[s-cars] Tagged

[Lee Levitt]

Been thinking about that. I do have a lawyer friend who knows the 
system pretty well and I think has done some work for the police 
union...I'll give him a call. :)

Lee



On Mon Mar 30 20:56:50 CDT 2009, Tom Green <trgreen at comcast.net> 
wrote:

>> 
> I wouldn't give much for your chances going into a magistrate 
> hearing  and arguing
> technical errors.  These jurisdictions that use this equipment 
> have   learned how to
> dot the "t" and cross the "i" to eliminate issues here.  However, 
> if  you can employ an
> attorney that, say, is a fraternity  brother of the magistrate,  
> neighbor, drinking buddy,
> partners in the same firm,etc., you might have a better than even 
>  chance.  Probably
> better to give him and the court the money for an obscure plea 
> that  carries no points
> or insurance penalty.
> 
> Tom  just my observation of how the system works.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:45:51 -0400
>> From: djdawson2 at aol.com
>> Subject: Re: [s-cars] Tagged
>> To: larrycleung at gmail.com, lee at wheelman.com
>> Cc: pkrasusky at ups.com, s-car-list at audifans.com
>> Message-ID: 
>> <8CB7F6E1EAB3EF4-1288-9B2 at webmail-de08.sysops.aol.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> 
>> Ah... our traffic "justice" system.? Guilty until proven 
>> innocent.
>> 
>> Anyway... some things that constitute proof in court with 
>> respect to  the use of laser.LIDAR:
>> 
>> ?Court takes judicial notice underlying laser technology as a 
>> method  to
>> determine speed. Fundamental elements must be met: (1) Proof of 
>> annual
>> certification of the device, (2)
>> operator was trained and certified and instruction provided by  
>> instructor
>> certified to provide such training, (3) proof instrument was  
>> operated in
>> accordance with manufacturer?s specifications, (4) proof 
>> instrument  in proper
>> working order on date in question and device checked for 
>> accuracy at  the
>> beginning and end of shift to include (a) proof of proper sight  
>> reticle
>> alignment, (b) proof speed reading maintained for at least 2  
>> seconds, (c) proof
>> of the distance of speed reading, (d) proof that the lidar?s  
>> instrument?s
>> internal check indicated that the instrument was in proper 
>> working  condition,
>> (e) proof that the officer made a visual estimate of the speed 
>> of  the vehicle in
>> question to correlate the speed reading indicated by the lidar  
>> instrument.?
>> 
>> Dave (many... many tickets)
> 
> 
>