All charges dropped

[sil3nt]

Apparently this letter to me from the NZP was written 4 weeks in the future.

Thats the only reason they are taking it to court. They already know whos gonna win

[Kiwibaconator]

Soo.

Can anyone give me the usual order of preceedings for a traffic focused preliminary hearing?

[Kiwibaconator]

Thats the only reason they are taking it to court. They already know whos gonna win

Indeed they did. Me.

I arrived at court to be greeted by an officer who explained they had reviewed my original letter and agreed with it. Apparently the officer now believes there was a problem with the radar reading.

Just like the title of this thread, all charges dropped. Goes to show, they will only back down if you are prepared to fight it.

[sil3nt]

Indeed they did. Me.

I arrived at court to be greeted by an officer who explained they had reviewed my original letter and agreed with it. Apparently the officer now believes there was a problem with the radar reading.

Just like the title of this thread, all charges dropped. Goes to show, they will only back down if you are prepared to fight it.

Did it cost you anything to fight it?

[Kiwibaconator]

Did it cost you anything to fight it?

Just a lot of time and a bit of postage. Worst case (if you lose in court) is you have court costs added to your original ticket.

[Scuba_Steve]

Just a lot of time and a bit of postage. Worst case (if you lose in court) is you have court costs added to your original ticket.

for future reference. You don't have to stamp it, it makes it's way there regardless

[The Pastor]

Indeed they did. Me.

I arrived at court to be greeted by an officer who explained they had reviewed my original letter and agreed with it. Apparently the officer now believes there was a problem with the radar reading.

Just like the title of this thread, all charges dropped. Goes to show, they will only back down if you are prepared to fight it.

Do you mind adding the details of your case? be interesting how you setup your defence.

[Kiwibaconator]

Do you mind adding the details of your case? be interesting how you setup your defence.

Sure.

This ticket stunk from the start. I was pulled over in town (well inside a 50km/h zone) by an officer who claimed I had been speeding on a main road "several kilometres back". This officer and their car came into view behind me at speed while I was stopped at an intersection in town. There was no contact with them prior. No lights, no sirens, no car braking and turning. Nothing.
The officer pulled me over and said they would like to speak to me about my speed along the main road. The officer claimed 114km/h, was unable to describe the area of the offence (even when prompted with local landmarks), showed me a 114km/h radar lock and wrote me a ticket for that speed.
The area description on the ticket was simply the name of a road 13km long.

I had just driven that road, not breaking 100km/h anywhere and nowhere near 114km/h. The area in question was mostly 65km/h linked corners where 114km/h would only be possible either on a motorbike to maximise the choice of line through the corners or in a car with soft and sticky tyres. I have driven, ridden and been driven on this road more than 1000 times. Twice more today in fact.
My usual speed, which I was doing that day, is from 85-95km/h. A full 20-30km/h slower than the alleged speed.

I had a witness, but it never came to needing that. I also had a dog on the car sitting on a bench seat. This dog stayed put throughout the drive, something that isn't possible taking 65km/h corners at 114km/h.

I am a mechanical engineer and a large chunk of my job involves calculations of motion, speed, acceleration and distance. I took map photos, overlaid bend radii and calculated cornering forces at my speed and again at the alleged speed.
The alleged speed came in at 0.6g. Well within the range of grip for performance tyres, but right on the limit for the hard commercial tyres on this vehicle. The vehicle would have been sliding and possibly tyres squealing. 0.6g is also a serious imposition on passengers and impossible for a dog to remain on a bench seat.

These calculations and the request for the ticket to be waived were summarily rejected by Sargent Ellicock in Wellington, he also put a snarky comment in the return letter. A lack of professionalism which I may follow up.


So second letter in, denying liability for the offence and requesting a court hearing.
I also requested 8 pieces of evidence:
-Calibration Certificates for the Radar - Not delivered
-Training Records - Not delivered
-User & Factory Manual for the Radar unit involved - Not delivered
-Fault History of the Radar unit - Not delivered
-Police training manual for radar involved - Not delivered
-Evidence that the officer involved has received training in the use of the particular radar while in moving mode. - Not delivered
-Copy of the radar manufacturers manual. - Not delivered
-GPS data from the officers iphone which displayed the GPS map I was shown. - Not delivered

The officers notes were the only part that was delivered, those narrowed down the area of the offence to between two roads almost 4km apart. A distance of 5.5-2km from where I was pulled up. They confirmed the officer was travelling in the opposite direction.
Simply not good enough.

So I organise my defence.
There were several angles I could have taken, but the simplest is vehicle identification. A car blows past at 114km/h in the opposite direction on roads with 200m average visibility (winding roads) and the officer has about 3 seconds to do the following:
1. Notice a speed reading on the radar.
2. Observe the car coming the other way to ensure the radar reading is trustworthy.
3. Obtain a stable radar reading
4. Manually lock in the stable radar reading
5. Identify the offending car perfectly.

Then that car is gone.
By the time the patrol car has found a place to turn around, turned around and accelerated up to a speed matching the 114km/h, the original car has a lead of approximately 750m.
Ever tried to make 750m ground on another car or bike? Not a chance, that vehicle is gone and not coming back.
There were also 48 exits from the road between the start of the zone the officer mentioned in their notes and the point I was pulled up. That is 48 different places for a car doing 114km/h to disappear down.
It appears these officers drove blindly for about 3km, came across me and wrote out a 114km/h ticket.

Now it's very easy to see the problems, but laying out a logical defence to create doubt isn't always that easy. I have spent maybe 40 hours on this, for what would be a $80 ticket. Easy to just roll over and take it, but this isn't my ticket and I'm not paying any fines I didn't earn.
I didn't want to use the calculations and cornering forces in the defence as if the Judge cannot follow them, the words are wasted. Instead I chose to focus on vehicle identification.

