TexasCHLforum.com

Odin wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

Odin wrote:I also have to wonder how a police officer managed to safely squeeze a squad car into those few yards between the highway exit and that 35mph speed limit sign so he could run radar there.

Not only that, he has to visually estimate the (braking, turning, decelerating) driver's speed, use his experience and training to determine that it exceeds the posted limit, and only then does he have probably cause to search the driver by triggering the radar gun.

I'll rely on Steve Rothstein for the cites... I've seen him post the relevant court cases before (in other forums), which rule that speed radar is a "search", requiring PC to trigger the radar.

Never heard that joke before, was it a case heard by the 9th Circus Court in Kali? Wonder what they think about cops running tags all day long to check for warrants and stolens?

Not a joke. It was based on court decisions that date back to the first electronic speed detectors and how all cops are taught. The latest SCOTUS decision on it was in the use of an infrared detector for the heat from a marijuana growing operations indoors (Seattle, WA case IIRC). The detector showed the outside of the house as hot. Court ruled again that plain sight means what the eyes can see, though it can be enhanced with devices to improve the visual band, such as binoculars. If it is a band the eye cannot see, such as radio waves, it is a search and needs probable cause.

Sorry, I am at work right now and do not have access to the reference material I keep at home.

srothstein wrote:

Odin wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Not only that, he has to visually estimate the (braking, turning, decelerating) driver's speed, use his experience and training to determine that it exceeds the posted limit, and only then does he have probably cause to search the driver by triggering the radar gun.

I'll rely on Steve Rothstein for the cites... I've seen him post the relevant court cases before (in other forums), which rule that speed radar is a "search", requiring PC to trigger the radar.

Never heard that joke before, was it a case heard by the 9th Circus Court in Kali? Wonder what they think about cops running tags all day long to check for warrants and stolens?

Not a joke. It was based on court decisions that date back to the first electronic speed detectors and how all cops are taught. The latest SCOTUS decision on it was in the use of an infrared detector for the heat from a marijuana growing operations indoors (Seattle, WA case IIRC). The detector showed the outside of the house as hot. Court ruled again that plain sight means what the eyes can see, though it can be enhanced with devices to improve the visual band, such as binoculars. If it is a band the eye cannot see, such as radio waves, it is a search and needs probable cause.

Sorry, I am at work right now and do not have access to the reference material I keep at home.

That's a little different from a radar gun detecting speed on a public highway. I've never heard of case law that says an officer cannot use radar or lidar to measure the speed of traffic on a public roadway unless he has PC to believe the vehicle is speeding. If that were the case an officer would be prohibited from driving around with their dash mounted radar on because they would be unlawfully "searching" all oncoming traffic.

A device that detects activity or substance inside a private residence is distinctly different from a device that measures speed of vehicles driven on a public roadway. One has a reasonable right to expect privacy when inside their residence, but it is also reasonable to expect that one will have less privacy when in a public place.

However, even if a defendant brought up the reasonablness of the radar in traffic court, the officer could simply say "based on my training and experience, and on my observation of the speed of said vehicle in relation to surrounding traffic (if present), it was my belief that probable cause existed that the vehicle in question was exceeding the posted speed limit" and the use of radar would be deemed reasonable. I don't see that defense working in court to get out of a traffic ticket.

Odin wrote:That's a little different from a radar gun detecting speed on a public highway. I've never heard of case law that says an officer cannot use radar or lidar to measure the speed of traffic on a public roadway unless he has PC to believe the vehicle is speeding. If that were the case an officer would be prohibited from driving around with their dash mounted radar on because they would be unlawfully "searching" all oncoming traffic.

I agree, that this is unconstitutional. Just because a lot of officers do it does not make it legal.

A check of a vehicles speed is a search. It is not something an officer can know from his physical senses and must use some other device to verify, thus it is a search and requires probable cause.

A device that detects activity or substance inside a private residence is distinctly different from a device that measures speed of vehicles driven on a public roadway. One has a reasonable right to expect privacy when inside their residence, but it is also reasonable to expect that one will have less privacy when in a public place.

However, even if a defendant brought up the reasonablness of the radar in traffic court, the officer could simply say "based on my training and experience, and on my observation of the speed of said vehicle in relation to surrounding traffic (if present), it was my belief that probable cause existed that the vehicle in question was exceeding the posted speed limit" and the use of radar would be deemed reasonable. I don't see that defense working in court to get out of a traffic ticket.

I agree that all an officer has to do is say he saw a vehicle he believed, based on his experience and training, to be exceeding the speed limit. That is called a statement of probable cause justifying the search, which is the next step of checking the speed.

This is why I find it so irritating for oficers to position their car just over the hillcrest or around the curve or hidden in some way. There is no possible way that they can see the car coming, judge its speed, and react by checking the radar in the time allowed. But that is how they will all testify.

It really is the current state of the law and very few people know that the radar is a search to question it on this basis.

EDIT: And having thought about this, I am dropping the topic so we don't hijack the thread. It is not truly relevant to the original discussion and despite it being called a radar gun, it is not truly firearm related either.

Odin wrote:OK. But I would count on using the defense of "I was caught unawares" to beat a speeding ticket.

Oh, Heavens no! When I receive an award for exceptional velocities in a motor vehicle, I pay the high performance driving fee, spend a few hours listening to bad jokes, and get a reduction in my insurance rates.




You see a pair of laughing eyes
And suddenly you're sighing sighs
You're thinking nothing's wrong
You string along, boy, then snap!