Bullshit speeding ticket from arrogant cop. Complaint

[kwaka_crasher]

I see a cop car approaching 6-800meters away. Lights go green we all head of from the lights (I’m in the right hand lane), into second, into third, his lights come on (about 80-90 meters away),
Starts to execute a ‘U’ turn, wheels on full lock and crossing the hatched area separating lanes,
Thank fuck he decides he couldn’t do it and stops, we ride/drive by (me shaking my head) my fukin heart was in my mouth!!

And he missed the bit about tracking each target visually in cooperation with each target as they come up on the radar. He wont find that in his little online manual.

There was no tracking history. The fastest signal could have come from anything as the opportunity to identify it by allowing the vehicle that the cop suspected to exit of the beam thus immediately altering the fastest signal reading was not afforded. The source of the return was not even anrrowed down much less identified.

[red mermaid]

You are possibly also qualified to breed, but that doesn't mean you know how too, or heaven help us, have done so.

I can do better than use em. I'm qualified to design em !

[caseye]

Oh Boy! Me thinks you've just boobed again there Mer!

[Pixie]

I can do better than use em. I'm qualified to design em !

You will appreciate this:
Some years ago a cop insisted that the microwave unit he was using (predating even the stalker) was undetectable by radar detectors.He insisted that the unit did not allow radio emissions to emanate from the unit.I asked him how it could work if that was the case?He answered that "the signal was held within the antenna".
I told him he should read a child's guide to how radar operates and that he was full of shit.

This is the standard of intelligence we are dealing with here.

[davereid]

....I told him he should read a child's guide to how radar operates and that he was full of shit.....

Most experienced cops, (after a beer at least,) will admit that they have had some "what the fuck??" moments with radar, where their common sense tells them the reading is simply rubbish.

Newer cops just get used to "reading the meter", and as the Stalker is very confidence inspiring they will often trust its reading above their own senses. After a while, they will have observed a few "gliches" and will tend to be more cautious about their interpretation of the reading.

This particular case IMHO is a bit of a gung-ho cop, who doesn't really understand the limitations of his equipment and is determined to "get a result", even if that means a little white lie or exaggeration is required.

Red Mermaid is just "standing up for the team", an admirable but in this case misplaced bit of loyalty.

The facts remain :

The Stalker CANNOT identify its target
The Stalker DOES NOT know how far away its target is
The Stalker ONLY saves the speed of the STRONGEST target regardless of the number of vehicles in the beam.

Its also worthy to consider how the Stalker works, particularly in mobile mode.

The doppler shift signal tells the Stalker three things...

The direction of travel of the target relative to the police car.
The speed of the target relative to the police car.
The speed of the police car

Digital Signal Processing calculates the target speed from these parameters.

The speed of the police car is an important factor. The radar takes a shot at a stationary object (the road in front of the patrol car), to determine the patrol cars speed.

What if the patrol car is doing 20km/hr, in heavy traffic towards the target which is doing 50 km/hr?

The radar will "see" a 70 km/hr doppler shift signal, and will subtract the 20 km/hr patrol car speed to get 50.

But in traffic, the patrol car speed may be wrong. The radar may be looking at the vehicle in front, and assume it has a "0" speed. In this case the radar will overestimate the speed of the target by the patrol car speed.

The cop might notice this. Then again, he might not.

[MSTRS:Me]

Red Mermaid is just "standing up for the team", an admirable but in this case misplaced bit of loyalty.

No, he isn't. He is indulging in putdown of an individual. A world of difference to 'standing up for the team'. He is posting in here wearing the hat of a supposedly experienced officer of the law. His last post could be considered conduct unbecoming etc.

[avgas]

Trouble is, plod tend to hold your licence until they're finished. I suspect if you drive away, they'll pull you up and ticket you for not carrying your licence (if they're as much of a dick as this guy seems to be).

Ironically enough they can't.
One thing I found out recently was that if a law-holder-person puts you in a situation where you have to break the law. They can not punish you for that incident.
Mabey one of the lawyer types can tell me the technical side. Or what law it is.
Either way sounded stupid when I heard it, but makes sense now.

