The
Courtroom
The
Courtroom
The prosecutor or judge will probably question ANY reference materials' accuracy and reliability, especially anything technical, presented by a defendant. Be prepared to justify the creditability of any sources or references.
All technical information and conclusions in the TRAFFIC RADAR HANDBOOK quantifiably described using illustrations, graphs, tables, or mathematical formulas -- based on or derived from fundamental scientific and engineering principles, published factory specifications, measured data, or U.S. Government documents.
Also see sections Additional Reading / Sources, and About the Author.
Microwave traffic radars used in the United States are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). FCC Rules and Regulations, Part 15, 20, and 90 cover Radiolocation Services (traffic radars) requirements. The FCC specifics technical standards such as operating frequency, bandwidth, power density, etc. The FCC Rules do NOT cover the CALIBRATION of radar units, radar ACCURACY, or OPERATOR capability requirements.
Source: FCC Public Notice -- FCC Regulates Radar Transmitters, but not Radar Detectors, DA 96-2040, 1996 DEC 9
SUMMARY: Police do not need an FCC license to operate traffic radar (if their radios are licensed); however other state, local, or agency requirements may apply.
Some states limit or restrict laser radar use. A New Jersey Appeals Court upheld (in a 2-1 decision) a lower court ruling (based on the LTI Marksman 20-20 lidar) that leaves in place restrictions on laser radar use. New Jersey Troopers can only use laser radar in clear weather and for targets less than 1000 feet.
Sources:
-- National Motorists Association NEWS, Jan/Feb 2000, vol 11, issue 1.
-- STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EMAD A. ABESKARON, A-107-98T2F, 24 Nov 1999
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in conjunction with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed testing protocols and performance standards for speed measuring devices. Radars (microwave and laser) that meet the standards are included in the NHTSA / IACP Consumer Product List (CPL) of approved speed measuring devices.
Only single anenna capabilitie (not dual antennae, if any) are tested (approved). Time/distance measurement features not tested and not approved. Moving radars approved for car/truck use, not motorcycles, boats, etc.
CPL approval insures that a microwave or laser traffic radar model (at least the unit tested) meets basic minimum standards set by the NHTSA, IACP, and NIST. Some, not all, states and/or agencies require speed measuring devices (under the state or agency jurisdiction) be CPL approved.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), established by federal law in 1966, sets national standards for every sign, signal, pavement marking, and traffic control signal device in the USA. The standard is intended to insure signs and signals LOOK and are USED in the same manner everywhere. Speed limits (USE of speed limit signs) are to be determined by an Engineering Study (as defined by MUTCD 1A.13). An Engineering Study must also be done (and documented) before any speed limit can be changed; if some government body changes a speed limit without a proper study the speed limit is illegal. Also see Links to Other Sites page for link to MUTCD site (listed under Federal sites).
Police know the uniform, rollers (rotating police lights), wigwags (alternating right-left lights), siren, car markings, loaded gun(s), and the power to arrest are intimidating factors when issuing a speeding ticket. Some officers are intentionally intimidating to help insure tickets are not challenged in court. Don't let intimidation alone be a factor in determining whether to challenge a ticket. Do keep in mind the odds of successfully beating a radar ticket (innocent or not) are against the defendant, but not zero.
Several factors must be considered before deciding whether to fight a speeding charge in traffic court. First and most important, one must be wrongly accursed -- do not try to beat a charge if you're guilty. However, if you were not speeding as fast as accused, you might plead for the lesser speed violation to lower the fine (if you can convince the judge). With some insurance companies the higher the speed the more the insurance rate increases on conviction. The court clerk should know if the fine would change for a lower speeding ticket, and your insurance agent should know if rates change with speed.
A lawyer should be considered if one absolutely cannot afford to lose because of previous tickets and/or the effect on insurance rate. The defendant is outnumbered in the courtroom -- there are one or more police officers and the prosecuting attorney(s) versus you -- a lawyer can help even out the odds. However, legal representation may be more expensive then the fine, and by no means a guarantee of winning.
