'Dont touch my junk' rally @ Austin today

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

He attempted to take it further, but was stonewalled. I forget the details of why he didn't. I dug into it further, and the whole situation was jacked up.

What was wrong with the situation?

 

[tonycondon]

Maybe where you are is just riddled with corruption, though?

well, he lives in michigan...

 

[EdFred]

There is always a transcript and record. That's a constitutional requirement, it's a matter of due process.

So what was this evidence that you had proving the police was/were (not sure which is appropriate there) wrong, but which didn't prevent you from deciding to plead guilty?

Well, if the hearing was recorded, I never knew about it.

Cop stated I was going 73 in a 55, even though his RADAR only showed 70. He had me on in car camera showing a line of cars with me at the tail end of the line of vehicles. All the vehicles showed going 57mph on the speed overlay fed to the camera. I was on my motorcycle and on the video the gap between myself and the car in front of me never changed. If I am going faster than the line of cars that gap has to get smaller. It didn't. I also happened to go back out to where I was pulled over, and by breaking down the video frame by frame during the time I was supposedly going 70, I marked and measured on the road start and stop distances. The math also showed me going 57. When I presented that to the magistrate he dismissed it with the if I let you off comment. I then went to appeal it and before we walked into the courtroom the APA asked me what my evidence was, and I told him. He then offered me that "deal." If I lost, I would have to pay court costs, plus the ticket, plus I think there was some other "wasting their time penalty" if I lost if I remember correctly, not to mention insurance increases for a speeding ticket.

They just wanted money whether it was going to be a ticket or court costs. Oddly enough they were both the same amount.

 

[steingar]

I have heard anecdotal tales of rampant abuse in New York. My own singular experience in my municipality was far more satisfactory.

 

[EdFred]

What was wrong with the situation?

According to the MCL, it was basically a speed trap under the guise of a "mobile construction zone" I don't know if the code has changed but at the time it was against the code.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Well, if the hearing was recorded, I never knew about it.

Cop stated I was going 73 in a 55, even though his RADAR only showed 70. He had me on in car camera showing a line of cars with me at the tail end of the line of vehicles. All the vehicles showed going 57mph on the speed overlay fed to the camera. I was on my motorcycle and on the video the gap between myself and the car in front of me never changed. If I am going faster than the line of cars that gap has to get smaller. It didn't. I also happened to go back out to where I was pulled over, and by breaking down the video frame by frame during the time I was supposedly going 70, I marked and measured on the road start and stop distances. The math also showed me going 57. When I presented that to the magistrate he dismissed it with the if I let you off comment. I then went to appeal it and before we walked into the courtroom the APA asked me what my evidence was, and I told him. He then offered me that "deal." If I lost, I would have to pay court costs, plus the ticket, plus I think there was some other "wasting their time penalty" if I lost if I remember correctly, not to mention insurance increases for a speeding ticket.

They just wanted money whether it was going to be a ticket or court costs. Oddly enough they were both the same amount.

First, you've just told me you were breaking the speed limit - 70 in a 55 is 15 over, if the cop wrote you for 18 over. That's one of those things that doesn't really matter in the long run.

Second, being behind the line of cars - the radar is going to show them going slower, because they're closer, meaning that there's more of an angle with the radar, meaning that the measured speed is going to be lower (unless he was straight-on to their direction of travel).

Third, with what you've said about distances - that's probably not going to be considered, unless you can show that you've got the knowledge/skills/experience necessary to show that you can perform the tasks involved. That's expert testimony.

Finally, what did your speedometer show?

 

[Bobcat1]

How so?

CYA.

It's obvious that you weren't a longhair in the Northeast back in the early '70s.
Harrassment, planting of evidence after a stop, and the ever-present "throw away" knives were all part of the game. Somewhere between the street and the courtroom truth takes a hike.

If you're an ordinary citizen, you're on your own. Don't expect any help from the police or the courts.

 

[EdFred]

First, you've just told me you were breaking the speed limit - 70 in a 55 is 15 over, if the cop wrote you for 18 over. That's one of those things that doesn't really matter in the long run.

No I didn't, the cop via his RADAR stated so.

Second, being behind the line of cars - the radar is going to show them going slower, because they're closer, meaning that there's more of an angle with the radar, meaning that the measured speed is going to be lower (unless he was straight-on to their direction of travel).

He was on the other side of a boulevard facing us. That particular RADAR gun worked on Doppler effect and had to have the object approaching it within a 15° angle of dead at it to be accurate.

Third, with what you've said about distances - that's probably not going to be considered, unless you can show that you've got the knowledge/skills/experience necessary to show that you can perform the tasks involved. That's expert testimony.

I got an A in physics in high school and at college, plus had a job that required the application of the necessary knowledge. If I need a PhD to measure 83 feet on the road and divide d by t, something is wrong. I've never seen a caboose remain on the tracks and go faster than the engine.

Finally, what did your speedometer show?

Irrelevant, as it can't be documented by video or a photo with a timestamp matching that of the officer video display. However the needle was touching the 55mph mark at the time.

Something was wrong with the RADAR gun, or it got "confused" and was reading my bike and the car in front of me at the same time and the returns were picking my bike and then the car, and showed my bike travelling at an incorrect speed.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Says you. Yeah, in the last epoch, cops abused their power. Difference is, back then, if you had the means, you could sue. Suppress evidence, collect damages, all that. Now, you have no recourse. None. That is a big honking difference. And we've no one to blame but ourselves. And the real victims will be your children.

By the time we're done with them they'll wish they were on drugs.

Who is talking about abuse? While that happened too, I'm talking about the prevailing thinking back then, both in the legal community and society in general. The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments weren't really given any teeth until my lifetime. Heck, it really wasn't all that long ago that most of the Bill of Rights was considered only binding on the Federal government, not agents of the states or their subdivisions.

