hmm... if i had lambo or ferrari (or any other car north of 100K), i am sure i would not be happy if it got impounded. i am sure the city doesn't hire the best technicians out there to work on cars which get impounded. wouldn't the city open itself up to lawsuits for any minor scratch on a 100K+ car by doing that?

i mean... i know if i had a gallardo getting impounded and returned to me with a bunch of interior and exterior scratches, i wouldn't be happy.

but its all a moot point, and here is why i think that: in the CVC url i posted above, there is nothing there about getting your car impounded. so LEO would be out of his bounds to get a car impounded.

 

Exactly my point. I was being somewhat facetious with my question. No way they are going to impound a car over a jammer, unless they suspect you are transporting crack with it....

 

that is the first time i've heard "visual estimates" can be used in court - only pacing, plane, or radar. time to go read the statutes again.


as an aside, 85 South towards Los Gatos, some kind of crack down, saw 4 motorcycle cops w/ people pulled over.

ridiculous.

- chuck

 

I have never had a Radar or Lidar gun malfunction. I have written plenty of citations on visual estimate alone. I have not come accross a Laser Jammer yet. If I did, I may write a citation, and confiscate it as evidence for court. Or, I may just take a picture of it for court. I might do nothing. It depends on how I feel that day. If an officer has been to a certified P.O.S.T. class on visual speeds (Radar/Lidar class, etc.) then the court recognizes that, and they can cite on visual speed alone. In regards to the "11-99" plates, San Mateo County law enforcement agencies do not use "11-99" as a code. Only CHP uses that code in the County. I have personally seen city officers contact the CHP foundation whevever somebody tries to use their identification card to try to get out of a citation. I know that one guy recently had his donation returned, and he had to return his ID, plaque, and license plate frame. The 11-99 Foundation is a great cause. If you are donating to help the CHP, that is a great thing. There is no need to advertise on your plate if your only motive is to help the foundation. I know many officers who will give no breaks, and stop for you for any minor violation when you display those plates. I just want to let you guys know that it is a false sense of security to display those plates hoping for a "favor".


BTW, here is the CVC on Jammers:

CALIFORNIA CODES
VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 28150




28150. (a) No vehicle shall be equipped with any device that is
designed for, or is capable of, jamming, scrambling, neutralizing,
disabling, or otherwise interfering with radar, laser, or any other
electronic device used by a law enforcement agency to measure the
speed of moving objects.
(b) No person shall use, buy, possess, manufacture, sell, or
otherwise distribute any device that is designed for jamming,
scrambling, neutralizing, disabling, or otherwise interfering with
radar, laser, or any other electronic device used by a law
enforcement agency to measure the speed of moving objects.
(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), a violation of
subdivision (a) or (b) is an infraction.
(d) When a person possesses four or more devices in violation of
subdivision (b), the person is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has a
valid federal license for operating the devices described in this
section may transport one or more of those devices if the license is
carried in the vehicle transporting the device at all times when the
device is being transported.

 

what if the person you pulled over just says "yes, i have a laser jammer, please write me a ticket"

would you still want to confiscate it? why? nothing in the law says you can/should do that -- or am i reading it wrong?

(sorry about all the questions, its just fascinating to have an officer on 6spd who deals with it first hand and can answer stuff)

 

You can seize an item that directly relates to the commission of the crime. For example, if you have an open beer in your car, the beer is seized as evidence. The open container law only says what the violation is, not specifically that you can seize the beer. The beer is evidence of the crime though. See where I'm going with this? You can sieze items as long as you can articulate why. It falls under the Evidence Code. I don't think that I would unbolt the jammer from the car, but if it was reasonable to do so, it could be done. Every officer is different. It would not be worth my time to rip the jammer out of the car for an infraction. The violator would be getting a citation for the speed anyway. It would just make my decision on weather to give a citation or a break much easier. BTW, I always give breaks to fellow 6-speeders ;}

 

So we should all get 6speedonline license plate frames and throw away our 11-99 frames?

 

 

It isn't hard to estimate. It is hard to survive a cross examination and provide all the training records in response to a well written subpoena....

I'd say not that many officers can provide testimony that provides the same level of certainty that a calibrated radar or laser will provide.

Sure, they may write the ticket and hope you pay-

A

 

Most officers use a Radar/Lidar checklist for court. It covers all bases needed for conviction, including critical speed (85th percentile) survey info, Etc.

 

did you hear how Los Altos had outdated street surveys recently (i am sure its mostly fixed now). they wrote in news paper how they couldn't write any tickets for a short period of time.

 

hey, this is not on the subject, but... what is general political view of police officers in california? i know armed forces always vote republican, but do police officers in california tend to be majority republicans or liberals? or is politics something you guys dont discuss?

just curious, no particular reason

 

Republican!

 

I was specifically talking about your assertion that a visual estimate alone is solid grounds for a citation and conviction.

Doable, sure.

Slam dunk, no- especially if you seek to explore the accuracy of the officers estimate based on a detailed look at training and training records.

Single car, no traffic, posted 65, estimate 75?

Multiple cars, posted 65, estimate 95

Two different stories, IMHO. I totally agree that you can write a citation for anything. It is the conviction that matters. Do officers hesitate to write a visual if they cannot get a pace, radar or lidar, for concerns over having a dismissal?

I will also state that 'officers are required to first to a visual estimate, then get a radar or lidar speed' is a load of carp and everyone knows it. Officers don't admit it, but they basically do it all at once. Again, IMHO.

A

PS I've gotten dismissals for failure to have speed surveys and failure to fully comply with subpoena for calibrations records- so yeah, the checklist helps but not if it isn't followed!

 

I have not lost in court yet. I guess I'm just lucky.