Speeding ticket question

[Crazy Steve]

I just did a 45000km trip from the Norf to the South on RIBs bike (Cheers Doug and shes a great ride)I had my radar detector in use and most everytime the Highway patrol saw me it was instant on, man they are really targeting bikes.

Anyway I was taking my time on SH1 just north of Bulls and got pinged hit the picks on instinct and thought no worries but shortly came the lights etc...

He says he saw my speed at 112kmph but locked me at 105kmph (it was the 4th January) so I figured if he was going to issue a ticket it would be for 105 but he gave me one for 112 because that is what he “observed me at” I took a photo of the radar in the car as attached.

My question is can he do that????

My guess is HELL NO ! !

He can write the ticket for 105kph and surely nothing else ! !

Or what the fcking point of him even locking your speed ! !

Crazy Steve.

[Mad-V2]

You know what I'm going to say to that brendan. You and I both know how to work this equally well. You will get off the 112. The charge is 112, so plead not guilty and go to court. Don't voluntarily plead guilty to 105 like has been suggested here by those less experienced as that is not the charge. He cannot change the charge, one charge per court appearance ONLY. To change the charge he will need a new court date and the judge will likely think he is full of BS anyways. The judge will either give you a fine for 112 and throw you in jail (TUI) or give you a fine for 105 as per the radar. Perhaps even throw the whole thing out, fight it, it only takes a win in one case and this BS 'observed' speed crap will never fly again due to "stare decisis" or the legal precedent of one case being binding on another case as per NZ judge made law. Chances are he won't even show up if you play the system right, take your time, should not be going to court for another 9 mths at least! Let me know how you get on.

The judge may even drop the charge and tell the cop to pay court costs which is what happened to me.
In court, you usually need hard evidence which is what you have, all he has is his dick in his hand, and his finger up his arse. I'm sick of jumped up fuckwit cops thinking they are God enforcing their own laws instead of doing their job and making a difference. The rest of the force do a good job, and in a professional manner. But this guy needs to be knocked of his perch!
I would fight it out of pure principle, just to see the look on his face

[racefactory]

You know what I'm going to say to that brendan. You and I both know how to work this equally well. You will get off the 112. The charge is 112, so plead not guilty and go to court. Don't voluntarily plead guilty to 105 like has been suggested here by those less experienced as that is not the charge. He cannot change the charge, one charge per court appearance ONLY. To change the charge he will need a new court date and the judge will likely think he is full of BS anyways. The judge will either give you a fine for 112 and throw you in jail (TUI) or give you a fine for 105 as per the radar. Perhaps even throw the whole thing out, fight it, it only takes a win in one case and this BS 'observed' speed crap will never fly again due to "stare decisis" or the legal precedent of one case being binding on another case as per NZ judge made law. Chances are he won't even show up if you play the system right, take your time, should not be going to court for another 9 mths at least! Let me know how you get on.

I'll remember that in future- thanks.

[racefactory]

The judge may even drop the charge and tell the cop to pay court costs which is what happened to me.
In court, you usually need hard evidence which is what you have, all he has is his dick in his hand, and his finger up his arse. I'm sick of jumped up fuckwit cops thinking they are God enforcing their own laws instead of doing their job and making a difference. The rest of the force do a good job, and in a professional manner. But this guy needs to be knocked of his perch!
I would fight it out of pure principle, just to see the look on his face

what happened in your case?

[The Pastor]

You know what I'm going to say to that brendan. You and I both know how to work this equally well. You will get off the 112. The charge is 112, so plead not guilty and go to court. Don't voluntarily plead guilty to 105 like has been suggested here by those less experienced as that is not the charge. He cannot change the charge, one charge per court appearance ONLY. To change the charge he will need a new court date and the judge will likely think he is full of BS anyways. The judge will either give you a fine for 112 and throw you in jail (TUI) or give you a fine for 105 as per the radar. Perhaps even throw the whole thing out, fight it, it only takes a win in one case and this BS 'observed' speed crap will never fly again due to "stare decisis" or the legal precedent of one case being binding on another case as per NZ judge made law. Chances are he won't even show up if you play the system right, take your time, should not be going to court for another 9 mths at least! Let me know how you get on.

