropped to knock it off calibration) and that same damaged fork is used to test the equipment, then the tests would be in-accurate everytime the fork is used. Imagine sending the fork in and finding out it was out of calibration. There is no way to find out when it was out, so legally one would assume that every test done by the fork since it's last check would be invalid. 3 years of tickets all invallid.

Well, in Garden City, if you go to court be prepared to be told that the officer does not have to prove the equipment was tested......that the officer (state) does not have to prove the radar they used was even the one in the vehicle..........that Supreme Court case law requiring the state to produce logs is not considered applicable in Kansas (According to the judge). This is going to be a very fun appeal. Just wondering if any officers are told this also.

NEVER NEVER expect to have a intelligent or fair ruling from a municipal court or magistrate judge- it will never happen. They make their own rules and will side with the officer every time.

The only time you can expect to have a fair ruling is in an appellate court with a real judge. Even then, they will be biased for the cop. The higher up you go, the less this occurs.

Many magistrates are former cops- Freelove is an example. He'll rule for the cop every chance he gets.

It's a joke!

[spike52]

Originally Posted by Flying Dutchman

Ok all you law enforcement officers, answer me a question since I am apparently dumb:

If you issue a speeding ticket, and it goes to trial.........if you are asked to produce your radar log, or whatever log you use to document when you tested the radar, by the defense, are you not supposed to produce it?

I was told in court today that Kansas law states that an officer DOES NOT need to show the log or show proof of documenting testing of the radar equipment. News to me. Since the judge, prosecutor nor the officer could site exactly what that law is, I think it is wrong.

Also........I was unaware that testing, or having the tuning forks tested for calibration, wear and tear, or damage, is every three years. I remembered it being 3 to 6 months. Basically, if the fork is damaged (which can only be determined by a technician specializing in that field) (and it has only to be dropped to knock it off calibration) and that same damaged fork is used to test the equipment, then the tests would be in-accurate everytime the fork is used. Imagine sending the fork in and finding out it was out of calibration. There is no way to find out when it was out, so legally one would assume that every test done by the fork since it's last check would be invalid. 3 years of tickets all invallid.

Well, in Garden City, if you go to court be prepared to be told that the officer does not have to prove the equipment was tested......that the officer (state) does not have to prove the radar they used was even the one in the vehicle..........that Supreme Court case law requiring the state to produce logs is not considered applicable in Kansas (According to the judge). This is going to be a very fun appeal. Just wondering if any officers are told this also.

Did you subpoena the information, or ask for it the day of trial??

[banyon]

Originally Posted by Tee

NEVER NEVER expect to have a intelligent or fair ruling from a municipal court or magistrate judge- it will never happen. They make their own rules and will side with the officer every time.

The only time you can expect to have a fair ruling is in an appellate court with a real judge. Even then, they will be biased for the cop. The higher up you go, the less this occurs.

Many magistrates are former cops- Freelove is an example. He'll rule for the cop every chance he gets.

It's a joke!

Magistrate judges are just like any other segment of society. There are some good ones and some bad ones, some that know what they are doing, and others that don't.

I'm not sure what Supreme Court case you're talking about, as speeding tickets wouldn't normally be appealed 4 times (Municipal-->District-->Appellate-->State Supreme-->U.S. Supreme) since you'd be spending probably tens of thousands of dollars to fight a 30-50$ fine.

In any event, asking for something like the officer's radar logs is something that ordinarily a defense attorney asks for through the "discovery process" prior to the hearing. If he asks for them and the prosecution or cop refuses to turn them over, then the court can compel them to do that. However, you can't just show up to the trial and ask for them then if you didn't give the prosecution time to produce them or an indication that you wanted them.

[Flying Dutchman]

