MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1

Main Page Pennsylvania State Police - Defective radar guns
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: Anonymous

Radar guns are so defective a state police expert says they would clock
a roadside rock at 70 mph.

The manufacturer of the Genesis radar gun - a hand-held unit widely
used by cops across the nation - has offered to fix the problem, which can cause faulty speed readings, for free.

"There's no doubt the state police are using defective equipment and
John Q. Public is being screwed," said Harrisburg lawyer J. Michael
Sheldon, who represented a man who beat his speeding ticket after
testimony about the radar gun's flaw.

According to a transcript of the Sept. 4, 2003, trial, the Crown
Victoria's electrical system labors to power the array of modern police
equipment. Under the heavy electrical load, the alternator,
which recharges the car battery, runs constantly and produces an
electrical noise.

"The Genesis radar interprets that as speed readings in the
70-mile-an-hour range."

Are you guys aware of this problem?

Posted by: Killjoy

snek - The article refers to the "Genesis" handheld radar unit, a model used by the Pennsylvania State Police, not the Mass State Police. The MSP doesn't use any handheld radars (all of our radars are vehicle mounted, so they can be used while moving, the handhelds are only good for stationary radar), and in fact doesn't even use any products from DHS, the company that manufactures the "Genesis". It is misleading that you would start your post with the quote that "radar guns are so defective a state police expert says they would clock a roadside rock at 70 mph", when it in fact refers to one particular model of radar manufactured by one certain company. You claim to be an "advocate", why don't you "advocate" for the families of thousands killed in speed-induced car accidents every year rather than the law-breaking speeders that cause them.

Posted by: j809

I thought this fool was kicked off this board. Get a life you loser!

Posted by: tomahawk

I believe snek posted something from a Pennsylvania newspaper, even though it is very unclear what his source is...

-Mike

Posted by: Gil

Edited topic, sneck next time please post the source.

Posted by: Anonymous

Yes, the story is out of Pennsylvania. I just don't know why you guys have to get personal. My simple question was: "Are you guys aware of this problem?" The range of possible answers is "yes" or "no."

Posted by: Anonymous

Thanks to the Administrator for completing the subject of my thread. However there is at least one MA department that uses these guns also... See:
http://www.decaturradar.com/decatur/quotes.php

[/url]

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by snek

Thanks to the Administrator for completing the subject of my thread. However there is at least one MA department that uses these guns also... See:
http://www.decaturradar.com/decatur/quotes.php

[/url]

The MSP does not use these guns and our radars are sent out and tested every year. Shutesbury is a tiny little town and what they use is not representative of the rest of the State. Sorry, you won't get off that way.

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

According to a transcript of the Sept. 4, 2003, trial, the Crown
Victoria's electrical system labors to power the array of modern police
equipment. Under the heavy electrical load, the alternator,
which recharges the car battery, runs constantly and produces an
electrical noise.

How exactly do you shut off an alternator? Install some sort of electro-mechanical clutch thingy like Mad Max had on his supercharger? The P71 "labors" to power the equipment? My headlights are as bright as anyone elses, no labor here. Snake oil, ladies and gentlemen.

Defective? It's clear you have the layman's degree in the principles of doppler radar, the product of years of reading skewed newspaper reports and listening to others who share similar biases as you. It's working as it should, it receives a signal and calculates a result based on that signal. Because the signal was unintentionally received, regardless of its origindoes not make for a defect. It is up to the operator to interpret these signals to determine their validity. Tuning forks are used to check for calibration. Is it a defect that I get a speed reading from a vibrating piece of metal I hold in front of the antenna assembly? If a signal indicating a result of 70MPH was calculated to be 60MPH, that would indicate a defect.

Anyone who has been PROPERLY TRAINED in the operation of a doppler radar is familiar with various conditions which may produce a spurious reading and knows how to take this into consideration when interpreting a radar reading. Just because some weasel lawyer in Harrisburg used a technicality to dupe an ignorant judge doesn't mean it's a free ride for Snek and the a******ns for whom he advocates. Next time the weasel will be arguing that leftover isotopes from Three Mile Island are causing flaky readings in his client's breathalyzer results.

Nice try. Next time just advocate to lay off the accelerator pedal.

...and why do we have to get personal? Get real. Look at where you are and what you are posting, both now and in the past. Expect no coddling here. You're in OUR house. Maybe you could post your next expose on police peccadillos in the "Ask a Cop" thread and leave Patrol for the cops.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by snek

I just don't know why you guys have to get personal.

Maybe because of the "bragging" stories such as this posted on your website:

http://www.motorists.com/ma/case6.htm
================================================== ====================
A 103 MPH LIDAR TICKET!

All the civil cases were shuffled into a smaller courtroom. I saw the Trooper on the way into the court so I knew that my 1st line of defense had been eliminated.