Raj, is actually correct

[Mad-V2]

what happened in your case?

On the Taupo/Napier highway long straights, I came to a line of traffic following a marked car at 80kph. I followed for about 5 mins and thought I'd pass and see what would happen. So I put my indicator on sped up to 100 and passed safely with plenty of clear road ahead. Sure enough the lights came on and he stopped me.
I got off the bike and looked through his passenger window to see a blank radar screen. when I asked why he pulled me over, he said I was speeding! I told him what I thought in a loud voice and used angry hand gestures, so he wrote me a ticket for 130kph
I took it to court with a duty solicitor who told my story, and the rest is history

[Max Preload]

The most important question is... were you the only vehicle on the road and if not what type were the others and what were their distances from you?

The reason being that if the operator locks the Stalker Dual DSR to the FASTEST target (which the older Stalker DSR can't do at all), both the FAST and LOCK icons appear for the middle window which from your picture hasn't happened. So he's locked the TARGET speed (from the left window) which is the strongest signal. That's not appropriate for a bike among other vehicles. A bike will not give a strongest reading if there are other vehicles such as cars at a similar distance.

In that case it throws into doubt his reliability over the entire incident. Also if he's running instant on, he likely has no tracking history and thus no confirmation that it was you giving the reading either - he doesn't know what caused it. When you exit the beam as you pass by a new signal from the fastest and strongest would confirm that it was you causing the signal he believes you were.

[RiderInBlack]

I can get ''my people'' onto it if you like Brendan....
Failing that, let Doug pay it, its his bike....

Too bad the Cop has Brenden's Drivers Licence No. on the ticket

[davereid]

There is precedent to this - someone else posted it so all credit to them. I kept a copy of the article but cant remember who posted it.
http://www.fastandsafe.co.nz/Pages/M...ce18Feb05.shtm

Rangiora District Court have upheld the principle that without a readout there is no case.

So a readout for a figure lower that the ticket is for should be much the same.

Police need evidence for speed tickets
18 February 2005

By ANNA CLARIDGE

Motorists who are pinged for speeding by police radar might have a complete defence if the officer taking the reading cannot produce it in court.

The issue has been highlighted after Christchurch man Peter Fiddler was given a ticket for allegedly driving at 113kmh while heading south of Christchurch on December 22 last year.

He disputed his speed at the scene and when he asked the officer to produce evidence from his radar-gun, the "clocked speed" had been wiped.

Fiddler complained to the Police Infringement Bureau, saying there was no evidence he was travelling beyond the speed limit, but the police refused to waive his ticket saying: "There is no legal requirement for you to be shown a readout or even for the readout to be locked".

Fiddler said this week: "I didn't think it was fair and I tried to discuss it with the officer but he didn't want to know. I tried to challenge it ... (but) I weighed up the costs and I just couldn't afford a day off work to go to court and defend it."

Exasperated, Fiddler paid the fine but contacted The Press, concerned at what he claims are unfair police rules.

"They could just make up a speed and write the ticket. It's ridiculous," he said.

Recent decisions show the courts are backing motorists such as Fiddler, waiving fines for those who challenge police unable to provide evidence of speeding.

Christchurch man Bryan McHerron took the matter to court in September last year after police were unable to produce radar evidence at the scene of his ticket.

An officer allegedly clocked McHerron travelling 121kmh in a passing lane near Amberley, but lost the radar record seconds after the incident and was unable to show McHerron any evidence as he wrote out the ticket.

McHerron went to court, admitting he was probably travelling at more than 100kmh, but denied it was 121kmh.

The Rangiora District Court ruled in McHerron's favour, with two Justices of the Peace saying: "This issue for us is whether there has been a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the excessive speed ... to cast light or doubt on the actual speed under consideration and in the interests of justice we think it is not unreasonable for the driver to see the actual locked-in radar speed.

"In this instance it was not available and does create an element of doubt to the actual speed for the defendant."

