Speeding ticket defended

[dpex]

Whomsoever posted the data regarding what one can obtain from the 'department' when choosing to defend a ticket is, hereby, awarded President Of The Planet!

I wrote off for and today received the officers radar-use 'log'. Bugger me if, right there at the top of the page is a big, hairy, gleaming mistake which, of itself, is sufficient to repudiate the charge.

I'm tempted to reply pointing out the manifest error, but I'm still going to go hard with my original defence. You never know, it might just cause some cops (not really sweet dudes like Scumdog:--))..) to back off from playing silly games.

I also requested the operational data for the radar unit but, as yet, have not received anything.

A hearing-date has been set for June, in the Huntly DC. I shall be applying to have the hearing moved to Waitakere.

I made the point, in my original letter to the police, that I don't mind a fair cop, but one such as I got was far from fair. So they can spend some time and energy hoisting the copping cop up to Auckland for the event....All for no return, as they will discover.:--))

[sinfull]

Whomsoever posted the data regarding what one can obtain from the 'department' when choosing to defend a ticket is, hereby, awarded President Of The Planet!

I wrote off for and today received the officers radar-use 'log'. Bugger me if, right there at the top of the page is a big, hairy, gleaming mistake which, of itself, is sufficient to repudiate the charge.

I'm tempted to reply pointing out the manifest error, but I'm still going to go hard with my original defence. You never know, it might just cause some cops (not really sweet dudes like Scumdog:--))..) to back off from playing silly games.

I also requested the operational data for the radar unit but, as yet, have not received anything.

A hearing-date has been set for June, in the Huntly DC. I shall be applying to have the hearing moved to Waitakere.

I made the point, in my original letter to the police, that I don't mind a fair cop, but one such as I got was far from fair. So they can spend some time and energy hoisting the copping cop up to Auckland for the event....All for no return, as they will discover.:--))
Good luck David ! I believe you would class a fair cop as such too, i might add !
Defend it as you see fit and i wish ya the best !

[CookMySock]

So they can spend some time and energy hoisting the copping cop up to Auckland for the event....All for no return, as they will discover.:--))I think if the offense was in that area, they can insist it be processed in the nearest court.

Steve

[Toot Toot]

I think if the offense was in that area, they can insist it be processed in the nearest court.

Steve

You can apply for it to be heard in your local district court. The Judge decides on the day.

[CookMySock]

You can apply for it to be heard in your local district court. The Judge decides on the day.That is correct, but there are "court rules" and those rules state that either party can insist that a district court closer to where the offense was allegedly committed be used.

Steve

[marty]

he's correct - a defended hearing will almost always be heard in the court nearest to where the offence occurred, unless there are significant reasons to not have it there (public interest etc), and BOTH (ie you AND the Police) agree to it being heard in a court 'not' being the one the information was laid in.

4 Place of hearing of information
(1) Unless an order is made under the succeeding provisions of this section or under section 4A of the District Courts Act 1947, or unless there is a statutory provision to the contrary, every charge shall be heard and determined in the Court in the office of which the information is filed.
(2) Any District Court Judge or Justice or Community Magistrate may order that a charge shall be heard and determined by some other Court.
(3) The Registrar may, with the consent of each party, order that a charge be heard in some other Court

[peasea]

Whomsoever posted the data regarding what one can obtain from the 'department' when choosing to defend a ticket is, hereby, awarded President Of The Planet!

I wrote off for and today received the officers radar-use 'log'. Bugger me if, right there at the top of the page is a big, hairy, gleaming mistake which, of itself, is sufficient to repudiate the charge.

I'm tempted to reply pointing out the manifest error, but I'm still going to go hard with my original defence. You never know, it might just cause some cops (not really sweet dudes like Scumdog:--))..) to back off from playing silly games.

I also requested the operational data for the radar unit but, as yet, have not received anything.

A hearing-date has been set for June, in the Huntly DC. I shall be applying to have the hearing moved to Waitakere.

I made the point, in my original letter to the police, that I don't mind a fair cop, but one such as I got was far from fair. So they can spend some time and energy hoisting the copping cop up to Auckland for the event....All for no return, as they will discover.:--))

Go hard.

Then, have a good day in court.

[R6_kid]

You gonna charge them a chocolate fish each if you come out on top?