[Kiwi Graham:Me]

Anything yet?

Nope, other than the reminder so have requested my day in court.

If you have not done so, ask for disclosure of the evidence of your alleged offense, if not supplied you can take an addition complaint to the IPCA and may be able to ask for the charges to be withdrawn.
If the information is provided you can see what you are facing.

Thanks for that, have asked for full diclosure of evidence relating to the alleged offence. Presumably it will be a copy of his notebook that he was so keen to keep scribbling in.

Where the fuck did you dream that up? I bet you saw it on shortland st.

BTW Graham, you got two options.

1. take it up the arse, costs less both in time, money and most importanly stress.
2. Fight it. The cop won't show, by this time you've been to court twice, probably two half days leave, a parking ticket at the court, met some intersting characters and you save yourself a fine and some demerits.

Option 2 for me, this cop is so out of order I want the opprtunity to have my say.

[kwaka_crasher]

His last post could be considered conduct unbecoming etc.

In his case I would consider it 'conduct indicative'...

[peasea]

You are possibly also qualified to breed, but that doesn't mean you know how too, or heaven help us, have done so.

The same could be said of you.

Your arrogance destroys any credibility you MIGHT have had in any given argument to date.

[peasea]

In his case I would consider it 'conduct indicative'...

Have some bling.

[Kiwi Graham:Me]

>>>>>UPDATE>>>>>

I've got a preliminary hearing date, 10th May to set a hearing date !!!!????

So right in the middle of my work day I have to leave and attend court to find out when I go to court?! No doubt a time for the hearing will be fixed when I'm overseas this winter!!
I have a copy of the notes made by the police officer (term used loosley) that stopped me.
He claims to have checked my speed by radar know where near where he did the 'U' turn and in area I and all the traffic around me were very often stationary at several sets of traffic lights. His lies are mounting up!!!!!

He did the 'U' turn thing just after Universal Drive but claims to have 'Radared' me at Woodford Road almost a kilometer away!!! there was a car between us for the vast majority of this time and I was in a line of traffic all doing below the speed limit due to the fact that at 4pm on Licoln road its like a moving carpark.

I havent heard how the IPCA investigation is going but will advise them of the latest developments and see what they say. It seems a bit bizzar they are going to stand up in court with the officer still under investigation.

[kwaka_crasher]

He did the 'U' turn thing just after Universal Drive but claims to have 'Radared' me at Woodford Road almost a kilometer away!!! there was a car between us for the vast majority of this time and I was in a line of traffic all doing below the speed limit due to the fact that at 4pm on Licoln road its like a moving carpark.

1km away, on a busy road, picking out the smallest target, among other larger targets and without establishing a tracking history...

The guy's guessing. There's no way in the world he could have identified you as the source of any reading under those conditions at that distance especially as you stopped at the lights in the meantime meaning the fastest signal would have been coming from something else for that time.

[p.dath]

Hey mate, I don't want to throw cold water on you, but don't go to court with a view of achieving the righteous or moral outcome. Court doesn't work that way. Just aim for the best outcome.

Also note that JP's rarely find against the Police (you may not get heard by an actual "Judge" because the charge is minor). You'll need some actual hard evidence, like witnesses, to stand any chance.

If it comes down to a JP choosing between your version of the story, and the Police's version, and you only have hearsay (aka, your opinion and explanations) then the outcome wont be happy for you.

Just warning you that the Justice system is not a place to go to when you want justice.

[oldrider]

Hey mate, I don't want to throw cold water on you, but don't go to court with a view of achieving the righteous or moral outcome. Court doesn't work that way. Just aim for the best outcome.

Also note that JP's rarely find against the Police (you may not get heard by an actual "Judge" because the charge is minor). You'll need some actual hard evidence, like witnesses, to stand any chance.

If it comes down to a JP choosing between your version of the story, and the Police's version, and you only have hearsay (aka, your opinion and explanations) then the outcome wont be happy for you.

Just warning you that the Justice system is not a place to go to when you want justice.

Well, in New Zealand, justice is for criminals, law abiding citizens are just expected to "abide"!