I got pulled over

[User 180565 is taking donation]

Well silly me didnt have my insurance card on me and I just wiped my phone so i didnt have my app on it either. Cop was pretty cool though, I was shaking nervous too because it was my first time getting pulled over. Now I gotta go to court and prove everything's fixed.

[Retread]

Feb 5, 2020 1:14:29 GMT -8 User 180565 is taking donation said:

I was shaking nervous too because it was my first time getting pulled over.

You'll be less nervous with practice.

[Former Member]

Feb 5, 2020 7:08:41 GMT -8 Retread said:

Feb 5, 2020 1:14:29 GMT -8 User 180565 is taking donation said:

I was shaking nervous too because it was my first time getting pulled over.

You'll be less nervous with practice.

   Probably not something you want to get used too ... Being pulled over by Police ha

   Can honestly say I have never been pulled over.

[Scott]

General word of advice: if you are ever pulled over by law enforcement, don't immediately move for the glove box, purse, etc. for your registration/insurance info. Wait until the officer asks, and then let them know where you'll be retrieving it from.

This advice was shared when I went thru traffic school (gasp  lol) years ago. Basically the officer has no idea if you are reaching for your paperwork or a gun - or even stashing something illegal. All they see is movement when they approach the vehicle. If you sit with both hands on the steering wheel while they approach, they can see your hands and it lessens their apprehension and puts them a little more at ease.

[Graham]

Feb 5, 2020 10:11:42 GMT -8 Scott said:

General word of advice: if you are ever pulled over by law enforcement, don't immediately move for the glove box, purse, etc. for your registration/insurance info. Wait until the officer asks, and then let them know where you'll be retrieving it from.

This advice was shared when I went thru traffic school (gasp  lol) years ago. Basically the officer has no idea if you are reaching for your paperwork or a gun - or even stashing something illegal. All they see is movement when they approach the vehicle. If you sit with both hands on the steering wheel while they approach, they can see your hands and it lessens their apprehension and puts them a little more at ease.

It's always amazing to see how things differ in other countries. Over here (UK) if we don't have our driving license on us (which most people do, as it's credit card sized so fits in wallets/purses) then we have (I'm fairly sure) 7 days to present it at the local police station.

No guns. No court.

[User 180565 is taking donation]

Feb 5, 2020 12:53:33 GMT -8 Graham said:

Feb 5, 2020 10:11:42 GMT -8 Scott said:

General word of advice: if you are ever pulled over by law enforcement, don't immediately move for the glove box, purse, etc. for your registration/insurance info. Wait until the officer asks, and then let them know where you'll be retrieving it from.

This advice was shared when I went thru traffic school (gasp  lol) years ago. Basically the officer has no idea if you are reaching for your paperwork or a gun - or even stashing something illegal. All they see is movement when they approach the vehicle. If you sit with both hands on the steering wheel while they approach, they can see your hands and it lessens their apprehension and puts them a little more at ease.

It's always amazing to see how things differ in other countries. Over here (UK) if we don't have our driving license on us (which most people do, as it's credit card sized so fits in wallets/purses) then we have (I'm fairly sure) 7 days to present it at the local police station.

No guns. No court.

DL and registration are two different things obviously, I feel lucky I got a pretty calm officer I think he could tell I was feeling nervous about the situation, I had my license but there was a chip on the corner which he butt uh med meant it was old but let it go.

[Artemis]

I got pulled over once for something that ended up being just a request that I fix something that wasn't working right on my car, but I remember being terrified. I did what I remembered, like putting on my hazards, keeping my hands on the wheel, stuff like that. My registration was up to date in the system but I'd left the correct slip at home so the one I had was expired, but he just said he'd look it up and all was well. Even though it went fine, I'm still not eager to repeat the experience. Ticket or no, the anxiety from seeing those lights in the rear view is enough.

[📚 Dianne 📚]

The Connecticut Troopers and even city/town police have been known to give tickets for lack of proper ID or expired ID (license, registration, insurance cards). And they aren't little ones!

I see a police officer behind me and I feel my insides shrivel even though I know I haven't done anything wron---I'm just afraid that nerves will MAKE me do something wrong!

[User 180565 is taking donation]

Well I left municipal courts today and all went smooth real nice people in there only took about 10 minutes to get done. No court or fines anymore

[Brian Welch]

I have never been pulled over but my wife has. She had a nasty officer give her a ticket and the judge dismissed it.

[Retread]

Feb 17, 2020 22:21:06 GMT -8 Brian Welch said:

I have never been pulled over but my wife has. She had a nasty officer give her a ticket and the judge dismissed it.

Find some wood and knock on it. My mom said the same thing and a week later she got a ticket, her first in 30 years of driving.

[/superstitious]

[dustys]

I got ticketed today $99 for 1mph over

[Chris]

Feb 21, 2020 9:03:53 GMT -8 dustys said:

I got ticketed today $99 for 1mph over

radarbusters.com said:

STEP #3 – HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF CASE LAW REGARDING THE USE OF POLICE RADAR

If you were cited by an officer who used a police radar gun, your next step is to have a understanding of these most significant case laws pertaining to the use of radar in speed enforcement.

State of Florida v. Aquilera (1979)

This infamous case is known widely as the Miami Radar Trial. After a local television reporter showed a house clocked at 28 mph and a palm tree clocked at 86 mph, the story broke nationwide and radar was quickly shown to be less than accurate. In this case the Dade County Court sustained a motion to suppress the results of radar units in 80 speeding ticket cases.