[nsrpaul]

good luck, last time I questioned police conduct I was caught out by the officer being a bigger liar than I planned on

hope you take it to em

[Winston001]

I wrote off for and today received the officers radar-use 'log'. Bugger me if, right there at the top of the page is a big, hairy, gleaming mistake which, of itself, is sufficient to repudiate the charge.

We'll all be interested to hear how you get on.

The only way you can have the charge transferred to another Court is by intimated guilty plea. Otherwise you are stuck with the Court where the information (charge) is laid.

[emaN]

I challenged mine recently, & requested a hearing.
Got a phone call two days before the court date from the copper saying the charges were to be dropped, due to an error on his part (interestingly, one which sounds similar to the one you found on the "log"). The prosecutor rang later on in the day to confirm, so I asked him to fax it through...just in cases ;)

Makes me wonder how many others 'paid up' that day, when they could've saved themselves coin & points.

[CookMySock]

good luck, last time I questioned police conduct I was caught out by the officer being a bigger liar than I planned onExactly! This is why it is very important to not try and engage them using THEIR tools - they are WAY too expert at using said tools, and they WILL beat you with them.


I challenged mine recently, & requested a hearing.
Got a phone call two days before the court date from the copper saying the charges were to be dropped, due to an error on his part Yeah, egg on face in front of the judge is not a good look.


Steve

[Brett]

I challenged mine recently, & requested a hearing.
Got a phone call two days before the court date from the copper saying the charges were to be dropped, due to an error on his part (interestingly, one which sounds similar to the one you found on the "log"). The prosecutor rang later on in the day to confirm, so I asked him to fax it through...just in cases ;)

Makes me wonder how many others 'paid up' that day, when they could've saved themselves coin & points.

What are these "log" errors you guys are mentioning

[dpex]

What are these "log" errors you guys are mentioning

The 'Law' is a very precise system. Everything written must be accurate. 'Almost accurate' is not sufficient warrant.

In my case, the officer's log entry shows he mistakenly wrote 17th March then, realising his mistake, and instead of completing a new form (log) he simply changed the date to the 18th. Now the form shows him completing his log on either the 17th or the 18th.

That silly mistake is sufficient to to have the matter discharged.

As I've asserted in earlier posts; track-days and some racing has removed my need to go hard on the roads. In the event I become careless, then I have no problem with paying, but the cop I copped was not a fair cop.

He was parked, facing away from me; on the same side of the road, and nearly 700M distant.

I came into a 70K zone from a 100K zone with a bloody great NZPost truck a few hundred metres behind.

BTW: Having watched Ray Clee amble along toward the start-grid at Puke, at about 10Kph, hands off (look at me Ma!) I've taken up that which is probably a bad habit, but a fun one. From a prescribed distance from a 100K zone into a lesser, I like to sit up, hands off, and let the engine breaking slow me.

There's two tests in this silly habit. The first is being able to sit on the bike hands-free as it slows, without wobbling all over the road....I'm getting there....While the second is to judge the exact moment to snap the throttle closed, hands off the bars, and enter the zone at the exactly required speed. I'm getting really good at judging that.

And that's precisely what I did on the morning of the cop. So I know the cop's radar saw the truck behind, and not me.

Moreover, there's no way in the world could the cop have been sitting in his car, facing away, watching me in his mirror, and accurately determined I had passed into the 70K zone at 101Ks.

These matters I shall argue in court, but if they fail, then I'll produce the log showing the fault mentioned above. Either way, I'll win.

[geoffm]

Best of luck - my experience is the cops lie like a carpet in court. Why doesn't pergery apply to them?

[tigertim20]

The 'Law' is a very precise system. Everything written must be accurate. 'Almost accurate' is not sufficient warrant.

In my case, the officer's log entry shows he mistakenly wrote 17th March then, realising his mistake, and instead of completing a new form (log) he simply changed the date to the 18th. Now the form shows him completing his log on either the 17th or the 18th.

That silly mistake is sufficient to to have the matter discharged.

As I've asserted in earlier posts; track-days and some racing has removed my need to go hard on the roads. In the event I become careless, then I have no problem with paying, but the cop I copped was not a fair cop.

He was parked, facing away from me; on the same side of the road, and nearly 700M distant.