Actually, I did not need to subpeona them or ask for them in a discovery process. The logs are basic groundwork needed for foundation of evidence on the states part. In order for them, the state, to lay the groundwork to put radar into evidence, they must be able to lay the groundwork first. The prosecutor knew this, and knows this, but speeding tickets are 9 times out of 10 very basic. Most people either: pay the ticket or they try to argue the officer was wrong. I was not going after the officer or even implying any wrong doing or decisions on his part, I was trying to verify that the radar itself was working properly. The prosecutor figured this out immediately and knew she was caught off gaurd. As long as I, the defense, asked for the logs, or any paperwork pertaining to them, then the state must produce them. That is what the case's givin to the court stated. It is not the defenses job to make sure the prosecution brings the proper evidence. Just because the officer said he tested the equipment, and said nothing was wrong with it as far as he knew, does not mean he did or it was. That is what the logs are for. When I asked for the logs, I was not told they need to be subpeoned, I was told that according to the state, the officer does not have to have them. Not that he forgot to bring them, not that he was told they were not needed, but that he does not have to have them period. When I objected and asked for a ruling as to why, the judge simply said denied and asked me to finish up my questions. Keep in mind, this was only the second question I even asked. He did bring a certificate showing the radar was certififed in 2005. Now why would he just happen to bring that but no logs? When I asked him if he had any proof or documentation the the certicate actually belonging to the radar he used that day, he did not. It is on the log though since the serial number of the radar is listed there. Basically, the officer could have brought any certificate to any radar and presented it as evidence without having to prove it actually belonged to the radar in question. This was pointed out and overruled because according to the prosecutor, the officer testified to it's authenticity and that was good enough.
I must clarify something, the cases were not from THE Supreme court, they were from Supreme courts in other states. There is no case law in Kansas that deals specifically with radar and it's use.
Plus, the prosecutor said in court during her closing arguments that it is not important or even rellevant if the tuning forks used were damaged or in-accurate since the officer testified that the radar was working on that day. It was never mentioned that the radar was not working, only if it was accurate. Let's say that the tuning forks were damaged or in-accurate in 2005 (the last time they were apparently checked). They would give a false, or in-accurate, reading everytime since then. That then makes the radar in-accurate since it is calibrated to the tuning forks. So, every ticket issued since that time is actually in-accurate. Remember, the tickets are specific. 71 in a 55, 40 in a 30, or whatever. They do not say "speeding" or kinda speeding, or maybe going fast. That is why the radar must be accurate and the state must prove it is accurate. I knew the magistrate was going to rubber stamp this just by the way he was acting and I knew the prosecutor knew this too.
I was just wondering, since it has been awhile since I was in uniform, if things had changed in regards to logs and having the radar and forks tested. The officer stated it is every 3 years. According to the manual of the radar equipment, it is every 3 to 6 months.

[Made in the USA]

Pay the ticket and slow down--

[Tee]

Fight it and hold their feet to the fire, if you believe you are innocent.

I mean really, if your speedometer said you weren't speeding and you testified to the accuracy of your speedometer and the readout that you witnessed at the time, how is that any more or any less than the officers testimony. They're both technological instruments that can be faulty.

Did you know that even the best models of radar in police cars today only have an accuracy of +-3% in stationary mode and +-5% in moving mode? That's even when they are properly calibrated and that doesn't even account for the cosine effect which in some cases, can cause it to misread up to +-20%.

Any honest cop will vouch for this- The radar they use is not infallable and is not 100% accurate.

Another thing, the cop must show that he was certified and that his certification was current to operate the model that he was using. It takes some training and experience to differentiate between vehicles with a stationary mounted radar- you have to listen for tone drops as cars pass to know which one was speeding. In heavy traffic it's virtually impossible to be sure of anything.

I used to repair radar equip years ago, so I know a little bit about them.

BTW, did you happen to look at the radar when he stopped you? Did you happen to notice what speed the officer was doing? That's the readout under "PATROL". Now a days most officers are smart enough (or crooked enough) to clear it (their own speed) if they too were speeding. They don't want you to nail them for that. Kind of hard to sell a judge on giving you a tickey when they were speeding as well- and believe me, virtually all cops (especially hypos) speed!

[Army_Strong]

I have not been a cop for three years, but wrote my fair share of tickets in the three years that I was. Everytime that someone wanted to fight a ticket I had to take the radar calabration certification with me to court. I have no clue how the calabartion works, some expert came in and did it. Everyday I had to check the calabration which is done with the tuning forks. This was done several times a day. There is no long that the officer did the check, that was a we trust the officer that he did it thing. In court you had to be able to tell the court how the check was done. I know some officer that never did the check but memorized the process. I am not sure of the brand of radar we used but they were considered accurate within plus or minus two miles per hour. So if my radar was off two miles an hour fast and you were going 9 miles an hour over the speed limit I had you at 11 miles per hour over. I am sure that every radar is similar. It sucks if you were not speeding, but most local judges always side with the officer. I remember someone wanted to fight one that I had written them. The judge asked the person if the officer said he used the radar and when the person said yes he was found guilty without a trail. Which was wrong, but that is how the local judges role.

[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.

Needless to say, I am appealing the decision. They opened the dorr in court with his training (he was unaware that specific forks are used, or that they sell tuning forks at music stores), with his statement that with 100% certainty the forks had never been damaged (he became an officer in 2006, the forks were last tested in 2005 and he testified that other officers had used his vehicle and the tuning forks but did not know if they dropped or damaged them) and stated that if the radar made a false reading, it would tell him. He could not explain how it tells him, but it does. If I have to subpeona things then they can look forward to having to produce all of his training, the training of any officers that used the equipment since 2005, maintanence logs on the vehicle and names of any and all people who worked on it, etc...... Needless to say, it will be very lengthy. It doesn't cost me anything, but it does them.