About ten years ago I heard of a guy that got off on a radar ticket. The technicality was the officer that wrote the ticket was not the same guy holding the radar gun. If this holds true today (I don't know), wouldn't it be the same in this case since the guy pacing you isn't the same person writing the ticket?

atb wrote: ... "On the airplane tickets a common basis for getting them dismissed is failure to provide sufficient foundation for the markers painted on the shoulder, or calibration of the timing equipment. You have the officer in the patrol car who writes the citation, and the officer in the air who provides the basis for speed. Neither of them are the ones who painted the mile markers on the road and therefore they are assuming that they are correctly spaced for the speed calculation. That assumption calls for conjecture on the part of the court if evidence isn't submitted by someone who has actually measured the distance between the markers and can confirm it, and can serve as a basis for dismissal. Just like any of the speed measuring equipment, whether radar, laser, or pace (officer's speedo) the timing equipment (stop watch) must be proven to have been properly calibrated in order for the citation to stick. Without proof of calibration of the stop watch, the citation may be dismissed."


I was ready to do exactly that. Also to try a hearsay exclusion between the air and ground at the time of the ticket. Didn't have to.


"Sounds like Will supbpoenaed the officers and they didn't show. Normally that's an automatic win, but I have seen one judge ask the defendant "well what were going to ask of the officer?". The defendant didn't have a response so the judge found it committed. Harsh!"


You've got to be kidding. ;-) There's a lot to be said for laying behind the log. It's not my job to ensure the State has their ducks in a row. I'd have appealed a finding like the one you mention. Which brings up another point - make sure you ask for a record or you just get a new trial rather an appeal _and_ you've alerted the machinery.

Danglerb has a perfectly appealable result, too.

Ron H: That guy probably came back b/c he got time off with pay from his new agency and a chance to visit his girlfriend in the old town. ;-Q

F.L.: I have to say that, in the few years since I've moved back to Ohio, on my frequently travelled stretch of I-70 I've seen as many troopers helping stranded motorists as giving tickets. And I've seen much more Highway Patrol presence on secondary roads than on interstates, both a reversal of what I was used to before I moved to Texas, and both a better use of resources, imo.

I've been entering "not guilty" pleas since long before I was a law student. I've even seen a judge chew out a prosecutor who asked for a continuance b/c his trooper was pulling overtime duty at the State Fair ... "You've got a lot of gall, Mr. Prosecutor ..."

It's their job to prove it. Make 'em do it. I think a lot of people are afraid the judge will jack the fine and costs if they lose. Possible, but ... how much is your freedom from official oppression worth? Citizens get the government they allow.

Will said: "Citizens get the government they allow."

I could not agree more.

Ron H. wrote:
I only use subpoenaing the officer as a last resort, when the client doesn't have a chance based on the record. It is truly the hail mary of traffic court practice since around here the officer will usually show up. The problem you have is that if the officer does show up, and there are mistakes or problems with the record, he/she can correct them with testimony. Then, you are left with putting the court in the position of finding that the officer lied, and that just isn't going happen.

tomcat wrote:
In this situation you must have each officer verify their part. The officer holding the speed measuring device must lay the foundation for the assessment of speed. The officer writing the ticket must lay the foundation for indentifying the defendant/vehicle/location. If one officer attempts to testify on behalf of the other, its hearsay and non-admissable.

Adam, sometimes the officer can be a surprising asset when present in court. I know that sounds strange, but I can recall instances when his/her testimony was damning to the state's case, and in one instance, served to overturn a conviction later in appeals court. In that instance, I had presented graphic evidence that contradicted the officer's claim that proper distances had been observed during use of his speed measuring device. My measurements were contrary to that testimony and held up on appeal. Of course the lower court traffic commissioner simply "drove by the site and made a quick visual estimation to confirm the officer's testimony" but the measurements didn't support that contention.

There is another situation when someone has been cited under the basic speed law and the officer is present in court that can turn in the defendant's favor. I won't mention the details here, because ......well, let's not show all of our cards.......but it is so simple a defense. Some who know me know what it is.

Thanks Adam. Great info. I am very well protected for anything but airplanes. It does make me pop the sunroof and peer up and around once in awhile. Along those lines my recent zip to Portland and back netted me 20mpg at an average of 80 leages per annum. I saw a helicopter at one point flying directly over the freeway and waited till it was clearly not there anymore. At another point I was lasered at the instant my brain told me there was a light metallic crown vic sitting atop the hill at Olympia. I had a whole second to react, which I did as I say more slowly than I would have preferred, but despite the 20 leagues per annum drop in speed, I was not pulled over. And they say laser detectors are worthless. Fooey.

Yes, Heinrich, I concur. It takes being quick but that's the way you should be prepared to be in such an activity.

Ron ... brother

Enjoy it while you can, sooner or later we are going to have automated traffic monitoring. OTOH maybe when that happens we might also get more realistic speed limits, more tracks to race at, etc.

Some people I know take a lot of pleasure in grilling a cop under oath on the stand. Carefully document the vehicle locations etc. where you got the ticket, get the cop to testify in some detail that he followed established procedures for the ticket, followed your car for so far within such and such distance, then just run down the physics from the officers testimony and point out the contradictions with actual distances and realistic acceleration, assuming of course they actually followed little or none of the normal procedures and red lighted you without really pacing etc.

Maybe instead of a TB party we need some mock traffic court sessions.

Dunno if this is still true, but sometimes a lawyer can be a very reasonable expense if they do a lot of traffic tickets they may have more than one case in a single court date. One of my friends worked for an attorney, and when he got a ticket this guy referred him to a local traffic specialist, and on the court date the judge basically dismissed every case without hearing them that this guy represented.

That is a better use of resources. Revenue generation should not be the purpose for highway patrols. I wish they would cite more people for erratic lane changes, changing lanes without signaling and driving in the left lane - wishful thinking!

Generally, I feel if you were more than 10 over, pay it. But I know there are many stories on both sides and that is why they are ****** and should be challenged -- with some reservations. Ihad a municipal judge tell me this particular count would not add points. The day AFTER the appeal period ran out I got the notice of the points, only points I have had then or since. Sorry, I am convinced of a conspiracy here. The smaller the town the more sceevey they are.

Let me tell you, I could add a bunch of stories to that one, and they would **** you off big time. Don't get me started.