caught speeding by following

John David Galt wrote:
> > He did? Let's see. He radars a car and observes another going at
the
> > same or very similar speed behind him. That testimony by itself is
> > sufficient. He then asks the lead to corroborate his observation.
That
> > gives two bits of evidence for the court rather than just the
cop's.
> > Slam dunk, guilty.
>
> Only if the lead driver is present when the poster goes to trial.
> Otherwise quoting him would be hearsay; probable result - DISMISSED!

So now you're a lawyer too? Sorry that one won't fly because the
burden of proof is much less on infractions. If need be, to suit you,
the cop could supeona the witness. As I pointed out, the cops word
alone would be sufficient, the witness statement just adds icing to the
cake. Someone up thread at least put out some arguments that would at
least be considered by the judge.

Harry K

223rem wrote:
> Harry K wrote:
>
>
> > He did? Let's see. He radars a car and observes another going at
the
> > same or very similar speed behind him.
>
> His view of the following car was blocked by the car in front.
>
>
> > sufficient. He then asks the lead to corroborate his observation.
That
> > gives two bits of evidence for the court rather than just the
cop's.
> > Slam dunk, guilty.
>
> The witness is not qualified to visually estimate speeds.
>
> More interestingly, how does a single cop car pull over 2
> vehicles??

The witness isn't estimating speed. He is just saying that car B was
maintaining a set distance. The cop ain't estimating speed either,
just observing that it is at or close to the speed he radared already.
No need to estimate.

As for pulling over two. He pulls over Car A and waves B over or waves
both over (happened to me). Gets a bit more exciting if he has to chase
down the first one.

Harry K

There is no way out of this one. Don't bother fighting it. Just pay
the ticket and take traffic school in order to get the point off you're
record.

It's not loosing points you should be worried about, it's gaining them.
Go over the DMV drivers hand book. It's got Arnold Swartzennegers
photo and signature inside it. Read it, it would be a good refresher
for you.

In article . com>,
says...
>
>He did? Let's see. He radars a car and observes another going at the
>same or very similar speed behind him. That testimony by itself is
>sufficient. He then asks the lead to corroborate his observation. That
>gives two bits of evidence for the court rather than just the cop's.
>Slam dunk, guilty.

Unless the first driver goes to court to testify in person, then there is
no corroboration. If the cop brings that up, you should very quickly object
as that testimony is hearsay.
------------------
Alex

In article .com>,
says...

>The witness isn't estimating speed. He is just saying that car B was
>maintaining a set distance.

Fat chance he will go to court to testify against the other driver.

----------------
Alex

On Tue, 17 May 2005 13:06:39 -0400, "Ted B." >
wrote:

>Dave

Are you Ted B or Dave?

In article .com>,
says...
>
>
>thanks for all your replies. I see there are a few questions being
>asked. First the cop was standing on the side of the road with the
>radar in his hand. Therefore as we approached he told us both to pull
>over. He showed me his radar gun which clocked 76, but said that was
>the guy in front of me.

Great those are two pieces of informaiton you can use in your defense. If
he locked in the speed, he probably did not do a proper tracking history
so he would not be able to help him guess which vehicle was causing the reading
on his radar unit. The other thing he said which helps you is that he
specifically told he he did not clock you but based his estimate on your
proximity to the other vehicle in front of you. It is quite possible that
since he locked in the reading on the car in front of you that reading occured
pretty far down the road. At that point the car in front of you slowed down
and that closed the gap between you and the car in front of you. That made
it appear that you were travelling at the same speed as the car in front of
you when he was clocked.

>We both came over a hill then a curve.

That means the officer had a very limited view of what happened. It also
probably means that he did not do a visual estimate of speed before the
radar clocked the speed. So he relied entirely on the radar.

>The speed limit is 50 but if I can proove I was going under 70 I can still
>get fined but no points lost.

You should not try to prove you were going a certain speed as much as you
should show that the officer did not know what speed you were travelling at.
You don't want to lie in court.
-------------
Alex

In article . com>,
says...
>
>
>
>John David Galt wrote:
>> > He did? Let's see. He radars a car and observes another going at
>the
>> > same or very similar speed behind him. That testimony by itself is
>> > sufficient. He then asks the lead to corroborate his observation.
>That
>> > gives two bits of evidence for the court rather than just the
>cop's.
>> > Slam dunk, guilty.
>>
>> Only if the lead driver is present when the poster goes to trial.
>> Otherwise quoting him would be hearsay; probable result - DISMISSED!
>
>So now you're a lawyer too? Sorry that one won't fly because the
>burden of proof is much less on infractions.

Are you saying that hearsay is allowable for infractions?

>If need be, to suit you, the cop could supeona the witness.

It would be to suit the court. If he wants to use the other drivers
testimony as part of his case, then he would need to subpoena him.

>As I pointed out, the cops word
>alone would be sufficient, the witness statement just adds icing to the
>cake.

The cops own admission to the accused can also be used against him. He
admitted having to use the judgement of a third party to make a decision
that led to the stop and accusation. Without the third parties testimony
he has a weak case.

--------------
Alex

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article .com>,
> says...
>
> >The witness isn't estimating speed. He is just saying that car B
was
> >maintaining a set distance.
>
> Fat chance he will go to court to testify against the other driver.
>
> ----------------
> Alex

Doesn't have to. His statement is probably part of the cop's report.
Being a civil infraction, not criminal, that is sufficient unless the
vic..er driver cares to appeal. I'm don't know if you even can appeal
a ticket decision by a judge.

Harry K

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
> >
> >He did? Let's see. He radars a car and observes another going at
the
> >same or very similar speed behind him. That testimony by itself is
> >sufficient. He then asks the lead to corroborate his observation.
That
> >gives two bits of evidence for the court rather than just the cop's.
> >Slam dunk, guilty.
>
> Unless the first driver goes to court to testify in person, then
there is
> no corroboration. If the cop brings that up, you should very quickly
object
> as that testimony is hearsay.
> ------------------
> Alex

Fat chance. This is not a -trial- that is occurring. Object and hear
the judge laugh.

Harry K