I came into a 70K zone from a 100K zone with a bloody great NZPost truck a few hundred metres behind.

BTW: Having watched Ray Clee amble along toward the start-grid at Puke, at about 10Kph, hands off (look at me Ma!) I've taken up that which is probably a bad habit, but a fun one. From a prescribed distance from a 100K zone into a lesser, I like to sit up, hands off, and let the engine breaking slow me.

There's two tests in this silly habit. The first is being able to sit on the bike hands-free as it slows, without wobbling all over the road....I'm getting there....While the second is to judge the exact moment to snap the throttle closed, hands off the bars, and enter the zone at the exactly required speed. I'm getting really good at judging that.

And that's precisely what I did on the morning of the cop. So I know the cop's radar saw the truck behind, and not me.

Moreover, there's no way in the world could the cop have been sitting in his car, facing away, watching me in his mirror, and accurately determined I had passed into the 70K zone at 101Ks.

These matters I shall argue in court, but if they fail, then I'll produce the log showing the fault mentioned above. Either way, I'll win.

I say good on you for not taking the easy way out and just using the log report. Good on you for seeing it through and proving your case. Too many people knowingly speed, then piss and moan about getting caught. So good onya for not just aking the easy way out.

[Brett]

BTW: Having watched Ray Clee amble along toward the start-grid at Puke, at about 10Kph, hands off (look at me Ma!) I've taken up that which is probably a bad habit, but a fun one. From a prescribed distance from a 100K zone into a lesser, I like to sit up, hands off, and let the engine breaking slow me.

There's two tests in this silly habit. The first is being able to sit on the bike hands-free as it slows, without wobbling all over the road....I'm getting there....While the second is to judge the exact moment to snap the throttle closed, hands off the bars, and enter the zone at the exactly required speed. I'm getting really good at judging that.
.

Thanks for the update. Based on what you're telling me, i could have got off half my tickets!!! Including an $800 one!

My new 'coolness' stunt is to gently slow down at a red light and to stay balanced on the bike without putting my feet down till it goes green again...then to slip the clutch and pull off very efficiently. I pull it off every now and again. A bit safer than some of the other open road stunts often carried out on sportsbikes...

[Renegade]

also there is a 250 metre buffer zone when coming down from a higher speed to a lower speed i.e. 100kph zone down to 70kph zone.

i under stand tickets shouldnt be issued inside this buffer zone and you will get off the ticket, as i recently found out it doesnt work the other way around when going to higher speeds.

So have you measured the distance from this change of speed sign and were you in the buffer zone when you were ticketed and where was the police car parked in relation to the zone??

just a thought :dodge:

[PirateJafa]

also there is a 250 metre buffer zone when coming down from a higher speed to a lower speed i.e. 100kph zone down to 70kph zone.

i under stand tickets shouldnt be issued inside this buffer zone and you will get off the ticket, as i recently found out it doesnt work the other way around when going to higher speeds.

So have you measured the distance from this change of speed sign and were you in the buffer zone when you were ticketed and where was the police car parked in relation to the zone??

just a thought :dodge:
Bollocks. I suspect that this is usually mere courtesy from the rozzers, and I'd bloody well hope it is not enshrined in law.

Entering most towns in the countryside, 250 metres after the 50k sign and you're smack in the middle of town, and bloody well shouldn't be doing 100km/h any more.

I can't think of a single decreasing speed limit sign where you do not have enough warning before the sign to slow down sufficiently.

[TimeOut]

also there is a 250 metre buffer zone when coming down from a higher speed to a lower speed i.e. 100kph zone down to 70kph zone.

I was told last week (by a cop) that it is now 150 meters and probably depends which side of bed the cop got out of:shit:

[Patch]

He was parked, facing away from me; on the same side of the road, and nearly 700M distant.
good luck proving that - your word against his, unless you have photographic evidence but even then . . .


Either way, I'll win.
pray tell, what is the prize?


Once inside the zone, you're speeding regardless of the distance from said poles - good luck battling the plod, easier just not too get caught :chase:

[caseye]

Not to sure how it all works anymore but I thiunk that the courts got a little lenient on the poor old coppers some time back and that they now allow changing dates etc on original forms, long as it's noted.
I hope in this case that it doesn't work for them but be prpepared.
Pity that you couldn't have got the truckie to say he saw the way the copper was parked etc, would definitely have helped your case, but again it's your word against the coppers and in most cases they win.
Anyhow, Damn, Good Luck on the day!

