TexasCHLforum.com

I dont think people expect to be given a pass on tickets, most people post here to share experience with the LOE and the CHL. i.e. disarmed, rude about having weapon, etc. What I have noticed, as many have, is some..... NOT ALL LEOs have a tendency to look at a CHL as a "Good Guy" and extend them some form of courtesy. Same for me and being in the Military. If I am pulled over, I certainly dont expect to be "let go" but am much appreciative if they do. Which has happened more frequently than before I had either.

On the flip, if they expect it, well I hope they do not portray that to the LEO. When I am at work on base and people throw out things like they expect something, the only thing they get is a hard time.

srothstein wrote:
Currently, Texas has no legal requirements for an officer to be able to run radar or lidar. It is generally better, and most departments write it in policy, for the officer to have been trained in the proper use. Other wise, they make very poor witnesses. There is a section of law that requires training as specified in the occupations code. But, since the code does not require any specific training in the area, TCLEOSE has no training requirement either. There is an AG opinion that says this section of the law is basically null since all officers have met the training requirement if there is no requirement.

Right, but with the amount of case law out there, granite I know it would be a long shot to introduce even Federal Case Law if it wasn't in Texas, and the lack of Training someone could pull off the "Florida 25 MPH Tree" I honestly can't cite offense after offense, that is why I cheat and have the books w/me and cheat sheets (I just didnt need them where I am at right now, so I am shooting from memory that is 3 months old now). I personnally have never attempted to cite for "Unsafe Speed" so the particulars I no nothing about. Like most cops, I have adopted a philosophy that somethings erk me and I cite them all the time and others, not so much and get treated accordingly. As I mentioned earlier, Pacing is a viable option, you just have to be certain your speedometer is calibrated and if you have a 2 year old sedan with 70,000+ miles, it might be time to have it checked. That is my opinion.

I love the imput and the amount of knowledge that is on the Forum, I just wish I would have been more active when I first signed up. I love this Forum and I love all you guys/gals knowledge and point of views. I really like that people can have different opinions and stil get together at the range and throw lead through paper. My rant is over

Bryan

Odin wrote:

AFCop wrote:

Odin wrote:Just wanted to point out that the police don't need to use radar to write speeding tickets.

The radar gun was invented in 1954.
The speeding ticket was invented long before 1954.

This comment is based on......

Maybe in 1954 you didn't need a RADAR Gun to write speeding tickets but in 2008 with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (the standards they have established) and case law from around the country (including federal courts (other than the SCOTUS) you most certainly do. Not only do you have to have the RADAR Gun but you must be trained in how to use it, that is right...any cop who hops in a cruiser and turns on the RADAR Gun without any training is wrong.

Bryan

Don't need a radar to write a ticket using TC 545.351. In court the officer will simply say "based on my training and experience, and considering the road and traffic conditions, I believed the violator's speed to be unsafe".

Even if a vehicle is travelling under the posted speed limit an officer can write a ticket for speeding if the conditions make it unsafe to travel at the posted speed limit. Speed limits are just that - the maximum speed limit.

Don't need a radar to pace a vehicle using the patrol car's speedometer.

Don't need a radar to clock a vehicle using a stopwatch and 2 known, fixed points of reference.

While radar and lidar are the most commonsly used methods for determining speed, there are other methods that police can, and do, use to ticket violators.

Of course everyone is entitled to contest any speeding ticket, radar or not. And many times (not most times, but it isn't rare either) a judge will dismiss a ticket, even if radar was used. That's up to the judge. There are no guaranteed tickets nor are there any guaranteed ways out of a ticket (unless you're a judge).

Right, I agree with you for the most part, 545.351 implements the basic speed law, reasonable and prudent. I was talking specifically about the offense of speeding (or determining your speed) and in order to be charged with Speeding (which is different that unsafe speed) you must meet the elements of the offense. Of which (in a nut shell) you must identify the vehicle, estimate the speed of the vehicle, verify the speed and make sure it is relevant to your estimate and identify the operator. (This is not the exact language (I don't have my books w/me). Yes there are other methods out there for speed measurements (I stick to RADAR/LIDAR because in TX it is the most commonly used. In PA only State Police are permitted to use RADAR guns (at least it was when I lived there) and municipalities had to use VASCAR (Time and distance) to measure speed.) I frankly forgot about it when I replied to Odin's post because, like I said, RADAR/LIDAR is predominate in Texas and all I use. If you want to break it down, as long as the Officer can prove the calibration of the speedometer was correct, he could pace you as well. Again, you have to apply case law to all of these things. Case law for RADAR enforcement alone took up a whole chapter in my NHTSA Police Doppler RADAR Operator course.

Keith B wrote:I think you guys are talking green apples and red apples here.

IANLALEO (I am no longer a Law Enforcement Officer), but IIRC to write a ticket for excessive speed, you must have proof of the speed from radar, lidar, clocking (Vascar) or other measurement source. Unsafe spied (higher or lower) is a different ticket, similar to careless and imprudent or reckless driving and can be written under the discretion of a visual reference. All are moving violations, but written for a different reason.

with Keith B but would like to add..... or Speeding

Odin wrote:Just wanted to point out that the police don't need to use radar to write speeding tickets.

The radar gun was invented in 1954.
The speeding ticket was invented long before 1954.

This comment is based on......

Maybe in 1954 you didn't need a RADAR Gun to write speeding tickets but in 2008 with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (the standards they have established) and case law from around the country (including federal courts (other than the SCOTUS) you most certainly do. Not only do you have to have the RADAR Gun but you must be trained in how to use it, that is right...any cop who hops in a cruiser and turns on the RADAR Gun without any training is wrong.