We were both sworn in and the officer proceeded to read his statement. I interjected, "Objection, Your Honor! The witness is reading from notes. He should have independent recollection."

"Overruled, next time stand up when objecting so I can sustain it. Continue."

This threw the Trooper for a curve, as he had lost his place and struggled to regain the flow of the story. I let him finish and he rested.

Then I started in on my three pages of cross-examination questions. Because I was overruled on the reading of a statement, I couldn't specifically ask him if he had independent recollection of the events. If he didn't, his testimony could have be thrown out because, in reality, he has no knowledge of the events without reading the citation. I asked several detailed questions relating to who, what, where and when, to which most of the questions he had no recollection. This weakened his credibility.

"At what distance did you obtain the speed measurement?"
1044 ft (he read from the citation)

"What part of my car did you aim at?"
The front

"Trooper Costanza**, what is the width of the laser beam @ 1000ft?"
I don't know

Do you hit what you aim at with 100% accuracy?"
No

"If not, how can you be absolutely sure you hit my car at 1000ft?"
I can't

"Could you hit a target at 1000ft with your weapon?"
With luck

"Can you attest that the information written on citation K1028597 is true and correct?"
Looks at citation for a few seconds.... Yes

"The defense offers exhibit A, the vehicle registration for aforementioned vehicle. Trooper Costanza, can you recite for the court the plate type as printed on the registration?"
PAS ( On the citation it said VAN for 'vanity'. I have a Veteran plate on my Cobra)
ME: "Let the record show that the plate type on the citation DOES NOT match the vehicle registration."

"Trooper Costanza, can you recite for the court the registration number as printed on the registration?"
VTJRxx (The Citation said just JRxx**)
ME: "Let the record show that the registration number on the citation DOES NOT match the vehicle registration."

"Trooper Costanza, did you look at the registration while writing the citation?
Yes

"If you testified that the citation is true and correct then why does the plate type and registration type on the citation not match the registration?
Sometimes the DMV can make mistakes...
ME: "OBJECTION, Your Honor! The Witness is not qualified to speak as to what the DMV does."
Sustained...

"Trooper Costanza, if the plate was indeed a vanity plate, what would it say?"
VAN

"Trooper Costanza, are you familiar with MGL, Chapter 90C, section 2?"
No
ME: "Defense offers an excerpt from aforementioned law. This states that the violator shall be requested to sign the citation, acknowledging receipt." (This is not a defense on its own, but it doesn't help the Trooper)

"Did you ask me to sign the citation?"
No, but it is State Police policy to....
ME: "Objection, Your Honor. Non-responsive after 'No.'" (He can only answer 'Yes' or 'No.')

"Are you familiar with MGL Chapter 66 Section 10 covering inspection of Public Records?"
No

"Did you receive my request for inspection of public records related to this case?"
Yes

"Did you furnish any of the requested documentation?"
No, I understood that it only could be subpoenaed.
ME: "Trooper Costanza, this is a civil case to which subpoenas don't apply." (I know I am bullshitting here). "A public record is a public record and you should have complied as the law states within 10 days. The law also states that the burden of proof lies with the state to precisely prove why it is not a public record." (This is true..right from the law!) "Your honor, I offer exhibits B and C. The request, based on Mass General Law Chapter 66, Section 10 that I sent to Trooper Costanza and the United Stated Postal Service Return receipt for the letter which was sent via Certified Mail. No further questions, Your Honor."

"Offer to move into evidence all previously identified exhibits." The judge asked me if I wished to testify. No wanting to incriminated myself I answered, "No affirmative defense, Your Honor."

I don't have to testify. If I did, the Trooper could ask me if I was going 103 to which I would have to say 'yes'. The Judge asked if the Trooper had anything else to add. He said he had a few questions for me. The Judge said 'no,' because I was not testifying (ha-ha!)

At that point, I went in for the kill. "Your Honor, Motion for finding of NOT RESPONSIBLE on the grounds that the people's case is insufficient as it stands now, in that:
1. There are both factual and procedural errors with the citation
2. The was no foundation (calibration) shown for the speed measurement device
3. The request for public information relevant to the defense's case was not acted upon by the Trooper in accordance with the law.
4. The officer did not seem to have independent recollection of the events and therefore his testimony should not be considered.

With that, the judge looks over the citation and the registration and offers his decision, "While I have no doubt, Mr. Seinfeld **, that you were grossly exceeding the speed limit at the time, there are errors on the citation that this court cannot not overlook. The court takes No Notice (Civil case version of 'Not Guilty') of this case. Slow down, Mr. Seinfeld"

WOHOOOO!
================================================== =====================
This A**HOLE admits to going 103 MPH and gets off, and you post it like it's some type of triumph. Good job. You reap what you sow. If someone in your family is ever struck by one of these f*cking jerks, you willl have a lot of soul searching to do.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by snek

Yes, the story is out of Pennsylvania. I just don't know why you guys have to get personal. My simple question was: "Are you guys aware of this problem?" The range of possible answers is "yes" or "no."

