ClearedHot Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Beers to those who help me defeat the man! (Disclaimer, you must come to DC to collect, I will also pay up if I find myself TDY to your location) Below is a picture of my lovely bride captured by a DC Speed camera...in a freaking Work Zone (with no workers), so she got a $125.00 ticket. She swears she was not speeding and that she knows exactly where this camera is so she is always careful in that area. She is not a known lead foot and I tend to believe her as I was directly behind her in the same lane, (we were on the way to the beach for a week), and I did not get a ticket. I was going to just pay the freaking ticket when I noticed the other car in the picture. Picture two has the depiction and verbiage from the back of the ticket and describes the beam width as 5 degrees, offset 20 degrees from the road. They claim the camera will not take a picture with another car in the beam. After looking at it I am a bit skeptical. I spent a little time on Google but have not yet found a suitable beam spread calculator for K band radar, I did however find some charts for a 10 degree beam and was able to interpolate down to a five degree beam which would make the beam width 10.2' @ 120 from the radar. Picture three shows my wife's car which is 72.2" wide with the 10.2' overlay. While the other may or may not be in the beam outbound, the beam width on reflection is at least 20.4' and the other car is certainly in the beam at that point. Anyone else have any ideas...
ClearedHot Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 Just send in a photo of $125 and call it good. Great idea, but no beer for you...
Champ Kind Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Nice car. ....and if she knew the camera/radar was there, why didn't she notch? Edited August 16, 2011 by Champ Kind 2
kapilot Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Not that this is an answer to your question but something worth brining up if you take this to court. I know a guy who used to got out of a few speeding tickets because the cop could not give evidence that he was current and certified to use the radar that was used to determine he was speeding. Without current qual I've heard its pretty easy to shoot holes in their claims. Who knows something else that could help you build your case.
brickhistory Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 A bit old but definitely related.Broke ass DC speed cameras A camera vendor audit shows most of the Washington, DC photo enforcement cameras are broken or uncalibrated. Washington, DC's photo enforcement cameras have fallen into a state of disrepair with twenty-three of the city's fifty red light cameras completely inoperable. In a March 11 memo to council members, ATS, the new company hired to operate the cameras for the city, admits that at least two of the ten fixed speed cameras have fallen out of calibration over the past eight months. Is there a way to seek the calibration records on that camera? Might be worth a letter and have a copy of it when appearing in court to fight the ticket along with the basic math in public from your opening post. But you know as well as I do that DC is a money whore with a third world standard of living and mentality.
GrndPndr Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Beers to those who help me defeat the man! (Disclaimer, you must come to DC to collect, I will also pay up if I find myself TDY to your location) Below is a picture of my lovely bride captured by a DC Speed camera...in a freaking Work Zone (with no workers), so she got a $125.00 ticket. She swears she was not speeding and that she knows exactly where this camera is so she is always careful in that area. She is not a known lead foot and I tend to believe her as I was directly behind her in the same lane, (we were on the way to the beach for a week), and I did not get a ticket. I was going to just pay the freaking ticket when I noticed the other car in the picture. Picture two has the depiction and verbiage from the back of the ticket and describes the beam width as 5 degrees, offset 20 degrees from the road. They claim the camera will not take a picture with another car in the beam. After looking at it I am a bit skeptical. I spent a little time on Google but have not yet found a suitable beam spread calculator for K band radar, I did however find some charts for a 10 degree beam and was able to interpolate down to a five degree beam which would make the beam width 10.2' @ 120 from the radar. Picture three shows my wife's car which is 72.2" wide with the 10.2' overlay. While the other may or may not be in the beam outbound, the beam width on reflection is at least 20.4' and the other car is certainly in the beam at that point. Anyone else have any ideas... I'm sure you've already considered the "Hire a Lawyer" thing, and concluded it is cost prohibitive. Best result though? You can go in and fight this, taking your (and her) valuable time. You've considered this as well, I'm sure. That last step is perhaps, the only practical step. Some things to consider: 1. No one in court will give a crap about your numbers. They are too stupid to understand them, and they've heard it all before. Worth a try, anyway? 2. So you know, a human being (a sworn Police officer, in fact) has checked and certified this (prior to it being sent out). 3. I want to make a comment on the plate reading technology, but cannot, except to say that it is not the weak part of their argument against you (if it has any bearing at all). 4. Reference comment one, above. A human being had to check this, and certify it. Did they make a mistake? You can certainly question it. 5. Most guilty verdict traffic violations are overturned on appeal. Good luck, I'm rooting<sts> for her. FM
Day Man Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Dammit, I thought this thread was going to be about revolution in the AF! 3
ClearedHot Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 1. No one in court will give a crap about your numbers. They are too stupid to understand them, and they've heard it all before. Worth a try, anyway? Normally I would agree but there is a big story on the local news about a local man who used data to prove the speed cameras just across the river are not working properly. In short, the cameras in Maryland take two pictures, he was able to overlay the pictures and show the speed calibration was incorrect. He already won three cases and has another 40 tickets he is contesting. I checked and the DC cameras record two pictures, but one is just a close up of the license plate and cannot be used as an overlay as outlined above. I appreciate the "check the certification" suggestions, but I would rather beat them with facts and math. I just have yet to find the formula to prove what I think is true. Dammit, I thought this thread was going to be about revolution in the AF! One thing at a time.
HoHum Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Arizona Do they have a windshield shot to prove it was her? If not, who are they going to prosecute? Your car? Edited August 16, 2011 by The_Ginger
ForgotPassword Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 What's the local precedent for the courts being challenged to prove who was driving the car?
