Didn't know troopers can clock you when they were driving towards you...

[AnimalE30]

Something to think about, most cops pull people over with a general idea that you were speeding be it from a radar gun or just that you were traveling faster then everyone else. The first thing they ask you is "do you know how fast you were going?" Or something along the lines of that. You say anything over the speed limit and you've just admitted guilt. You're done.

[sam3]

Sorry, multi-quote wouldn't work, here's a long one.

No offense to anyone who posted, but there are a lot of myths about speed enforcement out there. I've been operating and instructing traffic RADAR for almost 25 years. I've been through probably 300 RADAR trials.

Forget asking for radar data. Concentrate on tire pressure. All you have to do is prove the tire pressure was not verified and recorded the day the ticket was issued. Do not offer an affirmative defense.

It is true that you need not ask for this in advance. If you are questioned about this, suggest that certainly this is not the first time the officer has been to court-surely he knows what to bring with him by now...

Moving radar is always a money grab.

I suppose you could argue that since your tires were flat or over-inflated, your speedo was off. Courts rely on the "reasonable man" standard, and I've had cases where the defendant actually proved that their speedo was dead. If the ticket is 5-7mph over, the judge might buy it, but if it's 20-30MPH over, the Judge is likely to decide that the driver, being a "reasonable man" probably knew, or should have known, that they were driving too fast. The State does not need to show culpability for violation-level offenses...imagine having to prove that a driver saw a stop sign, or knew the speed limit, it's not possible. The sign was there, the driver should have seen it, if not, too-bad/so-sad as they say. As for the cruiser's tires...read on.

"right, but if they verify clocked speed (and they will be able to) but dont bring spedometer calibration verification (sometimes they dont) they cant prove your speed."

Police Package cars come from the factory with certified speedos, its written on the dash and the paperwork comes with the car. The Trooper should bring all of his cert's to trial, including his operators card, though some States don't certify RADAR operators.

"You didn't ask to see the radar?

Fuck you, you're stupid."

Locking in the speed on the gun ruins the track as the car slows down, this is a vital part of the Officer's observations. It's also quite entertaining to watch the nose of the car drop when the driver realizes he's been had, and hear the high-pitched tone drop off. These observations are all part of the State's case and should come out in the Officer's testimony. I once saw a P-911 driver hit the brakes so hard when I released the HOLD button that he skidded off the road and flipped (he was OK).
I don't know of any State where the Officer is obligated to show the driver the display, the facts are argued in the courtroom, not at the roadside. When this has been argued in my State, it's been ruled that having the Trooper walk back and forth with the driver or the handheld RADAR places everyone at higher risk of being run over.

"The mobile radar devices have a few flaws. I heard this out of the guy who calibrates them for the entire Olympia-Tacoma-Seattle area. If there is a large object or vehicle around you, it will pick up the speed of the large object/vehicle.

If there was anyone around you, car or otherwise and you were on a crotch rocket, it's a safe bet you could argue in court that he didn't get your speed accurately."

These errors are called batching, jamming, scanning, or tracking. In a nutshell, the larger object, like a flat bodied truck, has to be moving in the same direction as the the RADAR unit while the unit is in moving mode, so the closing speed between the two is displayed as the patrol speed, a certified operator will immediately notice that the tone emitted by the RADAR does not match the displayed speed and ignore it as tracking or batching.
RADAR speed enforcement is a three-legged-stool: visual observation, RADAR display, and RADAR tone, remove any of the three, and the stool won't stand up.
If two objects are approaching, the object with the largest signal-return will be displayed, though the other objects tone is usually audible on the gun. Sometimes you can hear the screaming tone of a high-flyer, and actually see the car coming, but the digital display shows only the largest target.

"They have to prove their vehicle speed was accurate in order to claim moving radar accuracy. If you force them to admit they didn't set the tire pressure to the manufacturer's specs for speedo accuracy, then they can't claim their reading is accurate.

Also, I always ask if there were any other vehicles present. This is especially important if there was a box checked in the "conditions" area that indicates there was other traffic around. Say "according to the ticket, you indicated traffic was light (or moderate or whatever). "Can you recall any of the details of the other vehicles present? They generally cannot. Ask them if there were any vehicles larger than yours. Trucks, delivery vehicles, etc. Doesn't matter if they remember of not. You are just demonstrating to the judge that the cop's recollection is hazy. Next, ask if radar can distinguish between vehicles of different sizes. (It cannot). Now, (use their correct name and title) given the fact that you do not recall any details regarding the other vehicles operating in the vicinity, and given your testimony that radar cannot distinguish target size, is it possible, that my vehicle was not the one that was speeding? All they have to do is admit that it was possible...."