The decision was based on a similar High Court ruling in 1996 when a motorcyclist on the West Coast successfully defended an alleged radar reading of 126kmh after the officer could not produce evidence of the speed quoted on the ticket.

McHerron now claims his ticket was the result of a Government-pushed, revenue-grab which is forcing police to become "quite unethical".

"It borders on harassment what they do. It's a recipe for fraud because at the end of the day, the average person just accepts what the police have said. Motorists have got some rights and I believe the police are taking those rights away."

Canterbury Road Policing manager Derek Erasmus reiterated the police stance, saying an officer did not have to lock a speed in.

"Best practice indicates that we do it because it removes those arguments further down the track but sometimes ... it's not physically possible to lock it in."

An officer may have to act quickly if a driver was coming around a corner and would not have time to lock the speed in, Erasmus said.

"If a person doesn't like it, you can dispute it through the court process. It's no different from the vast majority of police cases disputed in court.

"It comes through to an issue of credibility. At the end of the day (motorists) have the recourse of taking it to court and the evidence is weighed in an independent forum."

A senior police official said complaints over lack of evidence "presupposed police were liars".

"These are sworn officers who gain no benefit from making things up."

A police spokeswoman said police stood by their legal stance and any appeal against a ticket was a decision for the court, not police.

[red mermaid]

This is a decision from a JP's court and sets no precedent at all.

The required case would be the one from the High Court, as they can set precedent, or case law is the correct term.

There is precedent to this - someone else posted it so all credit to them. I kept a copy of the article but cant remember who posted it.
http://www.fastandsafe.co.nz/Pages/M...ce18Feb05.shtm

Rangiora District Court have upheld the principle that without a readout there is no case.

So a readout for a figure lower that the ticket is for should be much the same.

Police need evidence for speed tickets
18 February 2005

By ANNA CLARIDGE

Motorists who are pinged for speeding by police radar might have a complete defence if the officer taking the reading cannot produce it in court.

The issue has been highlighted after Christchurch man Peter Fiddler was given a ticket for allegedly driving at 113kmh while heading south of Christchurch on December 22 last year.

He disputed his speed at the scene and when he asked the officer to produce evidence from his radar-gun, the "clocked speed" had been wiped.

Fiddler complained to the Police Infringement Bureau, saying there was no evidence he was travelling beyond the speed limit, but the police refused to waive his ticket saying: "There is no legal requirement for you to be shown a readout or even for the readout to be locked".

Fiddler said this week: "I didn't think it was fair and I tried to discuss it with the officer but he didn't want to know. I tried to challenge it ... (but) I weighed up the costs and I just couldn't afford a day off work to go to court and defend it."

Exasperated, Fiddler paid the fine but contacted The Press, concerned at what he claims are unfair police rules.

"They could just make up a speed and write the ticket. It's ridiculous," he said.

Recent decisions show the courts are backing motorists such as Fiddler, waiving fines for those who challenge police unable to provide evidence of speeding.

Christchurch man Bryan McHerron took the matter to court in September last year after police were unable to produce radar evidence at the scene of his ticket.

An officer allegedly clocked McHerron travelling 121kmh in a passing lane near Amberley, but lost the radar record seconds after the incident and was unable to show McHerron any evidence as he wrote out the ticket.

McHerron went to court, admitting he was probably travelling at more than 100kmh, but denied it was 121kmh.

The Rangiora District Court ruled in McHerron's favour, with two Justices of the Peace saying: "This issue for us is whether there has been a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding the excessive speed ... to cast light or doubt on the actual speed under consideration and in the interests of justice we think it is not unreasonable for the driver to see the actual locked-in radar speed.

"In this instance it was not available and does create an element of doubt to the actual speed for the defendant."

The decision was based on a similar High Court ruling in 1996 when a motorcyclist on the West Coast successfully defended an alleged radar reading of 126kmh after the officer could not produce evidence of the speed quoted on the ticket.

McHerron now claims his ticket was the result of a Government-pushed, revenue-grab which is forcing police to become "quite unethical".

