[s-cars] speed tracked by airplane...long reply

[Bernard Littau]

I think the distinction is in what the officer who writes the ticket hears.

In case one:

Officer A: that car was speeding.
Officer B writes ticket

or case two:

Officer A: car traversed marks in 14.4 seconds.
Officer B: 14.4 seconds, Hmm, that is speeding at 75 mph.
Officer B writes ticket.

Bernard

Theodore Chen wrote:

>--- Bernard Littau <bernardl at acumenassociates.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Opps, my bad with the spell checker.  I assume you all figured out I 
>>meant hearsay...
>>
>>Bernard Littau wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>To the earlier comment on the officer signing the ticket not being the 
>>>one to witness the infraction -
>>>
>>>If they included on the ticket that information was supplied to the 
>>>officer who signs the ticket from some sort of log generated by 
>>>another officer or credible observer, they can likely make it stick, 
>>>as such information is not heresy, it is second hand.  Heresy would be 
>>>when there is no record.  If they have a paper trail back to the 
>>>witness, they can also likely make it stick.
>>>
>>>If they have video of your car going through the marks, then all 
>>>heresy bets are off.  Plenty of case law convicting people from 
>>>pictures and videos.
>>>      
>>>
>
>bernard,
>
>it's hearsay evidence.  but it could be admissible under the business
>records exception, if a foundation is laid.
>
>the issue is, who is filling out the ticket?  if an officer is
>filling out the ticket based on what another officer has told him,
>that ticket would be double hearsay if introduced in court to prove
>that the defendant was speeding.  
>
>it doesn't matter whether it's the ticket or the ticketing officer's
>testimony - you still have a problem with the fact that the ticketing
>officer is not the one who observed the speeding.
>
>-teddy
>
>
>
>	
>		
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year
>http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer 
>
>
>  
>