Bryan

[quote="rider]He didn't base it on the admission - he explicitly told me so. He based it on this lovely catch-all ticket they have that if the cop believes my speed was unsafe, he can cite me. FWIW, traffic was light (11:45 on a Tuesday). I wasn't weaving. There was not enough cars on the road to really be weaving.

And to address your later post - it is much easier to take the 90 day probation, 12 hours of defensive driving, and pay the $400. Both tickets get off my record. A lawyer would cost too much and I'm not comfortable risking a guilty judgment resulting in my insurance premiums on 3 vehicles to skyrocket. Gotta love being 22.

I guess the real answer is not to bring your 955 on the highway - b/c it's impossible to go 60. Or I could just take the cop's advice and run (sarcasm).[/quote]


Gotcha, he applied Prima facie speed law (in a nut shell - based on the conditions, was your speed reasonable and prudent, if he answered no, then the cite was legit) Forgive me for my crudeness and non specific ability, I am going from memory as best I can because I didnt bring my enforcement books TDY with me. Cool, he is one of the good guys. And it really isnt a catch all ticket, he still has to prove it was unreasonable and unprudent. What about the unsafe lane change (what was his basis for this)? If it was just because you didn't use a turn signal, there is a seperate offense for that (one not so severe).

Speaking as some one who has had the priveledge of being on both sides of the fence on this one, I agree the the 90 days, DD and the $$$ one time is alot better then repeat $$$$ for a LONG time. May I recommend drivesafely.com, it is Texas approved, relatively inexpensive and work at your own pace. Just get your Driving Record yourself, it is cheaper....Dont ask how I know!!

A lawyer most likely would have gotten (for a fee) you the same thing you got yourself (for free).

Bryan

KRM45 wrote:

AFCop wrote:Here is my two cents, take it for what it is worth......$0.02.

FIrst the Cop asked you a question where he believed (or should have believed) who could have incriminated yourself. He did not advise you of your miranda rights so any action based upon your "admission" would have been illegal and therefor thrown out.

Second, the Cop has the burden of proof that both your speed and your lane change were unsafe. (You should review the elements of the offense and if you didn't mean ALL of them, you did not commit the offense). What were the conditions... Was there heavy traffic, you were weaving in and out of traffic, etc or was there noone on the road or was the closest car 100, 200 feet away, etc.
Same for the unsafe speed, first, he doesn't know how fast you were going and as mentioned in point 1, he is not supposed to use what you told him (different story if you would have been mirandized). If he cited you on the unsafe speed based on your "admission", again see point 1

Bryan

I have personally never read anyone their rights during a traffic stop. There is a big difference between a custodial interrogation and the investigation of a traffic offense. I'm sure the officer had all the evidence he needed to write the citation regardless of what rider's answer was.

I have not either, then again I have never asked incriminating questions and then taken action on those answers. I am not saying that I haven't asked them because I have. I can honestly say I've never used what I learned from those types questions, ever.

This LEO didn't have the evidence necessary to issue the speeding ticket, therefor had no evidence of rider's speed. What I was saying was, if the LEO cited Rider for unsafe speed based on his admission, his answer was protected because he was not properly mirandized. The 5th Amend. and case law give no differential treatment to felony over a misd.

There are ALOT of Great LEO's out there, however there are a few that write baseless tickets on the hope that it will just get paid and everyday someone gets a citation when they shouldn't have because all the elements have not been met. That is due to the society we live in, it is more convenient to pay the fine then to go back and forth to court 3, 4 or 5 times to fight it.

Think about this, A LEO writes a bogus ticket, you fight it and take it to court, the LEO doesn't show up and the ticket gets dismissed. Who holds that LEO accountable for his illegal act? No one. Why? Because it is a Misd., no big deal, right. -- I disagree!

In Bexar County, if you want to fight a traffic ticket, your first court date is with an ADA. If no agreement you come back another day for either a judge or jury trial (you get to pick). That is a minimum of 2 full days without continuance for whatever reason, not including the day you had to drive to the court house to plea (Very Inconvenient, but I won).

CHL/LEO wrote:

Told me he couldn't cite me for speeding b/c he didn't get me on radar.

Not a good thing to say. Try phrasing it as a question - not as a challenge. Just some helpful advice in the future when you deal with LEOs.

I had the good fortune of growing up with an uncle who was a DPS Captain so I got to learn while I was quite young what things tended to get their dander up. I'm not saying you were right or wrong - just a piece of advice I've provided to my own family.

CHL/LEO
Reread please, the Cop told Rider that not the way you interpreted it.

Bryan

Here is my two cents, take it for what it is worth......$0.02.

FIrst the Cop asked you a question where he believed (or should have believed) who could have incriminated yourself. He did not advise you of your miranda rights so any action based upon your "admission" would have been illegal and therefor thrown out.

Second, the Cop has the burden of proof that both your speed and your lane change were unsafe. (You should review the elements of the offense and if you didn't mean ALL of them, you did not commit the offense). What were the conditions... Was there heavy traffic, you were weaving in and out of traffic, etc or was there noone on the road or was the closest car 100, 200 feet away, etc.
Same for the unsafe speed, first, he doesn't know how fast you were going and as mentioned in point 1, he is not supposed to use what you told him (different story if you would have been mirandized). If he cited you on the unsafe speed based on your "admission", again see point 1

Bryan