 

[steingar]

Who is talking about abuse? While that happened too, I'm talking about the prevailing thinking back then, both in the legal community and society in general. The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments weren't really given any teeth until my lifetime. Heck, it really wasn't all that long ago that most of the Bill of Rights was considered only binding on the Federal government, not agents of the states or their subdivisions.

Says you. Maybe up North. Down in the lower 48, we used to be free from cops busting down the door armed to the teeth. Not so much anymore.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Says you. Maybe up North. Down in the lower 48, we used to be free from cops busting down the door armed to the teeth. Not so much anymore.

I lived not that far from you until recent years.

Jeesh, sepia is a popular color tone around those parts...

 

[steingar]

I lived not that far from you until recent years.

Jeesh, sepia is a popular color tone around those parts...

Only to those who are color-blind.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

No I didn't, the cop via his RADAR stated so.

Right. But unless there's something indicating that it hadn't been calibrated, that's pretty dispositive.

He was on the other side of a boulevard facing us. That particular RADAR gun worked on Doppler effect and had to have the object approaching it within a 15° angle of dead at it to be accurate.

Well, this isn't so much an issue of where the radar gun is pointed, but where the car is relevant to the radar gun. Cosines and trignometry and things of that nature. In other words, the greater the angle, the less the speed will be shown as.

I got an A in physics in high school and at college, plus had a job that required the application of the necessary knowledge. If I need a PhD to measure 83 feet on the road and divide d by t, something is wrong. I've never seen a caboose remain on the tracks and go faster than the engine.

If you could exactly mark on the road relative to the video, you'd have something. But there's just no way you can credibly do that from a dashboard cam. You could certainly get a rough estimate, but that's not just not going to cut it.

Irrelevant, as it can't be documented by video or a photo with a timestamp matching that of the officer video display. However the needle was touching the 55mph mark at the time.

It's not at all irrelevant. It's just an issue of credibility.

Something was wrong with the RADAR gun, or it got "confused" and was reading my bike and the car in front of me at the same time and the returns were picking my bike and then the car, and showed my bike travelling at an incorrect speed.

Maybe.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Says you. Maybe up North. Down in the lower 48, we used to be free from cops busting down the door armed to the teeth. Not so much anymore.

They just didn't used to be as heavily armed in the past.

Trust me when I say that the history of law enforcement in the United States is sordid, and that's being generous. To top that off, I think most present-day policefolk would agree with that assessment.

As Richard quite accurately said, the 4th-6th Amendments were pretty much nonexistent until well into the second half of the 20th Century. We've made dramatic leaps forward, and these all get overlooked. Take a look at Gant v. Arizona for an encouraging recent example (although it is actually meaningless unless further steps are taken, encouraging it remains).

Nevertheless, there is an incredible amount of room for improvement, and mistakes have been and continue to be made. There should be no reason to hesitate in addressing both. There is a recent U.S. Supreme Court case out of Maryland addressing the 5th/6th Amdmt. right to consult with an attorney (basically saying that even if you explicitly say you want a lawyer, the police can still interrogate you without one if they wait long enough, which is BS in my opinion); unfortunately I can't remember the name. For another discouraging example, look up Herring v. U.S., which is a SC case out of, well, SC (South Carolina).

Summarized, in the first half of the 20th Century, the attitude toward the 4th-6th Amendments was "snort." The attitude now can best be summarized as "yeah, they're there, but we're not going to let them stand in the way of getting 'results.'" Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of room and a tremendous need for improvement; but the improvements we've achieved are impressive.

Anyway, that's my take on the whole thing. I'll be glad to go into more detail on specifics if anyone would like.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Says you. Yeah, in the last epoch, cops abused their power. Difference is, back then, if you had the means, you could sue. Suppress evidence, collect damages, all that. Now, you have no recourse. None. That is a big honking difference. And we've no one to blame but ourselves. And the real victims will be your children.

By the time we're done with them they'll wish they were on drugs.

It's actually easier to sue now. For the States, you've got 42 USC 1983. For the Feds, you've got what is called a Bivens Suit (Bivens being the name of a case, I think it's Bivens v. Six Unidentified Narcotics Agents).

 

[EdFred]

Right. But unless there's something indicating that it hadn't been calibrated, that's pretty dispositive.

Well, this isn't so much an issue of where the radar gun is pointed, but where the car is relevant to the radar gun. Cosines and trignometry and things of that nature. In other words, the greater the angle, the less the speed will be shown as.

If you could exactly mark on the road relative to the video, you'd have something. But there's just no way you can credibly do that from a dashboard cam. You could certainly get a rough estimate, but that's not just not going to cut it.

It's not at all irrelevant. It's just an issue of credibility.

Maybe.

Actually the dash cam gave me great information and point of reference. It happened to be right in front of my office where it took place. My measurements were within 5 feet. Even if had 10' of mis-measurement by being +5 and -5, my calculated speed would have been 63, still a far cry from the alleged 73, and still closer to what I was actually going. I had been following this line of cars for 1-1/2 miles and there were no cars behind me. On the camera you see it display 57, 57, 57, 57, 57, 57, 57, 57, 57, 70, 70, 57, 57, 57. It never shows any deceleration, it never shows in the 60s at all. Unless my bike is somehow capable of quantum acceleration or deceleration...

When I finished explaining this, the magistrate even admitted RADAR guns aren't correct all the time, but if he lets me go, he has to let everyone go.

 

[Bravo3]

Says you. Maybe up North. Down in the lower 48, we used to be free from cops busting down the door armed to the teeth. Not so much anymore.

Hey, Dude, I used to think we were doomed to knock heads, but on this . . . All I gotta say is, I like the way you think. Couldn't agree more.