How about this, you arrogant JERK. This isn't a courtroom, it is a POLICE Message Board, so my "range of possible answers" is whatever I goddamn well please and not what YOU determine.

Do you ever wonder why you get such a chilly response here? Perhaps there are many of us who believe in what we do, and have had to do death notifications on fatal accidents due to speeding and negligent operation..?? We work to save people's lives and jerks like you think it's a riot to "beat the man", like it's a game?? It's one thing to defeat an undeserved ticket, quite another to admit to an obscene violation and cheer at beating it on technical grounds. Do your "clients" ever write in to tell their victory stories of the people they have hit and injured or killed??

Posted by: Anonymous

For this discussion about radar guns it doesn't matter what you or what I think about speeding. The fact is the guns are defective, because the manufacturer offered to fix them. They shouldn't be used just like when radar guns were found to give you guys testicullar cancer.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by snek

For this discussion about radar guns it doesn't matter what you or what I think about speeding. The fact is the guns are defective, because the manufacturer offered to fix them. They shouldn't be used just like when radar guns were found to give you guys testicullar cancer.

It matters, because we are trained to disregard faulty readings. Just because a gun says "70 mph" doesn't mean the guy gets a ticket. That's why we look at the vehicle and visually estimate it. I'm not writing a guy for 70 when he's doing 30. It's just another "Stupid Lawyer Trick". They're full of 'em.

No response to your A*hole client bragging about beating a ticket for 103 mph when he fully admits to committing the offense?

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

Originally Posted by snek

"FIX" -or- more accurately, they were modified to tighten some filter settings. This still does not mean they were defective. Put whatever spin on it you want, your sweaty bedsheet dreams of a world where there are no speed limit signs will not come to pass. You and your ilk will continue to speed, and we will continue to gig the living hell out of you for it. See you in the arena, assclown.

Your agenda is not to protect us against the evils of cancer, nor is it to protect the law abiding citizens against trumped up speeding charges based on the delusions of maniacal out of control cops using nefarious devices which spew random speed readings. Your goal is to use whatever wafer thin and shaky excuses whatsoever to avoid taking responsibility for your unsafe and life threatening flaunting of speed regulations. You are in it for YOURSELF and you care not for anyone else who may be placed at risk over the ideals you advocate. You are the typical attention starved loser who has been brought up to believe that the universe exists solely for your benefit and that you are embedded in the center of same.

Smoking weed can give you cancer but I suppose you think that pot should be legal, too.

BTW, only one "l" in testicular. If you had any yourself you'd probably know this.

Posted by: Anonymous

Quote:

No response to your A*hole client bragging about beating a ticket for 103 mph when he fully admits to committing the offense?

Sure. In America when you're accused of violating a law you have a right to an impartial hearing. (That's why they didn't hang that sniper John Allen Muhammad right away.)

In case of the "braggin A*hole,"

1. There were both factual and procedural errors with the citation
2. The was no foundation (calibration) shown for the speed measurement device
3. The request for public information relevant to the defense's case was not acted upon by the Trooper in accordance with the law.
4. The officer did not seem to have independent recollection of the events and therefore his testimony should not be considered.

Judge ruled "there are errors on the citation that this court cannot not overlook."

These so called "technicalities" were put in place to keep police from abusing its power. and just because a guy admits later - on a Web site - he committed the offense doesn't mean the police can ignore laws too.

Posted by: Guinness2429

Hey Snekster:

Your altruistic horsecrap goes nowhere on this board. Your sole concern is getting you and your fellow HTO's off on speeding tix. You act like you really give a crap about these radar units(not guns) being defective, like you'd want to save police officers embrassment in court. You are probably the type of person that gets pissed off when the 'system" lets a child molester go free, but at the same time you and those bottom-dwellers like yourself abuse the 'system' in order to get out of a speeding tix that you so richly deserved.

You obviously you have a large amount of idle time. So, why don't you utilize this ample time to lobby your representatives for a change in the insurance laws in this Commonwealth so that speeders no longer get surcharged. Because THAT is the real reason 99.9% of people fight tix. It is just a plan to enrich insurance companies. You should be way more pissed off at that than anything else. Now that would be fighting the good fight.

Now, can I have the web address to your message board so I can post arrogant, uneducated and juvenile information?

Rack me.............

Guinness2429

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by snek

Quote:

No response to your A*hole client bragging about beating a ticket for 103 mph when he fully admits to committing the offense?

Yup. And make sure when that same a*hole slams into a car at 103 mph and kills a few innocent people, you remember that statement you just made. The police making some small "procedural errors" are equal to that jerkoff going 103 mph, in your bizarre world, right?

Posted by: Anonymous

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guinness2429

Hey Snekster:

Your altruistic horsecrap goes nowhere on this board. Your sole concern is getting you and your fellow HTO's off on speeding tix. You act like you really give a crap about these radar units(not guns) being defective, like you'd want to save police officers embrassment in court. You are probably the type of person that gets pissed off when the 'system" lets a child molester go free, but at the same time you and those bottom-dwellers like yourself abuse the 'system' in order to get out of a speeding tix that you so richly deserved.

You obviously you have a large amount of idle time. So, why don't you utilize this ample time to lobby your representatives for a change in the insurance laws in this Commonwealth so that speeders no longer get surcharged. Because THAT is the real reason 99.9% of people fight tix. It is just a plan to enrich insurance companies. You should be way more pissed off at that than anything else. Now that would be fighting the good fight.

Now, can I have the web address to your message board so I can post arrogant, uneducated and juvenile information?

Rack me.............

Guinness2429

First of all, you guys came to me to check out my web site. I posted here to let you know what you were saying about me behind my back wasn't quite accurate.

Second, I agree with you - speeding fines are about money. If the legislation dropped the fines and just issued points for speeding, would your employer send out out to run a speed trap on safe road?

If the real hazards were targeted, those people and situations that truly cause accidents (and not average citizens exceeding an arbitrary number), it would be their driving and not their money that would be causing the enforcement action.

Posted by: JoninNH

Hey, Snek, do me a favor, k? Find another board to post your crap on. One of my best friends in high school died in a car wreck because another one of his friends thought going 68 in a 30 was a great idea. The car flipped over and my friend was ejected and the vehicle crushed him. He was sixteen years old and his life was cut short by someone's irresponsibility, inexperience and imaturity. So when you talk about getting off on a technicality, it really pisses me off because you obiously haven't learned a damn thing. Bragging about it like a little child. When will you learn, Mr. Seinfeld? When you die, or when you take someone elses life?

Speed traps on a safe road? There's no such thing as a streach of safe road you dumb son of a bitch. Driving a vehicle is a dangeous action to begin with.

Defending yourself in a speeding trial may be a game to you now, but when you end up defending yourself at a vehicular e case, call me. I'm gonna come and sit in the gallery and watch as you try to get off on a technicality. Better yet, maybe it'll be you're own dumb ass that dies when you pull another 103 mph stunt.

Posted by: Burner1

Anyone that condones a person driving a 103 m.p.h. (outside of a race track), is a moron.

Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:

Originally Posted by assclown

If the real hazards were targeted, those people and situations that truly cause accidents (and not average citizens exceeding an arbitrary number), it would be their driving and not their money that would be causing the enforcement action.

Your "average citizens exceeding an arbitrary number" are the real hazards. Get that through your thick THC-ridden skull.

Congratulations, you managed to beat numerous other competitors for the coveted "Assclown: Type R" award.

Posted by: Cadet101

Posted by: Macop

Nonsence I work for 2 P.Ds that use the Genisis VP, a very good radar, tested, certified and accurate. I have never had any problems. Works better than the mounted unit in the car, stationary of course.

Posted by: Gil

We don't have a problems with them either, except for the interference from the blower motor when the heat is on, The fastest I can get my dashboard to go is 22 MPH. If you aim it at your cruiser laptop it will clock the CPU at 174 MPH (have to aim at the corner of the laptop on the older Toughbooks)

Posted by: Macop

22, HA!! Ive gotten mine up to 24

Posted by: Macop

Gill can you send a link to this butheads website?

Posted by: Killjoy

snek - come over to Springfield sometime and drive 103mph.....then see if you get out of the ticket...I have rarely lost a gig, and have beat several lawyers on moving violations. The Springfield PD traffic unit is also very sharp...put your money where your mouth is and take a chance.....

Posted by: Berkshire Cop

Snek,
So maybe you or one of your fellow motor-heads beats a ticket thanks to one of the many liberal judges here in MA. The one thing I want you to remember is, I get paid to show up in court. I don't have to miss a day of work, or in your case, taking time out to smoke a bowl and watch Saved by the Bell.

Like Killjoy said, come out to Pittsfield and do 103 on one of our streets. I'll make sure your court date is with Judge B presiding.

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkshire Cop

Snek,
Like Killjoy said, come out to Pittsfield and do 103 on one of our streets. I'll make sure your court date is with Judge B presiding.

Big Al rules.

Posted by: Killjoy

JohninNH - did that tragedy occur in Derry, NH?

Posted by: JoninNH

No. It was several years ago in Merrimack, NH.

ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108