The court’s opinion stated that the reliability of radar speed measuring devices as used in their present modes and particularly in some cases, has not been established beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, nor has it met the test of reasonable scientific certainty.

United States v. Fields (1982)

District Court in Ohio ruled that it was not possible to establish from the radar results whether the defendant was traveling at 43 mph or whether the Speedgun 8 radar unit was measuring the rotation of the ventilation fan at the sewage pumping station next to the officer’s car.

The court also found that the officer was not qualified to operate the radar unit since he did not know the requirements for correct operation of the unit. In addition, the officer did not calibrate it before use, on that occasion.

Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Honeycutt (1966)

This case is a very common prosecution weapon against the 24 hours of classroom and 16 hours of field training requirement. In this case the court ruled that an officer should not be required to know the scientific principles of radar.

The court also ruled that the officer only needs to know how to properly set up, test and read the radar unit. As such, a few hours of instruction should be enough to qualify an officer to operate the radar unit.

State of Connecticut v. Tomanelli (1966)

In the case, which is the same year as the Honeycutt case, the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that “outside influences may affect the accuracy of the recording by a police radar set sufficient to raise a doubt as to the reliability of the speed recorded.”

The court also stated that tuning forks must be proved to be accurate to be accepted as valid tests of a radar unit. In order to establish the accuracy of the radar unit the operator must testify to the following:

That he made tuning fork tests before and after the defendant’s speed was recorded.
That the tests were made by activating 40, 60 and 80 mph tuning forks and by observing that the unit responded correctly in each case.

State of Minnesota v. Gerdes (1971)

The Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled that where the only means of testing the accuracy of a radar unit is an internal mechanism within the unit, and there is no other evidence of the motorist’s speed other than the radar reading, the conviction cannot be sustained.

The court also established the following conditions for proving the accuracy of the radar unit:

The officer must have adequate training and experience in the operation of the radar unit.
The officer must testify as to how the unit was set up and the conditions the unit was operated under.
it must be proven that the unit was operated with a minimum possibility of distortion from external interference.
The unit has to be tested with an external source, such as a tuning fork or an actual test run with another vehicle with an accurately calibrated speedometer.

People of New York v. Perlman (1977)

The Suffolk County District Court ruled that the radar device was not proved to be accurate since no external test had been performed before or after the arrest. This case is significant since it established the criteria of testing before and after a citation is issued.

State of Wisconsin v. Hanson (1978)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin set minimum conditions for the use of radar as evidence. Sufficient evidence to support a speeding conviction with moving radar will require testimony by a competent operating officer that:

He had adequate training and experience in radar operation
The radar unit was in proper working condition at the time of the arrest
The radar unit was used in an area where there was a minimum possibility of distortion
The input speed of the officer’s car was verified; the car’s speedometer was expertly tested within a reasonable period after the citation was issued
All testing was done without the radar unit’s own internal calibration device being used

State of Florida v. Allweiss (1980)

The Pinellas County Court ruled that the testing methods for radar equipment are legally insufficient. “The use of such a tuning fork furnished by the manufacturer in this court’s opinion is tantamount to allowing the machine to test itself.

A tuning fork furnished by the manufacturer is merely an extension and part of the total speed measuring apparatus.
Case Law Regarding the Use of Police Lidar

If an officer used a police lidar gun to cite you, then your next step is to have a basic understanding of these most significant case laws that pertain to the use of lidar in speed enforcement.

Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Speed Readings

714 A.2d 381, 391-92 (New Jersey Superior Court 1998)

The Superior Court of New Jersey ordered that admissibility to lidar is subject to the following rules:

Expert testimony is not required.

• Officers must be properly trained in the use of lidar and that training must be documented.
• The lidar must be tested according to procedures recommended by the manufacturer.
• The court further ordered that the lidar be tested against a known speed.
• Speed reading obtained by lidar are not affected by temperature, the degree of ambient light, or light to moderate rain.
• Readings shall not be accepted during heavy rainfall or while snow is falling.
• Speed reading made at distances up to 1,000 feet are admissible.
• Readings obtained in excess of 1,000 feet shall be admitted only with supporting evidence and expert testimony.

State of Hawaii v Abiye Assay

Once an officer has completed a course of instruction and certified to operate lidar – training is not done. Officers must understand (memorize) 11.2 Principles of Operation.

For example, during the known-distance test officers must testify that the lidar uses proven time-distance formulas (pulse principle) and the speed of light (universal constant) to determine the known distance. Since the lidar utilizes one microprocessor to calculate time-of-flight and thus confirms the correct pulse repetition frequency, the lidar can accurately determine speed.

Then officers must obtain, read, and understand the manufacturer’s operator’s manual (10.7 Certification) for the particular lidar used and follow the manufacturer-recommended procedures for testing. Officers must further test the lidar as outlined in 11.16 Testing the LIDAR:

Known Speed Test. All lidars must include a Technician Certification (10.7 & 11.16) every 3 years in accordance with manufacture’s specifications and NHTSA standards. (Note: New lidars come with a Technician Certification from the factory.)

Officers must successfully complete Visual Speed Estimations, Enclosure 13.2 and be prepared to present this information in a court of law. During operation officers must understand and follow a proper tracking history (11.4 Lidar Tracking History) and be prepared to testify as to visual observations and speed estimates prior to clocking with lidar.

Officers must understand all lidar effects (11.5Lidar Effects), including proper operation to avoid any of these effects. Officer must be currently certified (10.7 Certification) to operate radar/lidar. Finally, the officer must prepare all court cases as outlined in this manual. (10.8 Court Testimony, 10.9 Traffic Evidence Kit)