Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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?
 

·
Zombie Hunter
Joined
·
4,815 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
I believe snek posted something from a Pennsylvania newspaper, even though it is very unclear what his source is... :roll:

-Mike
 

·
Founder of MassCops
Joined
·
6,401 Posts
Edited topic, sneck next time please post the source.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
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."
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Re: Penn State AND the Shutesbury, MA PD - Defective Radar G

snek said:
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
snek said:
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
snek said:
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??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
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.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
snek said:
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
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.
 
G

·
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
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
snek said:
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.
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Guinness2429 said:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
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.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
2,201 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top