How My Smart Phone Contributed To Getting Me Out Of A Speeding Ticket
skattertech.com
skattertech.com
The #1 tip for any court situation like this is the question the officer about events on the day it happened. By default the officer's word (and/or his radar gun) is worth more than your own, but if you can get him to say ANYTHING that calls into question his recollection of events, then his credibility is reduced. Incidentally this is also why most cops take great notes.
So the judge categorically stated that it wasn't a factor in his decision but the author imagines it was...
The difference between what you want to hear and what was actually said.
The reality is that he got lucky because he heard what the lawyer before him said and copied it and the police officer was ill prepared (possibly because he knew that the defendant was representing himself which is normally a sign that someone doesn't know what they're doing).
"a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis
Given, this court may not have any lower courts, in which case you'd be right - albeit for the wrong reason.
Actually, that was precisely what I was saying. It's obvious to me that a local traffic court has no lower courts below it.
In addition, to be a precedent, the decision needs to be published (as I understand it, but IANAL). When you think about it, this must be true: no court can follow a precedent that cannot be discovered.
Or are you suggesting that he did understand it and was lying? I don't see a judge doing that over a speeding ticket - they tend not to be big on lying, they just make the ruling so specific it can never apply anywhere else or expressly say that they don't feel this creates a precedent.
Flemlord, You nailed it about him not wanting to get into a bigger mess by making a decision based on GPS information. Here's a ArsTechnica article about the ongoing debate between GPS and Radar Guns - http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/07/nabbed-for-speed...
What I'm not clear about is why you think the GPS was significant he the judge expressly said it wasn't and gave a perfectly clear rationale for his ruling which didn't include it.
GPS measures average speed (delta position vs delta time). Radar guns measure instantaneous speed (doppler shift).
GPS also tends to be less accurate in a partial Faraday cage (like a metal vehicle).
Bottom line: don't expect GPS to get you out of your speeding ticket with a tech-savvy judge.
On that note, my father has a BlackBerry smart phone and his Endomondo GPS tracking app states all sorts of weird things. He went for a few mile long hike and it thought he traveled a few hundred miles across the San Francisco Bay Area. (And yes across the bay.)
This will allow for far more precise tracking of your speed at any given moment.
Where people would like this is to do dead reckoning when a GPS position isn't available (e.g. in tunnels). However, it turns out that it is completely useless for that, for the exact reasons the GP describes.
But it doesn't seem that likely.
Having said that, it's not especially strong evidence since it's pretty trivial to fake. However, in this case the title is correct: it contributed to him getting off because it gave him the confidence to challenge the ticket.
No, they use a single pulse and measure it's Doppler shift.
However, I have used GPS data successfully in a somewhat similar situation. I was riding my bicycle to work and got hit by a car that was pulling out of a driveway. My GPS recorded the entire incident and showed quite clearly that the car pulled out and hit me well after I had already ridden pass the driveway, showing they just plain weren't looking (and not the other way around). The whole incident ended up in my favor.
Warning: probable abuse of lawyerly language in above post.
btw here is a similar story with an iphone and a radar detector http://www.americanbankingnews.com/2011/01/21/radaractive-he...
In this instance, the GPS tracking data was used by the police to verify that he was not travelling faster than the speed limit. The data backed up his statement to the police and he therefore wasn't considered negligent or liable for the accident in any way.
Technology like this certainly has its benefits, particularly when the presumption of guilt is so often on the driver in this kind of situation.
Which is a shame.
"4. The term 'interception' means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication..."
[1] http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/...
In any other state, if you (as the recorder) are aware that you are being recorded (ie, you're recording your own conversation with someone else), it's legal.
In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.
also
Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway.
Edit: to my knowledge, these are based on outdated wiretapping laws intended for telephone conversations.
It seems that he probably was speeding, albeit only slightly. That makes it more impressive that he ended up not guilty!
Otherwise I'd love to record everywhere I go like this. I'm hoping the next generation of phones won't have this problem.
This guy's GPS data was a novelty. No more a deciding factor in the judgment than his choice to wear business attire.