In general the more people the court serves the better chance for a fair hearing. A small city or county court is usually the hardest to prove a case and in some situations it is virtually impossible to walk away without paying something.
Some courts require the defendant to plead guilty or not guilty in a pre-trial hearing at which time a trial date is set for a not guilty plea. This means two court appearances. Some courts let defendants mail in the plea so only one court appearance is necessary.
There are several case law landmarks supporting police use of microwave traffic radar.
If you go to court, be prepared to document as many facts as possible. Detailed maps could be useful -- show (measure) distances, speed limits, traffic conditions, hills, valleys, obstructions, trees, parked cars, and anything else that might apply. Show your vehicle as well as the police car / radar location, but do not clutter maps with useless information. Detailed maps may sometimes be found at local or university libraries; for many areas U.S. Geological Survey maps are available. A number of Internet sites make available satellite photographs for most of the planet (see Web Links To Other Sites page).. Be careful the maps or photographs are not outdated. Photos or a video tape (make sure the court has a VCR the defendant can use) of the scene can also add creditability to your case.
WARNING: In Wisconsin (Dec 2002) a judge was reported to have disregarded a defendant's evidence because the evidence was not submitted to the prosecutor at least 40 days before the trial. This results in an additional burden on the defendant not imposed on the prosecutor or police officer, the officer did (does) not automatically send the defendant evidence without a request. It would seem to be fair the prosecutor should be required to request (and not an automatic process) evidence if they want it (another example of don't confuse justice with the law). Check as soon as possible with the court or prosecutor's office if evidence submittal is required and time constraints.
Some experts suggest a defendant should file a "Discovery motion" or a "request for Discovery form" with the court clerk for some or all of the following items;
You or your lawyer must go through the court clerk to request discovery information by filling out a form, or making a formal request in writing regarding specific information. In most, if not all, cases an additional processing/copy fee is required. If the officer cannot produce a reasonable request for information, the charge may (should) be dismissed.
Some schools of thought suggest that requesting information might negate any chance of the officer not showing up for court (in which case the charge should be dismissed). Also, if a defendant does not make proper use of requested information the defendant's creditability could suffer.
Below is a general list of information and questions that could apply to a case in traffic court. Not all questions or details are appropriate for all cases. The better you are prepared, the better the odds of a favorable outcome (the same applies to the prosecution, except the odds are already in their favor). The more pertinent questions you can ask that the officer cannot answer, the stronger your case.
Laser Radars (Ladars or Lidars) (Chapter 6.5)
Alleged Violation
Radar Hardware
Establish officer's knowledge (or lack) of equipment.
handheld (location?)
mounted (location?)
Training and Qualifications
When the court date finally comes be prepared to spend the entire day. Do not be surprised that typically 100 or more people show up at the same time. One of the prosecutors may try to plea bargain the case before trial with an offer that depends on how strong he surmises the case is after questioning you. Do not tip too much information in the event the case goes to trial. Be prepared; scare tactics, intimidation and time-consuming distractions are designed to make you believe that a deal is better than going before the judge. Do not be maneuvered into a bad deal; many traffic court prosecutors are amateur beginners. If possible, listen to what other defendants are bargaining for. Bargaining to pay the fine and to not have the ticket on record (for the insurance company to see) is sometimes the best deal; a short probation period of 30 to 90 days may also be required (otherwise the ticket goes on record).
If you do go before the judge do not try to persuade the prosecutor any longer, the judge is the only one to be concerned with at this point. Don't try to make a case with material you don't thoroughly understand; most judges recognize a shaky case. Do not be afraid to ask the officer who was operating the radar specific, pertinent questions about the radar. The more questions the officer cannot answer, the less creditable the prosecution's case. If a defendant can establish the officer's lack of working knowledge about radar the defendant's chance of winning may increase.
The general format for traffic court is the prosecution will state their case and question the officer for support. You will then have a chance to state your case and question the officer. The prosecutor will then try to shatter your case by asking you questions. Be aware judges have authority to conduct court procedures to their satisfaction; this means that court procedure varies with state, county, city, and judge or magistrate (Federal).
