How far does the LEO's radar reach?

[Pepperell]

re: admission of guilt:

"Sooo, you were moving right along, there. Do you know how fast you were going?"

The correct answer is:

"I was travelling at a speed that was reasonable and proper for the conditions that prevailed."

It is up to the police to prove that you weren't.

And what's with the first name basis thing?? I'm not the police-person's friend. This is a formal charge and I should be adressed that way. It's MR. Smith. I'll refer to you as OFFICER Jones. Hell, I'm old enough to be your grandfather, dammit!!

Pepperell (in a grouchy mood)

 

[ponyfool]

re: admission of guilt:
"Sooo, you were moving right along, there. Do you know how fast you were going?"

The correct answer is:

"I was travelling at a speed that was reasonable and proper for the conditions that prevailed."

It is up to the police to prove that you weren't.

And what's with the first name basis thing?? I'm not the police-person's friend. This is a formal charge and I should be adressed that way. It's MR. Smith. I'll refer to you as OFFICER Jones. Hell, I'm old enough to be your grandfather, dammit!!

Pepperell (in a grouchy mood)

OK, I guess we won't agree on this, but if I got that response, you'd get a ticket. Like I said before, to me, from my experience as a LEO, the best way to get out of a ticket is to not get one in the first place. So, talking your way out of it by being open and honest during the stop is your best bet. Yes, as mentioned before, that makes it harder in court, but proving you were speeding with the aid of a LIDAR unit isn't difficult.

I am not sure what you are referring to on the first name basis thing. I always call people I don't know by their last name.

 

[Bounce]

The specs that I just read along with the one I posted about the LIDAR ar as follows:
RADAR at 1000ft spreads out to a width about 210 ft.

the LIDAR at 1000ft spreads out to a width of 3-4 ft.

May help and

have not varified the accurancy of the figures mentioned, but seems close to me

that may be the spec for admission into court, but on open roads they can use it to zoom in on you for "additional attention". From there they can choose to nanny you until you forget they're there, or they ge sick of following.

I can't tell you how many Valentine 1 owners would argue there was no way I could have gotten them because their $400 detector never alerted them.

Clearly they were too stupid to know how to use their new tool. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that you never admit to anything because it can be used against you. A Supreme Court Justice once said that most lawyers were incompetent. That the vast majority of convictions came from admissions and confessions. His recommendation was to follow 3 simple rules and increase your chances of a favorable outcome by 90%.

1. Be quiet

2. Keep your mouth shut

3. Shut up

Oh, and as for the "Never admit you were speeding" philosophy, that's a double edged sword. The ONLY people I give warnings to that I pull over are the ones who readily acknowledge the reason they were stopped.

Nice little droogies, eh? The ole carrot/stick method of indoctrination. Pavlov continues to be relevant to this day. :glare:

 

[chickey191]

The specs that I just read along with the one I posted about the LIDAR ar as follows:

RADAR at 1000ft spreads out to a width about 210 ft.

the LIDAR at 1000ft spreads out to a width of 3-4 ft.

May help and

have not varified the accurancy of the figures mentioned, but seems close to me

that may be the spec for admission into court, but on open roads they can use it to zoom in on you for "additional attention". From there they can choose to nanny you until you forget they're there, or they ge sick of following.

I can't tell you how many Valentine 1 owners would argue there was no way I could have gotten them because their $400 detector never alerted them.

Clearly they were too stupid to know how to use their new tool. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that you never admit to anything because it can be used against you. A Supreme Court Justice once said that most lawyers were incompetent. That the vast majority of convictions came from admissions and confessions. His recommendation was to follow 3 simple rules and increase your chances of a favorable outcome by 90%.

1. Be quiet

2. Keep your mouth shut

3. Shut up

Oh, and as for the "Never admit you were speeding" philosophy, that's a double edged sword. The ONLY people I give warnings to that I pull over are the ones who readily acknowledge the reason they were stopped.