Not sure where to start on this one, the patrol vehicle speed is measured by the RADAR as the low-doppler, the target vehicle (it doesn't matter if if it's headed toward or away), the difference between the two is the speed of the target. The Officer will be immediately aware if the low doppler and his vehicle speed are not the same, the difference will be subtracted from the high doppler signal and the tone will be all f***'d up. I've only experienced this a few times and it's unmistakable that something's not right.
The "conditions" check-box is required to show that the speed was not "reasonable and prudent for the conditions then existing", hence, you can get a ticket for speeding, even if you're going under the prima facie limit, if, say, the road is glare ice and there's a group of Nuns wandering around in the travelled portion. No Trooper wants to issue a bad ticket, they have nothing to gain, and they will never be able to re-establish their credibility in Court.

When doing a "clock", the Officer will use the RADAR's patrol speed display rather than the car's speedo as it's far more accurate than even a certified speedometer. Operators are taught to always check that the two are reading the same speed, just for redundancy.
After a few thousand hours of listening to the RADAR, most guys don't even look at it until the hear the right tone coming across.

"here's several ways. Basic stuff... check certifications. I've gotten out of many a ticket simply due to them not bringing a certification saying the gun was calibrated. Also, check dates on any certifications. Often times they grab the wrong one and if it says it was calibrated in 2009 and it's 2010... no proof present to say it was calibrated at the time of the traffic violation."

This is sound advice. Don't argue at the side of the road, file a motion for discovery, you can do it yourself, and show up in court.

One more myth about traffic RADAR is that it displays the actual speed of the target, it doesn't, it shows the straight-line closing speed between the target and the antenna. Unless the Trooper is standing directly in front the oncoming car, the measured speed will be lower in relation to the angle of offset. At 90 degree offset, the measured speed would be 0 MPH, regardless of actual travel speed, because the object is not closing on the antenna. The error is always in favor of the driver as every degree of offset lowers the closing speed.
All RADARs have RFI cutouts, so when the Officer is yakking on the two-way, the RADAR is inoperable and big red RFI light shows up.
Heavy rain and snow just make the RADAR not work, fog is cool because the RADAR can see through it, no good for enforcement though because there's no visual backup.

Again, no offense to anyone who posted, some of it was sound advice, it's just painful to watch a defendant start on a rant about something he read on the internet about power lines and blower fans. The Judges and Troopers have heard it all a thousand times, in fact, most District Court Judges in my area have ridden in the cruisers so they can see first-hand how RADAR works.
A well informed and respectful defendant is much more likely to elicit leniency from the Judge.

I have a 220hp M3, and I find it much easier to just drive reasonably. As I've explained to many-a-driver, "My wife and kids use these roads, and I really like seeing them at the end of the day"

[phreshkid]

Dang it if only I knew half of these things 6 months ago!

[Danny]

In California if the officer is asked, he is required to show you the radar.

[ck_taft325is]

"The mobile radar devices have a few flaws. I heard this out of the guy who calibrates them for the entire Olympia-Tacoma-Seattle area. If there is a large object or vehicle around you, it will pick up the speed of the large object/vehicle.

If there was anyone around you, car or otherwise and you were on a crotch rocket, it's a safe bet you could argue in court that he didn't get your speed accurately."

These errors are called batching, jamming, scanning, or tracking. In a nutshell, the larger object, like a flat bodied truck, has to be moving in the same direction as the the RADAR unit while the unit is in moving mode, so the closing speed between the two is displayed as the patrol speed, a certified operator will immediately notice that the tone emitted by the RADAR does not match the displayed speed and ignore it as tracking or batching.
RADAR speed enforcement is a three-legged-stool: visual observation, RADAR display, and RADAR tone, remove any of the three, and the stool won't stand up.
If two objects are approaching, the object with the largest signal-return will be displayed, though the other objects tone is usually audible on the gun. Sometimes you can hear the screaming tone of a high-flyer, and actually see the car coming, but the digital display shows only the largest target.

"here's several ways. Basic stuff... check certifications. I've gotten out of many a ticket simply due to them not bringing a certification saying the gun was calibrated. Also, check dates on any certifications. Often times they grab the wrong one and if it says it was calibrated in 2009 and it's 2010... no proof present to say it was calibrated at the time of the traffic violation."

This is sound advice. Don't argue at the side of the road, file a motion for discovery, you can do it yourself, and show up in court.

One more myth about traffic RADAR is that it displays the actual speed of the target, it doesn't, it shows the straight-line closing speed between the target and the antenna. Unless the Trooper is standing directly in front the oncoming car, the measured speed will be lower in relation to the angle of offset. At 90 degree offset, the measured speed would be 0 MPH, regardless of actual travel speed, because the object is not closing on the antenna. The error is always in favor of the driver as every degree of offset lowers the closing speed.
All RADARs have RFI cutouts, so when the Officer is yakking on the two-way, the RADAR is inoperable and big red RFI light shows up.
Heavy rain and snow just make the RADAR not work, fog is cool because the RADAR can see through it, no good for enforcement though because there's no visual backup.