Just because the Cosine Effect (Chapter 4.1) works in favor of the motorist most of the time (moving mode radar has an exception [chapter 4.3]) does not mean one cannot become a victim of the Cosine Effect.
If an officer is operating a laser or microwave radar far off the road, the Cosine Effect could be so severe the radar measures a relatively small percentage of actual target speed. It is quite possible the corrected target speed calculates excessively high, which indicates the radar was tracking some other target or signal. For example if the cosine angle is 60 degrees radar measured speed is half true target speed. If the officer states observed estimated target speed to be about the same as the radar measured speed (half true speed), one could argue the officer's judgment was biased incorrectly by the radar. If the officer's estimated target speed conflicts with radar corrected (for Cosine Effect) speed, which one is correct, if any?
Another Cosine Effect limitation concerns radar, microwave or laser, minimum range -- targets inside minimum range are not measured (because relative speed is changing too fast). A target inside minimum range could be the closest target, but if another target is outside minimum range but close enough for the radar to measure, a radar operator could mistake the radar reading as the close (inside minimum range) target instead of the more distant target.
The greater off target path (lane) the greater the Cosine Effect and the greater radar minimum range. Radar sample time, speed tolerance (accuracy), and target speed are also factors, but distance off target lane has the greatest influence. See chapter 4.2 -- Cosine Effect on Measured Speed / Minimum Range.
For example a radar 90 feet (30 yards) off target lane with a 300 ms sample period and ±1 mph accuracy cannot measure targets (coming or going) traveling at 65 mph when target range is 230 feet (77 yards) or less. The greater the speed the greater the minimum range; minimum range for targets traveling at 85 mph is 281 feet which equals 94 yards (17 yards greater than a 65 mph target). Minimum range numbers derived using the Compute Range Given Acceleration calculator.
The example image location is Interstate 55 (replaced Route 66) south of Springfield and north of East St. Louis, Illinois (USA) at the truck Weigh Station. State Police have been known to operate (as shown) laser and microwave radar from this station and the station north of Springfield (virtually identical to the southern station except for south bound traffic). At both stations both directions of travel are 3 lanes.
Some courts (Judges) will accept an officer's meager visual observation of target speed (even if all other evidence discarded). To test the officer's target speed assessment ability a defendant could introduce a video tape (if court has a VCR and TV) of a target at various speeds under similar circumstances the ticket was issued. Radar distance from target lane is the most important factor, the shorter the distance the harder to estimate speed visually. This could work against the defendant and in favor of the officer if the officer is proficient at estimating target speeds.
A defendant could also test the officers visual speed judgment by asking the officer to judge the speed of an object dropped from several feet. This is somewhat of a trick question because the velocity of a free falling object is constantly increasing. Of course someone adapt at visually judging speed might be expected to estimate object speed (instantaneous) upon striking the ground, or at least the average speed -- average speed is half (0.5) instantaneous speed.
Table 7.2-1 --
Free Falling Object
Distance, Time, and Instantaneous Speed
DISTANCE DISTANCE OBJECT OBJECT FALLS TIME SPEED FALLS TIME SPEED (feet) (sec) (mph) (meters) (sec) (km/hr) ------------------------ ------------------------ 0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 1 0.25 5.5 0.5 0.32 11.3 2 0.35 7.7 1.0 0.45 15.9 3 0.43 9.5 1.5 0.55 19.5 4 0.50 10.9 2.0 0.64 22.5 5 0.56 12.2 2.5 0.71 25.2 6 0.61 13.4 3.0 0.78 27.6 7 0.66 14.5 3.5 0.84 29.8 8 0.71 15.5 4.0 0.90 31.9 9 0.75 16.4 4.5 0.96 33.8 10 0.79 17.3 5.0 1.01 35.7 |
For a free falling object with an initial speed of 0 (at rest);
t = (2d/a)0.5, and
v = at.
t = time, d = distance object falls, v = instantaneous velocity at time t,
a = acceleration (due to gravity) = 32.2 ft/s2 = 21.9 mph/s = 9.8 m/s2 = 35.3 kmh/s.
Police Traffic Radar Handbook
Chapt 7.2 -- The Courtroom