Nice little droogies, eh? The ole carrot/stick method of indoctrination. Pavlov continues to be relevant to this day. :glare:

it certainly IS a double edged sword. Most every LEO I have ever been in position to ask this question has said -

1. when I ask you why I stopped you or ask how fast did I clock you - I let go the ones that don't lie. Even the ones that fudge it are probably going to get a ticket. While it doesn't mean that they WILL give you a warning - and it does mean that they can put it in the appropriate box on the ticket and thereby nail your ass.... they seem to have some willingness to let off the guy that is honest with them.

A jerk is a jerk and you can probably get the gist of the conversation from the beginning and guage it from there, but all the LEO's I know tell me that if asked and you play dumb... "gee officer - I don't know", you will get written up. Their point is:

1. Awareness of your surroundings - how aware of your speed were you

2. awareness of conditions

3. honesty - no b.s.

4. contrition - did you ask for a break and were you apologetic for your infraction

5. overall demeanor and respectfulness for their job - and their well-being. Did you pull off the road sufficiently to protect both of you

6. overall attitude. were you an asshole

---

of course - if he dropped his krispie Kreme in the seat when you blew by....

You're TOAST

 

[ponyfool]

Nice little droogies, eh? The ole carrot/stick method of indoctrination. Pavlov continues to be relevant to this day. :glare:

You can call it Pavlov, you can think it's the carrot/stick and I fully understand why. But to me, that's not what it is.

To me, it is solely about taking responsibility for your actions.

And as for the Supreme Court Justice, he's absolutely right. However, we aren't talking criminal actions, we're talking traffic violations. And if I have enough to pull you over, I don't need anything you say to help convict you. In this state, culpable mental state is not required. All that is required is that the violation occurred. And like I just said, by the time I have pulled you over, I already have everything I need. The ONLY reason I personally talk to any driver is to decide whether or not I am going to write them a ticket. But, like I said, that's just me. Others could be, and probably are different.

 

[ShinyPartsUp]

Why is it my ex-wife got stopped at least 9 times that I know of and never (as of a couple years ago that I know of) ever been cited. And no, she isn't that pretty.

What is her demeanor during the stop? If she behaves the way I described above, that could be the reason, I don't know. My wife gets cited EVERY time she gets stopped because she turns to ice and becomes argumentative. I just smile cuz I know it isn't me she's behaving that way to!

If I decided to fight the ticket, what are the real world chances in Oregon I would get off or have it reduced? What court does it go to? If I'm traveling through Portland, for example, do I have to go to court in Portland to fight it? What arguments have you seen actually work?

Depends on the type ticket, but if the officer has learned from past mistakes, doesn't write chippy tickets, the chances of getting off are very rare, at least here. The ticket must be fought in the jurisdiction it was issued, even if you are traveling.
What I mean by chippy tickets is this: As with everything, reasonableness should always be considered. Red lights: I watch the light turn red. Then I turn my attention to the stop line and the cars. If you are two car lenghts away from the stop line when I first see you and continue through the intersection, I'm going to pull you over. If you say, "It was green" or "It wasn't red", you are likely going to get a ticket. If you say, "Sorry, I thought I could make it and by the time I realized I couldn't, I was already committed" you probably won't get a ticket. But, this is just me. Side note on red lights, if your front wheels have already crossed when I look down, I won't pull you over. Why argue such a hair splitting issue when all you have to do is wait one more light cycle to get someone else gunning it through the red?

Speeding is similar. If the limit is 45 of faster, I don't even pull you over until you are 21mph over the limit. Anyone who tries to argue that 21mph over the limit is reasonable, well, you're likely to get a ticket. For 35mph limits, I give 16 over. For school zones I only give 11 over. To me, this prevents me from having to pull over the average joe with the standard reasons for speeding. Plus, even in an anti-cop environment, I think I can articulate the reasonableness of these thresholds. Hell, a lot of times, people want the threshold lower, but over the years, this has worked for me.

Great answers to our questions. I wish all LEOs were as reasonable as you! Thanks.

+1 and thank you. Answers why I haven't been cited lately --