"It borders on harassment what they do. It's a recipe for fraud because at the end of the day, the average person just accepts what the police have said. Motorists have got some rights and I believe the police are taking those rights away."

Canterbury Road Policing manager Derek Erasmus reiterated the police stance, saying an officer did not have to lock a speed in.

"Best practice indicates that we do it because it removes those arguments further down the track but sometimes ... it's not physically possible to lock it in."

An officer may have to act quickly if a driver was coming around a corner and would not have time to lock the speed in, Erasmus said.

"If a person doesn't like it, you can dispute it through the court process. It's no different from the vast majority of police cases disputed in court.

"It comes through to an issue of credibility. At the end of the day (motorists) have the recourse of taking it to court and the evidence is weighed in an independent forum."

A senior police official said complaints over lack of evidence "presupposed police were liars".

"These are sworn officers who gain no benefit from making things up."

A police spokeswoman said police stood by their legal stance and any appeal against a ticket was a decision for the court, not police.

[Jantar]

This is a decision from a JP's court and sets no precedent at all.

The required case would be the one from the High Court, as they can set precedent, or case law is the correct term.

I believe that the case law has been set in the high court.

The decision was based on a similar High Court ruling in 1996 when a motorcyclist on the West Coast successfully defended an alleged radar reading of 126kmh after the officer could not produce evidence of the speed quoted on the ticket.

[Korumba]

Fuck me!, thats one hell trip......and on a borrowed bike.

Yep took 401 hours at 112kmph or was that that the LSD Trip...

May have been closer to 4,500

[Korumba]

I can get ''my people'' onto it if you like Brendan....
Failing that, let Doug pay it, its his bike....

Cheers Bro, my people have been standing round twiddling their thumbs lately,thought I would have to hire more people to fire their arses, but if your people are on to it I will get my people back on to expanding the universe.

[Cr1MiNaL]

This is a decision from a JP's court and sets no precedent at all.

The required case would be the one from the High Court, as they can set precedent, or case law is the correct term.

Who said precedents of cases heard in the district court are not binding on other courts or set no precedent? They are absolutely binding. That is the whole concept of a 'common law' judiciary as opposed to a codified 'civil law' country like the USA for example. The only difference is this - that the 'stare decisis' or legal precedent of a case is only binding on lower courts and only ' persuasive' in nature to courts of similar or superior hierarchy. Eg. Supreme court's precedent is binding on High Courts and District Courts. However, district courts precedent is not necessarily "binding" on a High Court. However, a High Court judge would have to explain his deviation from the District Court decision absolutely as every case make law and hence governs the future in this country. I will quote you a page and book name from my post grad law book if you need. Furthermore, even a decision in another English speaking commonwealth (especially a House of Lords or Court of Appeal decision) is very persuasive to courts in NZ. A lot of NZ law actually comes from the UK, Australia and Canada and judges have followed a myriad of decisions from around the English speaking world, especially if the case is a first for NZ.

Boom thank you Mr Officer, Brendon on the merits of the previous cases mentioned in Davereid's post (just track down the case numbers and which court and judge presided over them) and you'll walk in and out of court (not dissimilar to the time we got pinged for 139 or whatever it was). You were not speeding were you? No, didn't think so. Anyone reading this thread can also use these cases. Therefore, whenever a cop pings you for a speed over indicated you will walk, forever more, unless a higher court overrules that decision.

The "bad" cops like Rodney's ol Ginga count on a common man's ignorance of the law and really dislike people who know half the law. Hence I studied 2 years of it after university. Sure there were other motivating factors but 'black letter law' is something that everyone in business should know, saves you a lot of money in legal fees when you know what you are talking about.

The End.

[Korumba]

I have sent the standard “deny liability and am not guilty of this offence and request a court hearing” letter .
So once I get a court date I will submit an affidavit but wont be appearing in the Marton court... at least I will keep this guy of the road a while and any court cost are not so much a worry its as I said in the other posts its the demerits that suck arse.
I think his Mum may be the Marton Judge.....