[FROSTY]

I was told last week (by a cop) that it is now 150 meters and probably depends which side of bed the cop got out of:shit:
Sorry dude but the "buffer zone" is copspeak for I'll go easy on you.
Once you pass the sighn you are in the different speed zone.
What happens from there when you get caught legally speaking is you get busted for it.

[Patch]

there seems to be an echo in this room

[Winston001]

So - you've got 3 arguments for your defence:

1. You may have been pinged outside the 50kph zone, thus not breaking the law. Depends upon the read range of the radar and whether it also records distance.

2. The radar image might have been the truck - good argument, its important that you were identified as the vehicle detected.

3. The officer's log sheet displays uncertainty as to the date of the offence. I don't know that a judge is going to be very interested because the incorrect date is crossed out, but worth a try. It would be different if there were two dates and neither crossed out. That would be strong evidence of uncertainty.

Keep us posted.

[ynot slow]

Buffer zone a good case and point is Eltham in Taranaki,either end coming into town has either 100km -50km from North or 100km-70km-50km from South,from south though there are a couple of bends from open road to 70km then it goes to 50km in reasonable distance,but almost at the 50km start is the primary school playground,the school entrance though is around the next street.

Numerous times and I travelled this route for 4 1/2 yrs to work daily I would think wtf 50km limit from New Plymouth end after work and still doing 80km maybe 100mtrs inside 50km zone,never got pinged though,but no excuse from me if I was caught.

[Swoop]

3. The officer's log sheet displays uncertainty as to the date of the offence. I don't know that a judge is going to be very interested because the incorrect date is crossed out, but worth a try. It would be different if there were two dates and neither crossed out. That would be strong evidence of uncertainty.
I will guess that the copper will show his ticketbook and show that you were his first taxation customer of the day(???) and he made a simple error in writing down the wrong date, then amended it. The judge may accept this.
He also might accept the fact that the plod issues enough of these to know what the procedure should be and proceed to chuck it out of court.
Only one way to find out. As Winston001 says... "Keep us updated".

[MarkH]

Best of luck - my experience is the cops lie like a carpet in court. Why doesn't pergery apply to them?

Doesn't perjury only apply when someone is sworn in and gives evidence in court and it can be proven that they knowingly lied? I would think that most of the time the defence would be arguing that the cop was mistaken. How often does someone go out to PROVE that the cop knowingly lied?

[Ixion]

Sorry dude but the "buffer zone" is copspeak for I'll go easy on you.
Once you pass the sighn you are in the different speed zone.
What happens from there when you get caught legally speaking is you get busted for it.

Sort of. The 'buffer zone' is not law. But it's more than just a personal discretion thing, because it's publicly stated policy. This policy statement (http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2005/speed-enforcement-guide/) is still on the police website .

States in part



2 Operating Speed Measuring Devices
The following guidelines have been developed to assist frontline officers when conducting this enforcement activity:


speed measuring devices (including, but not limited to, speedometers and laser and radar devices) are, if operated in or from a vehicle, only to be operated from vehicles owned or operated by NZ Police;
only members of NZ Police are permitted to operate speed-measuring devices for speed enforcement purposes;
police members must be certified in the use of the general type of speed measuring equipment being used at the time;
all speed measuring devices deployed for enforcement purposes must be used in accordance with the Code of Operations (if any) appropriate to the device;
speed measuring devices may be used in all speed limit areas;
When enforcement is taking place in an area where drivers are making the transition from a higher speed to a lower speed area, vehicles should not be targeted within 250 metres from the point where the speed limit changes unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as protecting people operating at road works or to ensure the safety of children near schools;
vehicles used to operate speed-measuring devices from a stationary position must be parked in accordance the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004. Police officers may have a defence against parking related offences under these regulations where the offence was necessary in the performance of duty, but members must be prudent when parking their vehicle and ensure they do so in a safe fashion. For that reason, when selecting a location for stationary operation members must take care that their presence does not increase safety risks (such as lane merges) present at that location;
all speed measuring devices are to be operated in an overt manner. No form of hidden or camouflaged deployment is to be used, although nothing in these guidelines impugns the use of unmarked Police patrol cars for speed enforcement; and
staff may use a motor cycle as a power source for a laser speed detector, but are not to pursue speeding motorists themselves when undertaking this activity due to the risk of damage to the laser device. However, this does not apply when speed detection equipment is being operated on a motorcycle as part of a specific trial approved in writing by the National Road Policing Manager.




