I was resetting my clock and not paying attention to my speed, when I got pulled over in a 60 mph zone headed north on 94. Funny how my radar alarm didn't go off. I wonder if they "clocked" me because they were tailing me at 78 mph, essentially using their speedometer. "But judge, my radar detector didn't go off." Could that work? I also got a ticket for tinted windows. 30% = $122 or so. Can I just pay the fine and not remove the tint? Finally, I received a warning for my smoked tail lights. Nothing official luckily. I suppose I was due for a ticket. With all the road tuning and logging over the last 6 months, I'm lucky the authorities didn't intervene during a 3rd WOT.
Sorry. Pacing is a legal way for the cops to 'clock' you and it will stand up in court. I'm due, too. With all the shenanigans I've been up to in my silver car it's amazing I don't have more tickets. I swear that thing has a cloaking device. Germans = Klingons?
If you got a tail light ticket, I would have to be mad since my tails look the same as your tails which are tinted about as much as a Pontiac Grand Am
isnt a tint ticket just like a fix-it ticket. Just pay it, no need to tear the tint off. Ive had a few in the cts and H2 with limo tint. Just always paid them
Ahahaha, no. And yes, pacing is a very well accepted method of speed enforcment. How do you think they enforced speed limits before radar guns? There are certain things the state needs to prove re:certification. Also, there's a bit more room for doubt with a pacing ticket (how do they know they weren't slowly gaining on you, etc)
Not all Radar Detector work. I've been through a few of them and most of them didn't warn me. I past a few cops clocking me and my Radar is complete silence. Buy expensive Radar Detector or else dont buy it at all.
I would of slammed on my brakes and have the police hit you, then you can claim insurance! lol jk that sucks!
A PO doesn't even need to pace you. He can write you a ticket based on visual estimation. In the eyes of the court he's a training professional and an expert witness for that. Obviously, going to court and talking to the judge or hearing officer would probably get you out of it if your record was clean, or at least lessened to a non moving violation.
Given that Minnesota is a reasonable doubt state with regards to even traffic tickets, that would get laughed out of the courtroom so fast your head would spin. In theory they "could," but between an officer saying, it looked like it was doing 78, the state would in no way meet thier burden. In fact, I could argue that it is would be a violation of ethics for a prosecutor to even pursue this case.
Dude, you should read up more before you comment like that. Like I said, the PO is an expert witness. It's all they need. Edit: here you go. http://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/news/2007/nov/17/ask-trooper/
I used to prosecute traffic tickets. Ok, I've found State v. Ali (679 N.W.2d 359). This case involved the use of a laser gun. The court found that the officer's visual estimation was valid because the laser gun agreed with him. Also note that this case also upheld the laser gun evidence. If the laser evidence had been tossed 9or worse, non-existant), this would have been a different case. The court found that the laser gun was accurate FWIW, at the end of the day the officer's estimation IS the evidence. It is backed up by training and use of a speed measuring device. Questioning: What training do you have in traffic enforcement? . . . . Is you vehcile equiped with any speed measuring devices? Yes (enter calibration records) . . . . Did anything catch your eye at this time? A blue car Did you estimate the speed of the vehicle? Yes What speed? 78 mph Do you often estimate the speed of vehicles? Yes Do you have any meathod of checking your estimates? A laser gun (generally gives model) Did you check your estmate in this case? Yes What did it read? 78 mph In essence a speed measure device should check an officer's estimation, and at the sam etime, the officer's estimation check's the speed measuring device's accuracy. In theory, this case might be able to be used in a case where the calibration records were missing, but the reading and the officer mostly agreed. I don't see it as useful to support a case purely based on visual estimation with no speed measuring device, timer, speedometer, etc. Maybe two officers working in conjuction could work, but a decent defense attorney would ahve a field day with that. This is the proof needed to have the record show that "his observations were reasonably accurate." I would note that this case involved a hard speed limit (30 mph in Minneapolis, note that signed speed limits are strict liability in urban areas in MN, you cannot argue that the safe speed was 35 mph MS § 169.14(2)). If this was a "basic speed law" (aka reasonable and prudent), there might be a better case, because there the actual speed is not the key issue.
So do you think that I could argue that my radar detector didn't go off, and that "pacing" leaves to many variables? Would I argue this myself to a hearing officer? My insurance rates are about to drop once I hit 30 in a few months. It might be worth it to fight this if there's a chance to win. Would I need a lawyer? What might they charge?
No, the radar excuse isn't going to work and pacing is perfectly acceptable. Your best bet is to go in, admit wrong and ask for a stay of adjudication. The hearing officers hear the same stories day in and day out. If you've got a clean record the chances are pretty good you'll end up better off then just paying it.
And I just disproved it above. Officer cited out of context (this is not uncommon) To have a record showing that "his observations were reasonably accurate," they need something else. They cannot just rest on an officer saying, "yeah he looked like he was doing 41 mph."
But you can argue whether or not it was calibrated at the time the officer paced him. They may be calibrated, but if there is any service work done to the car that affects the actual readout after the last calibration of the speedometer you stand a very good chance of getting it thrown out. Examples: 1. transmission work after last calibration date. 2. a change in air pressure on tires during normal service, change in seasons(hot to cold temps = a pressure drop in the tires which will make the speedo read slightly faster) opposite effect going from cold temps to hot... NOTE, I have be able to get out of a ticket on this one(tires were changed a week after the speedo was calibrated, a month prior to my getting ticketed). 3. A new set of tires, worn tread to new tread, sumer tires to winter tires The great thing is when you are given a speeding ticket by means of the officer pacing you there are many variables that can be looked at. Numbers/math are your friend in these cases. You are being charged with a set speed, IE: going 45mph in a 30mph zone, not going fast in a 30mph zone. All you have to do is "A" prove the speed you are being charged with is not the speed you were going with out admitting to exceeding the speed limit(admitting to that will open the door for other charges) . or "B" prove that there "may" be room for error in the equipment the officer used to determine your speed. "A" is tough to do with out incriminating your self in many cases. "B" (for pacing)on the other hand can be done with out to much trouble if you do your home work on how tire sizes affect the speedo reading. How worn tread and new tread will result in different readings combine with how air pressure changes affect tire size. You need to do the math and have all the scenarios worked out on paper prior to going into court. This also requires a trial by ambush technique which is frowned upon in the courts, as if you were to do a discovery they would have time to pull more records on the service history of the car. The hope is that you can break the chain of evidence thus getting your case dismissed. I have fought almost every ticket I have ever gotten, some they got me fair and square and it wasn't worth my time. However the ones I have fought I have either got the case dismissed or had the charges lowered to a non moving violation.
actually...(not trying to start a tiff) St. Paul police don't have radar guns in there cruisers. They're trained to judge speed, and they still give out speeding tickets that hold up in court... just sayin....
So you got a ticket for speeding, tint too dark, and tinting your tail lights. I have a novel idea.... QUIT BREAKING THE LAW!
This isn't true. Radar, laser, or both (maybe VASCAR) in traffic cars. Also FWIW: State v. Stebbins (Unfortunatly an ureported appellate decision) "officer's qualified and tentative opinion that vehicle was traveling in excess of posted speed limit was insufficient to sustain conviction for speed absent admissible radar measurement of speed" -- 2-23 MN Misdemeanors and Moving Traffic Violations § C I would note that a witness's observation of speed without radar is enough in a civil case, where the burden is lower, but not in a criminal or quasi-criminal (petty misdemeanor)
Sometimes cops will give out a tint warning and give you thier number. You'll have to have the tint removed, then call the cop back so he can come and verify it. Thats what I've heard.