ATIS Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Holy Crap...I buster through there all the time. Come on over to Capitol Hill...I'll give you a beer just for the heads up/SA builder. My wife gets these on occasion. Cost of business in DC. Having sat jury duty in DC... GrndPndr's "stupid" comment rings true. Cheers ATIS
ClearedHot Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 What's the local precedent for the courts being challenged to prove who was driving the car? You are required to provide the name, current address, and driver's license number of the person that was driving.
ForgotPassword Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Maybe I am misunderstanding you. You're saying the court(prosecutor) has to provide that?
ClearedHot Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 Maybe I am misunderstanding you. You're saying the court(prosecutor) has to provide that? No...local law and printed on the ticket, you are required to provide that information in the form of a notarized affidavit on the back of the ticket if you want to claim you were not driving.
ThreeHoler Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 I can't find the article right now, apparently my GoogleFu is weak today. BUT! California just let it slip that their speed camera tickets are completely unenforceable. I know you're in DC, but I shall keep searching, as perhaps it is precedence for other speed cameras being declared crap. 1
nsplayr Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) You are required to provide the name, current address, and driver's license number of the person that was driving. Surely officer, the driver of the car was: Mike Hugh Hawk 5325 Westbard Ave., Appt. #169 Bethesda, MD, 20816 DL #: (make something up here) GL fighting the case, recommend attempting to blind them with science if able. I'm surprised the ticket was only $125, especially if it was in a work zone. What, was she doing like 2 mph over? My ticket for 13-over on the 3-mile bridge into Pensacola was something like $365! Edited August 16, 2011 by nsplayr
ForgotPassword Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) No...local law and printed on the ticket, you are required to provide that information in the form of a notarized affidavit on the back of the ticket if you want to claim you were not driving. That sounds bullshit ass backwards. How is that YOU have to prove your innocence..I thought they had to prove guilt? ######ed up system you got there. That would be the first thing I would bring up. Edited August 16, 2011 by ForgotPassword
ClearedHot Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 That sounds bullshit ass backwards. How is that YOU have to prove your innocence..I thought they had to prove guilt? ######ed up system you got there. That would be the first thing I would bring up. Agreed, but from what I hear, the court is not very tolerant of long-winded speeches about "confronting my accuser", "paying with pictures of money", or other "speed cameras are unconstitutional" declarations. The guy that recently won his case did so with math and was able to generate reasonable doubt. I really want help with the math and the formula...clearly the reflected signal would be large enough to encompass the other vehicle as close as it is. I just want to prove that.
ForgotPassword Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Agreed, but from what I hear, the court is not very tolerant of long-winded speeches about "confronting my accuser", "paying with pictures of money", or other "speed cameras are unconstitutional" declarations. The guy that recently won his case did so with math and was able to generate reasonable doubt. I really want help with the math and the formula...clearly the reflected signal would be large enough to encompass the other vehicle as close as it is. I just want to prove that. The reasonable doubt should be that there is zero physical or circumstantial evidence that your girl was operating the vehicle. It's absurd that someone can be convicted of a crime where the relationship between an owner of the vehicle and the literal/metaphorical vehicle in which the crime was committed in/with cannot be proven. If you were poor and disenfranchised I would say just call the ACLU. I would load up with everything. Grab all the case law/precedent you can, get your science/math on, then hit them with the "its your job to PROVE it was her, not mine to prove it wasn't. FU!" 1
ForgotPassword Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Although since it is probably considered a civil infraction there might not be an adherence to due process. Edit: I would challenge the requirement that you are legally obligated to provide the drivers license information of the person "driving the car". Kinda bogus that the only way you can exonerate yourself is to coerce someone else to incriminate themselves with personal information. Edited August 16, 2011 by ForgotPassword
Masshole Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Awesome, I am busy at work today but I can definitely help when I get home.. I fought the man of Pennsylvania for a very similar ticket and won. An officer clocked me after going through the turnpike entrance and I proved I was not speeding based on where he claimed he clocked me and what time I had on the ticket. Yay trigonometry and physics!
Beaver Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 I'm going to need additional pics of the driver in order to better assist you. 4
ForgotPassword Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Here's some general info: https://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=UUID%28NBFF5CA0095-E411DB9BCF9-DAC28345A2A%29&db=1000869&findtype=VQ&fn=_top&pbc=DA010192&rlt=CLID_FQRLT3664222811168&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault%2Ewl&rs=WEBL11%2E07&service=Find&spa=dcc-1000&sr=TC&vr=2%2E0 https://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=UUID%28NC02872C095-E411DB9BCF9-DAC28345A2A%29&db=1000869&findtype=VQ&fn=_top&pbc=DA010192&rlt=CLID_FQRLT11179232811168&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault%2Ewl&rs=WEBL11%2E07&service=Find&spa=dcc-1000&sr=TC&vr=2%2E0 https://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=UUID%28NC05A7F4095-E411DB9BCF9-DAC28345A2A%29&db=1000869&findtype=VQ&fn=_top&pbc=DA010192&rlt=CLID_FQRLT17928232811168&rp=%2FSearch%2Fdefault%2Ewl&rs=WEBL11%2E07&service=Find&spa=dcc-1000&sr=TC&vr=2%2E0 https://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/ca-khaled.pdf
Chapter29 Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Just goes to show that you should have armoured up your vehicles with cameras, scanners, and recordable GPS tracking equipment. Since you are a slacker and have yet to accomplish these tasks, I suggest sending the ticket in with a note "come get me suckas". Since I know the beer will be cheap, will you at least make me some of those buffalo shrimp again? 1
HossHarris Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Read the actual material they mailed to you very carefully ... all of it. Is it really a bonafide gov't ticket (a no shit summons) or a third party (speeding camera company) trying to collect?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now