As I see it, you admitted in court that you were breaking the law (doing
58 in a 55). Although the police usually give you some leeway, the law
does not.
Had you insisted you were only doing 55, there's a (very) small chance
the judge might have let you go, since the radar evidence was clearly
invalid. OTOH, most judges assume the police never lie, and the accused
always does, so it probably wouldn't have made any difference.
Andy Dixon wrote:
>
> Went to court the other day because I was charged with doing 67 in a 55.
> I know the cops sit where he was and checked my speedo before I came around
> the corner, 58 at the most with a truck passing me on the right.
> Plead not guilty.
> Trooper gave his side - He was along side the truck and I couldn't get him
> on radar but I could hear the audio and knew he was going faster.
> Judge - He passed the truck?
> Trooper - No
> Judge - So, he never passed the truck and you couldn't get him on radar.
> Trooper - Oh, no, I got him on radar.
> My turn, gave my story, told him that when the truck saw the trooper and put
> on his brakes I was in fact going faster than the truck but only 57 or 58
> MPH. Gave the Judge a short synopsis on the operation of radar (fixed
> military ones for years) and big signals from trucks versus tiny signals
> from sports cars and that he might have clocked the truck before he put his
> brakes on and that's where the 67 came from.
> Judge - Do you have any paperwork to say your speedometer was incorrect?
> Me - No your honor, it's correct, that's why I know I was traveling no more
> than 58.
> Judge - I've heard sufficient evidence to find you guilty.
>
> Tell me about the higher standards!!!
>
> Andy
>
|