From: jreiser@scott.skidmore.edu (jason reiser)
Subject: Re: Does a cop need to show you the RADAR reading?
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 21:15:06 GMT

dmarshal@Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM (Dave Marshall) writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.141301.3262@tds213.uucp>, wong@tds213.uucp (Freeman Wong) writes:
> > 
> > I am wondering if the cop is required to do a little bit more such as
> > showing my friend the RADAR reading.  Any comment on the legality of
> > the cops procedure?
> >
> I got a ticket in January off of mobile radar.  One of the first things I asked
> was whether I could examine the radar to see its reading.  The policeman
> (Fairfax County, VA) told me, "I am not required to show you the radar."  No
> matter what I said, he wouldn't show it to me.  I thought I would have an
> easy court win, in which I could stand up to Big Police and Secret Radar.
> 
> Not so fast.  The judge, when I recounted my story, "explained" how the
> police are trained to leave the radar in a "no lock on" mode so that they
> can get everyone's speed.  Therefore, at the time I got pulled over, my
> reading wasn't there anymore.  Furthermore, that the policeman wasn't
> able to show me the reading was INDICATIVE that he was a better trained
> policeman than the average.

-- That's a very interesting point that the police department made.
However, it could have buried them if you were more familiar with
police procedure (I don't claim to be an expert).  Anyway, I'll show
you pages 99 and 100 of BEATING THE RADAR RAP by Dale Smith and John
Tomerlin... (mine's an older edition)...

	"Can you describe the tracking history that you made for my arrest?"

	If he goes by the book, or the text line supplied by the radar
manufacturer, he'll say something like, "After visually observing the
defendant's car, which appeared to me to be speeding, I verified the
speed my means of the radar... etc."  Pay attention to whether he says
that he tracked your car "Through the radar's beam and observed a
change in the speed reading and the Doppler audio."  (If he actually
did this he is unusually conscientious)
	If he cannot describe a tracking history or dies so
improperly, let it stand for now.

	"When you take a tracking history, you first make a visual
assumption about speed, is that right?  Do you do this before the
radar sounds the alarm - or do you do it after you see a high speed reading


It seems obvious that in your case, where an officer is tracking
several cars at once that he could not have taken a proper tracking
history and thereby takes away your right to a visual determination of
speed as a safety (these machines are not perfect).

back to the book...

	"In this case, then, you heard the alarm or became aware of
the speed reading before you actually saw my car, is that correct?"

etc
etc
	"Then you did not really take a proper traffic history, did you?

	"Would the knowledge that the radar had already caught a
speeder influence your judgment in making a visual determination of a
car's speed?  That is, would you be more likely to agree that a car is
going a certain number of miles per hour after the radar had already
said it was going that speed?"
	He should agree; if not, keep going.

	"That's really the purpose of a tracking history, isn't it: to
guard against the types of radar error we've talked about by making a
visual identification first, then confirming with radar."

	Yes

	"But in this instance, you didn't do that?"

	No.

	"Then it's at least possible that the radar reading you
obtained was incorrect or belonged to another vehicle, isn't it?"

etc
etc

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Officer's should not be using this type of radar, or rather, they
should not use it in this manner...

Buy the book, it's a gem.


			- Jason

Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving