Going to Court

[craigs288]

I got a ticket for 71 in a 50 a while back. But I didn't think I was going that speed, so I asked for a hearing and was going to contest the accuracy of the radar, etc.
Every previous ticket I have ever had, I have known I was guilty and paid up straight away. This is the first one I have ever doubted and decided to question it.
Not having done this before I have just been going along with it, waiting until April 27 for my hearing. I've now received in the mail, (addressed to the wrong person, actually) the certificate of accuracy of the odometer of the car, two for the radar (front and rear?)and also for the tuning forks and the log book entry for the tuning forks.
After I had requested a hearing I received a letter which stated that I could no longer pay the fine and had a preliminary hearing, and then another letter saying the prelim hearing date was no longer available and just to turn up to the defended hearing an April 27.
In light of the evidence that has been sent to me, do I still have to turn up in person to be told that I have to pay the fine plus court costs.
Can I still send a letter saying that because of receiving the certificates I change my plea to guilty? Will the court costs be less if I can just send a letter, or will I have to go there regardless?

Any help is much appreciated.

[Jantar]

Your best bet is to still turn up at court and to still argue that you were going slower than the claimed 71. Read the calibration certificates closely. Do they give a degree of accuaracy? eg Is there a part of the certificate that reads something like "...tested accurate at xxxkmh with a maximum error of +/- x kmh..."? Somewhere there must be a degree of accuracy as no electronic devices can ever be 100% accurate. If this degree of accuracy is even 1 kmh then you can argue that you were doing 70, not 71, and hence should have received a lower fine.

[marty]

you can argue that in a letter directly to the police without going to court. the offence though is 'exceeds 50km/h', so even if you were doing 60km/h, you're still committing the offence.

i'm sure that if there was an issue with the accuracy, the ticket would have been pulled already. read the certs carefully though just in case.

write a letter directly to the police prosecutions office in henderson (presuming that's where the ticket was issued and you're going to west auck. court), outlining your intentions, and any argument you feel you may have. make sure you include 'without prejudice' before launching into anything. you can plead guilty by letter directly to either the court or via prosecutions, but to proceed NG you'll have to appear.

[Toaster]

Ring the Police Infringement Bureau as ask them if you can sign a guilty letter/change plea.

[Grub]

Just take a step back for a minute to these "certificates' of accuracy.

I have previously, for an entirely different matter (I was Product Manager for Honda NZ) wanted to find the Certificating Authority that certified Police cars and Taxis so that I could get one of our vehicles checked. I was told by the Police that there wasn't one! I was referred also to the LTSA and the dept that licences Taxis (Commerce I think).

The only advice I got was to use the measured kilometer, specifications and locations supplied.

That was about 7yrs ago so things might have changed but there certainly was no such tester or authrity back then. As Marty said, readi the certificate very carefully.

Then if it's all kosher, I like Toaster's suggestion of ringing the PIB too. They don't want the hassle of scheduling a witness day for the officer.

[davereid]

If you didn't do it, go to court.

Have you got proof the officer has been trained on the unit ? If not ask for it.

Was there other traffic - could the radar have been looking at another vehicle ?

Whats the service history of the radar ? has it ever failed a calibration test and why ? Who serviced it and to what standard ?

How old was the calibration on the tuning forks and how accurate were they ? (And what were they calibrated against ?)

Your worst case is you pay an extra $150 costs. But the cop may muck up - already has if he's got your name wrong. He may not show up, or a thousand other things.

And have a look at my web page http:www.eslnz.com/radar.html for more info.

[vifferman]

If you didn't do it, go to court.

Have you got proof the officer has been trained on the unit ? If not ask for it.

Was there other traffic - could the radar have been looking at another vehicle ?

Whats the service history of the radar ? has it ever failed a calibration test and why ? Who serviced it and to what standard ?

How old was the calibration on the tuning forks and how accurate were they ? (And what were they calibrated against ?)

Your worst case is you pay an extra $150 costs. But the cop may muck up - already has if he's got your name wrong. He may not show up, or a thousand other things.

And have a look at my web page http:www.eslnz.com/radar.html (http://www.eslnz.com/radar.html) for more info.
Or all that might be irrelevant.
The court/judge works on the basis that you have a vested interest (you don't want a fine) whereas the police don't, so there's no reason for them to have lied or given you a ticket you didn't deserve. So regardless of any piddling discrepancies, if you can't prove you weren't there at that time driving that vehicle, then as far as they're concerned you're guilty of the offense.

[davereid]

Nope, we won in the Nelson District Court last year, because the officer had not been trained on the radar in mobile mode.

I won a case before that because the cop never showed up.