(My emphasis).

[davereid]

IMHO the crossed out date is the least valuable of your defences.

However the radar does not indentify its target, it does not know its range, and it does not know its size.

I think that you have a reasonable case to argue that the policeman could not prove that you were inside the lower speedlimit when radared, or indeed that you were even the vehicle being registered !

Stalker DOES record both fastest and strongest targets, but I understand that police are not supposed to issue tickets when there are multiple targets "the so called clear tone" principle.

I have put a bit of info on my web page about it www.eslnz.com/radar.html

[Headbanger]

Sort of. The 'buffer zone' is not law. But it's more than just a personal discretion thing, because it's publicly stated policy. This policy statement (http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2005/speed-enforcement-guide/) is still on the police website .

States in part




(My emphasis).

Interesting. It obviously carries no weight with the bastards parked just past the speed limit sign on the Wanganui side of Bulls.

[Ixion]

If you have a 100 to 50 zone change, one vehicle a little inside the 50 zone, one vehicle a little way out of it,and, given that radar will pick up a signal from the fastest moving vehicle, but be unable to identify which vehicle it is,then it is just simple logic to assume that the vehicle in the 50 km zone is moving more slowly (slowing down) than the vehicle in the 100 zone (still belting along). Why would you assume (in the absence of clear visual evidence) that the vehicle in the slower zone was moving faster than the vehicle in the faster zone

I would think the pertinent question would be "Office, can you please tell the court what speed the truck was doing, since it was also in the detection zone of the radar ?"

[Ixion]

Interesting. It obviously carries no weight with the bastards parked just past the speed limit sign up on the Wanganui side of Bulls.


Remember, it only works one way. BTW I have encountered MANY zone changes where it would not be safely practical to reduce speed form 100 to 50 within the distance between the sign first being visible and the sign itself. A notorious one (which may have been partly instrumental in the policy adoption) was on Waipuna road, where you came round a bend and saw the sign less than 20 metres ahead. 100 to 50 on a wet road in heavy traffic. Fun.

[CookMySock]

However the radar does not indentify its target, it does not know its range, and it does not know its size. That description on its own makes the device sound so inept. :lol:


Stalker DOES record both fastest and strongest targetsYes yes! but it does not tell you whether the strongest target WAS the fastest target or NOT - a critical piece of missing information in this case, and a poor assumption on the part of the enforcing officer. Here we have the larger primary target (was it the truck or the motorbike - impossible to tell) and the faster target (was it the closer motorbike inside the speed-limited area or the truck outside the speed-limited area.) A little more than a moments' thought and the judge will agree. It is at the very least, quite ambiguous.


I understand that police are not supposed to issue tickets when there are multiple targets "the so called clear tone" principle.If I were the enforcement officer, I would. But I understand where and when radio waves bend, and what they do when they DO bend, I would be prepared to sign my name when I was sure of myself.

Anyway, I suspect the officer concerned has realised by now the slippery slope he is on, and I really doubt he will pursue it. If not, a subtle reminder will help here. Maybe a talk to his supervisor. ;)

Steve

[Winston001]

I would think the pertinent question would be "Officer, can you please tell the court what speed the truck was doing, since it was also in the detection zone of the radar ?"

To which the officer replies "What truck....?" at which point it becomes a case of his word against yours......:bye:

However if you are calm and simply suggest he is mistaken, that he wasn't in a position to clearly see all traffic, and then later you give evidence about the truck, that can be enough for a reasonable doubt. For goodness sake don't accuse the officer of lying - all that will achieve is lack of your own credibility.

Incidentally, this talk of a judge is misleading. There is every chance the case will be heard by JPs who tend to side with the prosecution.