Again, no offense to anyone who posted, some of it was sound advice, it's just painful to watch a defendant start on a rant about something he read on the internet about power lines and blower fans. The Judges and Troopers have heard it all a thousand times, in fact, most District Court Judges in my area have ridden in the cruisers so they can see first-hand how RADAR works.
A well informed and respectful defendant is much more likely to elicit leniency from the Judge.

I have a 220hp M3, and I find it much easier to just drive reasonably. As I've explained to many-a-driver, "My wife and kids use these roads, and I really like seeing them at the end of the day"

You, Sir, are much more helpful than the guy I heard testify in court around this area on the matter.

That last bit is the only "real" way of getting out of the ticket. I've avoided all tickets I've been given by checking certifications. It's a loophole, and yes, it does make you a douche bag law breaker trying to avoid the consequences of his/her actions (myself included in this statement).

[e30:)]

i have seen people get away with speeding tickets a few times, they always mentioned that they were going the same speed as the cars around them. this is in the county i live in and i have never seen the officer show up..

[ck_taft325is]

In WA State the officer does not have to show up. He can send his evidence (paper work/case files) to the court. Traffic violations when taken to court are a "perponderance" of the evidence. If he shows up with 9 pieces of valid "evidence" and you show up with your story, his looks more credible, therefore the ticket is valid.

[e30:)]

i got out of a ticket a few months ago because in his statement he said my muffler " looked " aftermarket and i was driving neglegent but didnt say there were people around me so the court said i didnt put anyone in danger so no ticket.. if he would have written it better i would have had like a 500$ ticket but he didnt. thats the only reason i fight them now. you never know what the outcome will be

[ck_taft325is]

i got out of a ticket a few months ago because in his statement he said my muffler " looked " aftermarket and i was driving neglegent but didnt say there were people around me so the court said i didnt put anyone in danger so no ticket.. if he would have written it better i would have had like a 500$ ticket but he didnt. thats the only reason i fight them now. you never know what the outcome will be

Exactly. Worst thing that can happen is you get stuck paying a ticket and then you let the judge know you're a broke e30 owner and get it reduced. Just don't be a dick and 9 out of 10 times they'll cut it at least in half.

[mar1t1me]

Not sure where to start on this one, <snip>

The "conditions" check-box is required to show that the speed was not "reasonable and prudent for the conditions then existing", hence, you can get a ticket for speeding, even if you're going under the prima facie limit, if, say, the road is glare ice and there's a group of Nuns wandering around in the travelled portion. No Trooper wants to issue a bad ticket, they have nothing to gain, and they will never be able to re-establish their credibility in Court.

The only reason I brought up the conditions box is to see if the officer noted other vehicles present. I am not advocating arguing about the conditions. My purpose is solely to create doubt in the mind of the judge by showing that the officer wasn't fully aware of other vehicles and may have made a mistake. I never argue "I wasn't speeding because..." I argue that since the officer can't recall any of the details of any other traffic present, that he may have been mistaken in choosing my car. I don't argue that the radar was faulty, just that there were, according to the citation, other vehicles present. "Obviously the officer chose my car, otherwise we wouldn't be here" but mistakes happen.

Your point that the judges and cops have "heard it all" is well taken. That's why I don't use slick internet BS. I just go in, ask my questions and get the officer to admit that with other traffic present you have to make your best guess. There is always a chance it won't go that way, but I have been fortunate. Knowing how to dress and how to look "responsible" also helps...

A well informed and respectful defendant is much more likely to elicit leniency from the Judge.

I couldn't agree more.

[jeffesaurusrex]

Whatever you do, go to court. Many times, the cop will not show up and then it's automatically dismissed. When you pay the ticket, you are paying your court costs whether you go to court or not, so the worst that can happen is you will have to pay the ticket in full, no more.

[Vtec?lol]

I just looked at my ticket and it said that my 04 r6 is red, There is not a drop of red on my bike. My tail light isn't even red. the guy I rode with had a red bike though. Is this a good argument in the courtroom? A friend of mine had a ticket dismissed because the trooper accidentally put the wrong make of car on the ticket.

[Danny]

I know a guy who had a ticket where they didn't even put the right last name.

He still got nailed.

So... no.

[xwill112x]

id use it against him

[nando]

In WA State the officer does not have to show up. He can send his evidence (paper work/case files) to the court. Traffic violations when taken to court are a "perponderance" of the evidence. If he shows up with 9 pieces of valid "evidence" and you show up with your story, his looks more credible, therefore the ticket is valid.

yes, they can file an affidavit. However, just like some officers don't show up, sometimes they don't write their report (or it's so poorly written the judge can't read it). The judge will throw it out. Both of these have happened to me. Thus, it's always worth showing up to court in Washington, even if you know you're guilty and there's no way out of the ticket through argument.