And for very low speeds the radar is not that good - the manufacturer only claims +/- 3 km/hr in mobile mode. You CAN win, and if you were not speeding, you SHOULD fight it.

[Patrick]

Should have sent you the copy of the cops certificate of proficiency with all theother stuff they sent... may be he isn't trained? If he isn't, bye bye charge...

If he is trained, you can write in to plead guilty if ya want, and not have to appear, but confirm with the local Police Prosecution Section first...

[craigs288]

Cheers to everybody for all of that.
I will have a real close look at the certificates again.
I not sure which court it is in, I'll have to re-read all the paperwork a bit more closely and decide.
As far as them not wanting the 'hassle' of scheduling a witness day for the officer, I'm not too keen on the 'hassle' of having to pay $170, let alone the unknown amount of court costs. I'm tempted to go through with it to see what a waste of everybody's time and effort, not to mention the cost to taxpayers for the effort required to get about $300 out of me.
But mostly just because I don't believe I was doing 71 on that day.
I'm tempted to have a day off anyway. It's a Friday and depending on the time of the court proceedings I could get a good ride in, before or after.
Or a surf.
Cheers everyone.

[marty]

Nope, we won in the Nelson District Court last year, because the officer had not been trained on the radar in mobile mode.

I won a case before that because the cop never showed up.

And for very low speeds the radar is not that good - the manufacturer only claims +/- 3 km/hr in mobile mode. You CAN win, and if you were not speeding, you SHOULD fight it.

so that's 2 you've won. how many have you lost? which manufacturer are you talking about? i have a LOT more experience on the stalker than you will ever have, and i have never heard that tolerance. remember the charge is exceeds 50k. 71 +/- 3 = either 74 or 68 - still above 50, still well above the accepted 10km/h threshold, and the court is entitled to take judicial notice of the manufacturers tolerances (if indeed there are any).

he never said he wasn't speeding - just that he didn't think he was going 'that' fast. would love to see the back of the cops ticket for excuse given at the time. and if he said 'i don't know/not sure how fast i was going' then he's screwed.

[craigs288]

Marty is right in that I never said I wasn't speeding - just that I wasn't going 'that' fast.
I also never said I was speeding. When I saw the police car and checked my speed I was only doing 58km/h. Whether or not that qualifies as speeding.
I didn't give any excuse for my speed on the day, I didn't feel I had to.
He asked "Any reason for the speeding?".
I replied "I don't believe I was speeding."
He said "The radar in my car has you at 71 if you would like to see."
I replied "No thanks, I believe it reads what you say it does."
He proceeded to write the ticket.
Just because I agreed that it may well have shown that reading, doesn't mean I agree that it is accurate. If I had asked for all the appropriate certificates on that day I would have been told that I would have to ask for a hearing to dispute the alleged reading and would have been presented with them at court (or beforehand as it turns out). He may have even shown me the log book for the tuning forks, but the other certificates wouldn't have been in the car.
Like I said in my first post, I have always paid other fines immediately because I have always been in the wrong. After a dozen tickets spread out over the last 20 years of me driving and riding, this will be the first one ever, the only one ever, where I feel I wasn't speeding.

[marty]

by the time you saw the police car and checked your speed, he had already locked his radar on you. slowing thru 58 doesn't count

[Fatjim]

He didn't say that Marty. He said he saw the cop and checked his speed at 58k. No mention of slowing. Get your blinkers off mate.

[spudchucka]

He didn't say that Marty. He said he saw the cop and checked his speed at 58k. No mention of slowing. Get your blinkers off mate.

The radar will see a vehicle well in advance of the driver of that vehicle seeing the cop operating that radar.

Its a pretty safe assumption for Marty to make. No doubt he has seen similar situations many times before and his suggestion has very little to do with wearing blinkers.

[Patrick]

The radar will see a vehicle well in advance of the driver of that vehicle seeing the cop operating that radar.

Its a pretty safe assumption for Marty to make. No doubt he has seen similar situations many times before and his suggestion has very little to do with wearing blinkers.

Wot E sed... if it is a long straight, like on the Desert Rd for example, the radar can pick you up at 500 metres away at least. You can't even tell if it is a cop car approaching you at that distance... may be he locked the speed well before he had slowed and then suddenly realised there is a cop car ahead... "How fast am I going? Cool, only 58... lucky he didn't get me moments before when I was doing 71...???"

Blinkers.... Pfffttttt......