[CookMySock]

Doesn't perjury only apply when someone is sworn in and gives evidence in court and it can be proven that they knowingly lied? I would think that most of the time the defence would be arguing that the cop was mistaken. How often does someone go out to PROVE that the cop knowingly lied?Usually "proving" someone lied is as easy as catching them out with a loophole in their own logic.

If the cop DID lie in court, and it was NOT against the law for him to do so - it is still a VERY bad look for them in front of the judge. In court, the police really are just an informant with an allegation - it is important to them to maintain credibility or they lose the respect of the court and the whole system fails.

Steve

[CookMySock]

To which the officer replies "What truck....?" at which point it becomes a case of his word against yours......:bye: Or else ask if he was the primary target or the secondary target - a trick question.

Also, if you present the truck as evidence yourself, then they have to accuse you of lying, and prove that it was not there.

Steve

[Ixion]

To which the officer replies "What truck....?" at which point it becomes a case of his word against yours......:bye:

...

The truck that he mentioned when asked "What other traffic was on the road at the time?" (Bear in mind that he cannot be sure that you have not tracked down the truck)

[PirateJafa]

Remember, it only works one way. BTW I have encountered MANY zone changes where it would not be safely practical to reduce speed form 100 to 50 within the distance between the sign first being visible and the sign itself. A notorious one (which may have been partly instrumental in the policy adoption) was on Waipuna road, where you came round a bend and saw the sign less than 20 metres ahead. 100 to 50 on a wet road in heavy traffic. Fun.

You're meant to be able to come to a complete stop within the visible distance ahead, you hoon, you. :Pokey:

[Winston001]

Usually "proving" someone lied is as easy as catching them out with a loophole in their own logic.

If the cop DID lie in court, and it was NOT against the law for him to do so - it is still a VERY bad look for them in front of the judge. In court, the police really are just an informant with an allegation - it is important to them to maintain credibility or they lose the respect of the court and the whole system fails.

Steve

Unfortunately proving a witness has lied is rare. Happens on TV but not in real life. Witnesses hardly ever admit a lie and certainly not law enforcement officers.

The general view by judges and the community is officers are experienced professional people who don't need to lie to get a conviction. If this was wrong, and the prosecution couldn't be trusted, then our criminal law system would collapse.

Where the difference in opinion occurs is when an officer makes a mistake. That happens. It's acceptable and may be sufficient for a not guilty decision.



Also, if you present the truck as evidence yourself, then they have to accuse you of lying, and prove that it was not there.

Steve

Not really. The only way Dpex can prove this is to call the truck driver to give evidence, or another witness who saw the truck - unless the officer agrees it was there. He could do so but also say the truck was out of range.

And there's no need for the court to decide Dpex is lying - indeed such a finding would be unusual. All the judge has to do is decide the evidence of one person is more accurate than the evidence of another.

[Ixion]

You're meant to be able to come to a complete stop within the visible distance ahead, you hoon, you. :Pokey:

Visible distance of road. Not visible distance of 'beside road, hidden by trees and fence'

[ICE180]

if it was a NZ post truck they have GPS Systems hooked up to an office I think you could ask for a print out of the trucks at the same time who were traveling down the same piece of road at that time where you were

Also How can the cop prove it was you as he could not read your number plate there was another Larger vechiles right behind you travelling at speed as will
ask them how can the radar work out what vechile it had picked up ?????? all a radar does is take a reflection off something and work out the speed buy the time it takes to come back

[Katman]

How often does someone go out to PROVE that the cop knowingly lied?

I'll be doing exactly that at my appeal hearing in June.

[peasea]

I'll be doing exactly that at my appeal hearing in June.


Good on ya, I wish you all the best with that and please keep us informed.

[Renegade]

Sort of. The 'buffer zone' is not law. But it's more than just a personal discretion thing, because it's publicly stated policy. This policy statement (http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2005/speed-enforcement-guide/) is still on the police website .

States in part

(My emphasis).

thats the bastard i was talking about...

[Winston001]

I'll be doing exactly that at my appeal hearing in June.

I'm interested - how will you prove the cop lied?

[PirateJafa]

I'm interested - how will you prove the cop lied?
He's Katman, so his shit doesn't stink.

[Ixion]

He's going to take a shit in the witness box ? :eek:

[Katman]

He's going to take a shit in the witness box ? :eek:

Don't tempt me.