Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
Probable cause? My, what a quaint little notion.
.....
|
QFT, sad but true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Sorry guys. I read the case and that headline is extremely misleading. The officer had clocked the defendant at 82 using the radar gun. Because the officer had not produced a certificate of his training on the radar gun, although he testified in some detail how it worked and how he maintained it, the court sustained the objection to the officer testifying about the speed on the radar gun. The officer wal allowed to testify concerning his estimate that the driver was going 75, based on his training and his certification for being able to estimate speed. The appellate court rejected the defendant's attempt to impeach the officer's testimony with a radar report that he had successfully excluded. It was considerably more than a guess, but was the type of estimation the officer had been trained to perform and had been certified for.
This decision is not a new law, but an interpretation of whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold a conviction for speeding. It will not dissuade police forces from using radar, because radar is the most effective method for detecting speeding cars. It should persuade police departments and procecutors to make sure they have the testifying officer's certification available for court.
Sometimes it just doesn't work to try to simplify a decision down to a sound bite or a headline. In this instance the headline was grossly misleading.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
Thanks for reading it. I've changed my postition somewhat after some thought, after all police testimony is used in many many criminal cases? Say they saw someone breaking and entering, with no camera, their testimony is given great weight, correct?
And they are trained in shaking down citizens.
I mean eyeballing speed lol.
Pete