The requirement to estimate speeds is established in training and case law, not statutes. Case law is what the courts, third branch of government, have ruled. Courts over rule statutes absent a constitutional amendment. See State v. Hanson 1978 in Wisconsin and Milwaukee v. Berry 1969. These two cases discuss radar requirements and when visual estimates are probative. You can also see this article I wrote for ticket fighting strategies and information on how cops are required to operate, http://www.motorists.org/issues/tickets/vi...estimation.html

cutuesday does not know what he's talking about. All tickets in my state are civil, but they affect the license. Maybe he was thinking of photo red light cameras. Even photo red light has not been properly litigated yet. I don't think they will hold up on due process grounds. But the fact remains that there are no photo radar cameras in the U.S.A. as Cutueday claims. The cameras discussed in the article are mounted to a human operated radar device. They aren't automatic. The estimation of speed is still required.

I posted a quote from an actual training manual used by cops around the country to learn to operate radar, and roadrage is still questioning me. Amazing! YOu'll find these requirements repeated in the radar manuals as well. Hanson repeats the requirement that the officer be trained and follow his training. This training includes estimating speed. This is a requirement in all 50 states.

The best way to avoid tickets is to know what the police are required to do. Otherwise they can give you a ticket without following procedure. In reality that's what they often do. When they do this they can be confronted with this fact. They might not issue the ticket or you might beat them at trial. To issue a ticket with radar or laser they must first visually estimate the speed of the vehicle. This means they must be able to see it, have time to estimate, and have stationary visual markers as discussed in Berry. Moving radar is not to be used on hills or around curves at all.

So to recap, instant on radar almost always is used in violation of legal requirements if the cop was hiding so that you'd have little time to see him before he got you. This is so because he also had too little time to estimate your speed. If it's dark, by the way, no visual estimate was possible. This is the great vulnerability in speed enforcement that may soon come back to change the whole system.

 

[QUOTE]2004S2000

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jguerdat

 

Asu_lee mayb be correct, Scottsdale has begun using photo radar. The scottsdale website does not specify if these are speed citations or red light running citations. See http://www.ci.scottsdale.az.us/courts/civil/radar.asp Here's a discussion by an attorney http://phoenix.about.com/library/weekly/uc011403a.htm She says it's speed enforcement also.

This is not authorized by State statute as far as I can find (just checked 28-701 + statutes) and there's no discussion at this time in the case law. If Scottsdale has begun doing this, they are not following case law. No States have authorized this to my knowledge, and I've reveiwed every States statutes.

Photo radar flies in the face of the legal requirement in the U.S. that speeds be estimated before using radar not to mention the right to confront your accuser. They are even requiring payment of the ticket before contesting it! That's a violation of due process in and of itself. If this is speed enforcement, it won't hold up in the long run if appealed. Seems like they have been dismissing most of these tickets when challenged. But the challenges have been on the wrong grounds.

When you understand how radar works, you understand that the radar can easilly be picking up the vehicle behind you, a vehicle going in the other direction out of range of the camera but not the radar cone, or can simply err for a variety of reasons. A photo of a car at the same time a radar reading was taken does nothing to establish that the car in question was actually the car captured by the radar. In England they have photo radar, but they don't have a bill of rights.

This needs litigation, before it spreads. If you know of photo speed enforcement in other jurisdictions, please PM me.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jguerdat

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 2004S2000
The requirement to estimate speeds is established in training and case law, not statutes.

 

The city of Scottsdale and the Arizona Bar has it on their web site

http://www.azbar.org/ArizonaAttorney/June98/6-98a1.asp

and I "may" be correct?

What color is the sky in your world?
-Lee

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Road Rage

 

Photo radar says nothing about the requirement that a cop estimate speeds before using radar. It is an absolute requirement.

But it is impossible to reconsile these requirements with photo radar. Why does a machine have fewer requirements and is less trusted than a cop?

Scotsdale does use photo radar. So do some jurisdictions in CA.

In Alaska it was ruled to be insufficient evidence to uphold a conviction at the appeals court ANCHORAGE v. CLYDE BAXLEY COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA 946 P.2d 894; 1997

 

Here's the language from the Alaska case. It rejects photo radar for the reasons I discussed:

"In stationary and moving radar trials in the State of Alaska, this court has required testimony by a trained police officer who is certified to operate the equipment. That officer has to first observe a speeding vehicle and formulate an opinion as to the speed of the vehicle before activating the radar... Radar is used as a corroborative device. This practice conforms to the general usage of radar nationwide.

All radar is subject to spurious readings due to reflected radar energy and radio frequency interference from a wide variety of sources, e.g., garage door openers, cellular phones, microwave ovens, CB radios, police radios, airplane/airport radios and high tension power lines. An attentive and disinterested police observer is all that stands between a still photo of a vehicle with an erroneous assigned speed and the innocent motorist driving it.