So we start with a statement of facts, establish common ground that cannot be denied.

Statement of Facts
I was pulled over in Town A, well inside the 50km/h zone
There was no contact with any police car prior to this.
There was no reaction from any car which passed in the opposite direction.
The road is winding, visibility is limited to only 80m in the worst places and 200-300m for most of it. There was no car visible behind me until well inside Town A's 50km/h zone.
The officer was unable to describe where the 114km/h reading was obtained.
Even when prompted with local landmarks the officer was unable to describe where the reading was obtained.
The ticket simply lists "Road E" as the area of the offence. Road E is approx 13km long.
The officers notes list "Road E, between Road C1 and Road C2" as the area of the offence, this area starts over 5km from where I was pulled up and finishes 2km from where I was pulled up.
The vast majority of this road is marked as recommended speed of 65km/h.
The 114km/h speed alleged through winding road marked at 65km/h is extreme, the noise, inclination and lateral forces on a car attempting that would be obvious to occupants and witnesses.
There are 8 public roads which join Road E between Road C1 and where I was pulled up.
There are over 40 private roads and driveways which join Road E between Road C1 and where I was pulled up.
I have requested the data from the officers GPS map, it has not been provided.
A witness from within the car verifies this story.

Then we bring in my observations.
I state the only way to guarantee identification of a car caught speeding is to keep it in sight from radar lock until it is pulled over.
Then I roll in the impossibility of positively identifying a car within the 3-4 seconds available.
Following that the absurdity of a police car driving blindly for several kilometers in the hope of catching a vehicle which already has an approx 750m head-start.

Finish with my only offence is being in the wrong place at the wrong time and possibly driving the wrong colour car.

I also had several aces up my sleeve for cross-examination of the officers in court if the chance arose. Which I won't be disclosing in detail here. But essentially ask the officer a question which can be answered two ways and blow holes in their story with their own answers either way.

I was almost looking forward to it.

Today when arriving at the local Courthouse for a "Preliminary Hearing" I was met by an officer who said I had put in an excellent set of calculations which in review had been found to be accurate. The police now agreed with my calculations and the officer believes there may have been a problem with the radar. Charge withdrawn. The above defence was never used.

The irony is, this exercise has proven to me that if you were driving through this road at 114km/h, you would be impossible to catch and ticket.

[The Pastor]

Sure.


The irony is, this exercise has proven to me that if you were driving through this road at 114km/h, you would be impossible to catch and ticket.

Thanks mate,

Do you think they had no intention of a successful charge against you and just dragged you to court to waste your time?

[Kiwibaconator]

Thanks mate,

Do you think they had no intention of a successful charge against you and just dragged you to court to waste your time?

I think it's simple, they write tickets and most people will pay them. If I hadn't fought it, they would happily have taken the money. The PR machine would notch up another victory in saving the country from another dangerous criminal. Instead of the true story where an innocent motorist has spared themselves from a miscarriage of justice from overzealous officers.

As for not informing me it was dropped until I turned up to court? We can only speculate.
It could be the information was only reviewed at the last minute. But that is also speculation. The police had all of this information three months prior.

It must be noted that if I was ticketed away from home, I would have been unable to turn up to court without serious inconvenience. At which point I would have been found guilty in absence.
The officers who pulled me over, thought I lived several hours away. Coincidence or hanging dodgy tickets on those less able to defend themselves?

[davereid]

Do you think they had no intention of a successful charge against you and just dragged you to court to waste your time?

It wasted the police a lot of time as well.

But failure to disclose relevant information may have meant the Police would have had an uphill battle to win, so choosing not to do it suggests they never expected to win, and were just hoping the OP would not show up.

I would have thought that for a case essentially based on a radar reading that :

Calibration Certificates for the Radar, Training Records, User & Factory Manual for the Radar unit involved, Fault History of the Radar unit, Police training manual for radar involved and Evidence that the officer involved has received training in the use of the particular radar while in moving mode were all very relevant.

Police may have struggled to keep the judges smile going without proper disclosure.

[Scuba_Steve]

I think it's simple, they write tickets and most people will pay them. If I hadn't fought it, they would happily have taken the money. The PR machine would notch up another victory in saving the country from another dangerous criminal. Instead of the true story where an innocent motorist has spared themselves from a miscarriage of justice from overzealous officers.

As for not informing me it was dropped until I turned up to court? We can only speculate.
It could be the information was only reviewed at the last minute. But that is also speculation. The police had all of this information three months prior.

It must be noted that if I was ticketed away from home, I would have been unable to turn up to court without serious inconvenience. At which point I would have been found guilty in absence.
The officers who pulled me over, thought I lived several hours away. Coincidence or hanging tickets on those less able to defend themselves?

This scam relies on ignorance & inconvenience. Most people don't have the patience, knowledge, and/or time to fight so they just pay cause it's far easier.

[Kiwibaconator]

This scam relies on ignorance & inconvenience. Most people don't have the patience, knowledge, and/or time to fight so they just pay cause it's far easier.

In the pursuit of fairness, I have to point out there are a lot of people ticketed who have earned all of it. I'd like to think cases like mine of completely misplaced ticketing are a very small minority.

But it's still a concern that minority exists.

[FJRider]

Do you think they had no intention of a successful charge against you and just dragged you to court to waste your time?

Yep ... with all the revenue they wrongfully gathered in the name of road safety ... they had plenty left-over for a bullshit court proceedings ... to scare the punter ...

[Jantar]

Kiwibaconator has kept me up-to-date on the progress of this case all the way through.

I was looking forward to being in court to see it play out, but it was all over before I finished work. Congratulations on a successfull outcome.