LEO's only, question about a ticket.

[sixpackstang]

I got pulled over tonight and got a speeding ticket, and have a few questions. Quick description of scenario:

I am stopped at a light, heading southbound. Light turns green, and I accellerated fairly hard, shifted to 2nd and let off at approx 55. (The speed limit on this road is 50.) As I let off, I notice a cop traveling northbound put on his lights, made a u-turn at the light I was just at and came after me.

I pulled over and figured he was going to stop me for loud exhaust or reckless op for accelerating too hard or something like that. He then gives me a ticket saying he "clocked" me going 65.

I don't believe that he actually clocked me, I think he just figured the car was making a lot of noise so it must have been going fast. So I asked to see the radar. He paused for a sec and said "No." I said I thought I had the right to see it, he says "Nope" and continues to walk away.

My questions are first, how could he have possibly clocked me if he was driving in the opposite direction? (And I know for a fact I was going 9-10mph less than he claimed.) And second, do I really not have the right in Ohio to see the radar? I'm asking cause I don't know, but have always heard from everyone that you have this right. I'd like to know for sure before I go to court to fight this and bring that up.

I plan on going to contest it either way though. I've only had 2 other speeding tickets in my life, both of those times I knew I was speeding and was in the wrong, payed the fine and moved on. But this time I don't think I did anything wrong, 5mph over, come on?

 

[SM0KE]

*OP requested LEOs only - Try to respect that* LEOs means those actually verified to be Law Enforcement Officers.

 

[Outlaw99]

Radar is only used to back up the officers opinion.

 

[jshen]

Here, you have no right to see radar...but do have right to have officer check calibration. Did this occur in Ohio or Fla?

Outlaw99- I like your answer- very good point made that I wish more officers would use in court. LEO's opinion is admissible and using radar to back that up will insure your cases' success in court.

 

[Outlaw99]

Here, you have no right to see radar...but do have right to have officer check calibration. Did this occur in Ohio or Fla?

Outlaw99- I like your answer- very good point made that I wish more officers would use in court. LEO's opinion is admissible and using radar to back that up will insure your cases' success in court.

here, when we would have to testify, we were instructed to in rookie school to verablize it as such.

 

[sixpackstang]

Here, you have no right to see radar...but do have right to have officer check calibration. Did this occur in Ohio or Fla?

Outlaw99- I like your answer- very good point made that I wish more officers would use in court. LEO's opinion is admissible and using radar to back that up will insure your cases' success in court.

This happened in Ohio. Good to know that, I guess it's just one of those urban legends you hear everywhere, cause every person I talked to told me "That's bull crap, they have to show you the radar if you ask to see it!" Guess not, but I don't understand why not. If it is going to be used as evidence against me, shouldn't I be able to see it? I mean, if I'm arrested for robbing a gas station they can't just say "Well we caught you on security tape, but you're not allowed to see it. Just know that we have this tape, so you're guilty of the crime." Does that make any sense?

I guess this is where the "don't attract attention to yourself" comes into play. My car makes all kinds of noise, and I'll be the first to admit that it is borderline obnoxious at over 1/2 throttle. But that aside, I know I wasn't doing more than 5-6 over. So why the ticket, why not just cite me for the exhaust?

Would most of you really give out a ticket for 5-6 over the limit?

 

[Outlaw99]

This happened in Ohio. Good to know that, I guess it's just one of those urban legends you hear everywhere, cause every person I talked to told me "That's bull crap, they have to show you the radar if you ask to see it!" Guess not, but I don't understand why not. If it is going to be used as evidence against me, shouldn't I be able to see it? I mean, if I'm arrested for robbing a gas station they can't just say "Well we caught you on security tape, but you're not allowed to see it. Just know that we have this tape, so you're guilty of the crime." Does that make any sense?

I guess this is where the "don't attract attention to yourself" comes into play. My car makes all kinds of noise, and I'll be the first to admit that it is borderline obnoxious at over 1/2 throttle. But that aside, I know I wasn't doing more than 5-6 over. So why the ticket, why not just cite me for the exhaust?

Would most of you really give out a ticket for 5-6 over the limit?

The radar isnt evidence against you so to speak, the officers observance and opinion as to your speed is. in radar school, we had to visually estimate the speed of any vehicle as chosen by our instructors, if we were off by 3mph more than 3 times in a row, auto fail and had to re take the class. The radar is simply a tool to back up the officers opinion. in court, you can ask to see the calibration papers for that days shift.

if he caught you by another means such as Vascar?(sp) where your distance traveld divided by the time it takes between the distance? what would you ask to see, the stop watch?

these are merely tools that aid and back up an officers opinion.
your crime on tape statement is good and valid, but you have no right that demands you see it before your trial, it is evidence against you which in the discovery part of your trial, your lawyer would have access too. you would see it, its just a matter of when.

 

[ZChaos0026]

No i dont usually stop for anything less than 11 over. but at the same time, your speedometer could easily be off by 5 -10 mph making you think you were doing less than you actually were.

Here's the #1 reason i wont show you my radar. I am not letting anyone walk up to my vehicle, stand in my doorway and look at anything in my car. It is a huge safety issue. You could jump in my car and drive away, grab a spare set of hand cuffs or anything else lying in my patrol car and use it against me. You might see sensitive information on my computer. Plus while youre bending over, looking at my RADAR in my car, i cannot see your hands, therefore i cant see what you are grabbing at (maybe a knife or gun hidden in your belt or something).

Could i prevent most of these things from happening, probably, but i would rather not take the chance. Just because you are a good person and would never think about hurting a police officer, not everyone is. and we have to treat everyone like they are the person who would want to hurt us in order to stay alive on the streets.

Just an aside. If you were arrested for robbing a store, and we had video surveillance of you doing so, I'm not required to show it to you before you go to jail.

 

[sixpackstang]

Well I guess I understand the point about they don't have to show evidence to me before the trial. But the officer obviously will state that he clocked me doing 65 on his radar in trial. But at that point it is too late, there's no way I can ever see because it could never be produced.

And ZChaos, I certainly didn't expect him to let me go to his car to see it. But aren't most radar guns a hand held object that could easily be brought to my window and I could look at the display? Just asking cause every officer in my area I see clocking traffic is pointing this little gun out the window, and I've even see them standing outside the car with it so they can get a better vantage point.

It would surely make me believe he actually clocked me, but I have my doubts now that while driving in the opposite direction as me he had time to grab the radar and clock me in the second or two that he was passing by me?


Anyhow, thanks for filling me in that I have no right to see the radar. My opinion of it doesn't really matter in court.

 

[jshen]

Anyhow, thanks for filling me in that I have no right to see the radar. My opinion of it doesn't really matter in court.

Your opinion does matter but, singularly, it does not affect the law. If enough opinions get together- laws change. I work with the "process" and laws do change if there is an effort to do so.

This forum is for those who ask questions about the laws..and frankly I enjoy hearing people's opinions.

 

[ZChaos0026]

Mine is an in car mounted radar, so you would have to get in my car or be in my back seat (but you dont want to be there) to see it. The way it's angled I dont think you could see it without being i my car.

 

[Lt. ZO6]

*OP requested LEOs only - Try to respect that* LEOs means those actually verified to be Law Enforcement Officers*

 

[SIr RicCuS]

*OP requested LEOs only - Try to respect that* LEOs means those actually verified to be Law Enforcement Officers.

 

[greaslightnin]

*OP requested LEOs only - Try to respect that* LEOs means those actually verified to be Law Enforcement Officers.