[Jantar]

I received a speeding ticket during the weekend in an absolute reverse manner to that which Patrick describes. I saw a cop way ahead as I came over the brow of a rise, and checked my speed. I was showing almost bang on 100kmh, so I ignored the cop, didn't change my throttle setting and just continued to ride. A few seconds later my radar detector went off, and again because I was cruising at the legal speed I ignored it. The radar got more persistant, then on came the cops' disco lights. I looked at my speedo again and it was showing midway bewteen 110 and 120. With the coarse reading on the Strom its almost impossible to read to the exact kmh.

The cop claimed he got me at 116 kmh and when I said that I thought I was travelling at the legal limit, and I wasn't concentrating on my speedo, he replied "I thought so because when i first picked you up you were 108, but just slowly kept getting faster."

Ok, I've got another ticket. Unfortunately with the Strom you have to take your eyes off the road to read the speedo, but that wouldn't be a suitable defence in court. Just another case of riding safely and paying the road tax.

[Ixion]

Is one reason why if I see, smell, hear or spidey sense a cop, or the defectamatator goes off, I drop fast to no more than 90. That, and I don't trust them not to add a few kph, harder if you are noticeably under the limit.

No point twisting the tiger's tail.

[Patrick]

Is one reason why if I see, smell, hear or spidey sense a cop, or the defectamatator goes off, I drop fast to no more than 90. That, and I don't trust them not to add a few kph, harder if you are noticeably under the limit.

No point twisting the tiger's tail.

A bit hard "to add a few kph" when the locked on speed is there for you to see.... Might drop a few off.... Trolling, were we?

[scumdog]

He didn't say that Marty. He said he saw the cop and checked his speed at 58k. No mention of slowing. Get your blinkers off mate.

And of course his speedo was certified accurate so he KNEW he was doing exactly 58k?

I suspect the scenario the other mentioned may be the case - he was 'pinged' at 71 before he noticed the cop.

[peasea]

Never, ever change your plea. Always plead not guilty and always go for the defended hearing. Have your day in court, deny, deny and deny again; make them work for it, this approach gives them a mountain of paperwork and takes them off the streets for a few hours. On occasion they will drop it, not often but it has happened to me more than once. When you plead 'not guilty' in the first instance, always request a copy of the latest accuracy test of the equipment, the operational handbook of the equipment, the certificate of accuracy of the patrol car's speedo and also the certificate of competence of the officer. It all makes fun reading over a few bourbons. Check that all the dates match up and that all is current. If so, heave everything in the recycle bin and deny it in court anyway.

[Indiana_Jones]

going to court?

Wear a tie :D

-Indy

[Supertramp]

i'v had my run ins even as a youngster.clocked doing 134 after id come round a corner and i could see the heat till his lights went on.though i thought he'd pulled someone else over i still looked down at my speedo and saw i was doing 161!! not that i'm proud of it.i looked at his reading as i was parked behind him anyway and i could see it through the window so i knew he'd got me im just glad he didn't get me at the speed i thought i was doing i might get my speedo checked.could be a long way out.still glad i didn't lose my bike and licence wouldn't have been a good startto a new job.

[craigs288]

going to court?

Wear a tie :D

-Indy

Yeah right. Took that advice the only other time I have ever been in court, way back in 1994. Wearing a tie and nice clothes made me look rich because the judge slapped me with a nice big fine.

[peasea]

Yup, I'd say a tie makes you like you're trying to be someone you probably aren't. Tidy casual is best and you can get into any bar after the hearing. Don't wear sunnies, for gawds sake turn your phone off and run over your wee speech fifty times before the hearing date. They won't let YOU read from a sheet of paper but they WILL let the cops refer to THEIR notes. Go in with all guns blazing and start with "The facts are as follows..." but don't ever say a cop has lied (even if you know he/she has) they are "mistaken".

[Indiana_Jones]

Well I plan on wearing a suit when i goto court this week. I'm just too British. :P

and yea, as Peasea said, never call a cop a liar. lol

-Indy

[Hotchefnz]

A side issue - you say that the period has passed for you to change your plee? If you have had the information sent to the wrong address you have a course of appling to the courts for a re-dress.
All you have to do is give proof of your real address and they will then re-issue the documents with a new date, and another 21 days to give a response.
At least then you could pay the fine if you wished to do so - without the court costs.

[craigs288]

Right, so far based on advice and personal fashion, I intend to go to court on the day in tidy casual, with my facts and statements known to me off by heart, and at no point call the policeman a liar.
I had no intention of suggesting the radar reading was made up. I just feel it must have been the car in front of me, or perhaps incorrect operation by the officer on the day.
If they can 'prove' my points of contention are incorrect then I guess I will walk away on the day as the 'loser'. And if that is the case then I will still feel vindicated that I stood up for what I believe to be correct and true. As opposed to roll over and take it in the pants one more time for the government.