Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Speed Record Against Police - Black Box

  1. #11
    Maximum Bitrate NiSlo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    508
    On a similar note, is there any software that can overlay speed, location, and any other engine parameters over a video input and record it, in a similar way to what police cars have? It'd be awesome to have something like that on a track day or alike.

    Also, it _might_ be able to be used in a similar way to what the thread starter was chasing. As a record of your trip for fines etc
    I installed my carpc into my pet Kangaroo, mate.

  2. #12
    Variable Bitrate Tissy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Essex, United Kingdom
    Posts
    323
    sullivan2002 - I have a working prototype of a camera recording system which overlays in text the current time & date but more importantly your speed as logged by your GPS receiver. So in effect youo wioll have a piece of footage which is water-marked with your speed as you travel.

    The full thread is here if you want to subscribe to it for updates.

    http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/show...506#post973506
    System - Epia SP13000 for Main PC, Holux GR-213 USB GPS Receiver SiRF Star III, 2.4Ghz Uplink with VNC and Custom designed USB Intelligent SDC (In DEV). All fed to a Sony CDX-F7500 Headunit via USB. www.wrx-carpc.co.uk

  3. #13
    Calm
    Down
    Or
    Get
    A
    2
    Week
    Vacation
    -Love
    The
    Forum
    Policeman
    Wiredwrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,605
    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    The key is to have a camera and voice recorder in your car. Get a shot of the data as the cop is coming up and make sure your on record disputing it and showing evidence to the officer. I can imagine that would hold up a lot better than data you came up with by your court date.
    Why do you think "that would hold up a lot better" First of all, in many states, you are not permitted to record someone else with out thier permission, and would therefore be inadmissable in court. Second, proving that you argued with the cop, or somehow "proved" something to them does nothing. Cops are not the ones who measure proof. Do you really think that when a cop comes to arrest you, he is supposed to listen to your evidence to determine if you should be arrested. Nope, that is the JUDGES job. The judge (or jury) is called the trier of facts. They measure and wheigh the evidence, THE OFFICER DOES NOT. All the officer knows is that he had Probable Cause to arrest and/or cite you for speeding. You can argue and show proof all you want, it is not the officers job, and thankfully not, to determine if your evidence is good or not.

    That is why you bring it to court. The judge decides who has the "better" evidence.

    Also, NEVER ARGUE WITH A COP ABOUT ANYTHING. Just take the ticket. If he asks you to incriminate yourself, like "Do you know why I pulled you over" the answer is No, I do not. Do you know that you were going 60 miles an hour?, the answer is "I do not believe I have violated any laws" or I do not believe I was going that fast. That is all, don't argue, and don't give ANY information, and politely disagree with his statements with the ones I just stated.

    Michael
    ...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

  4. #14
    Low Bitrate
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    98
    All I'm saying is it is better data. And I doubt it would be inadmissible. Argue is the wrong word, I'm just saying show the cop what your data shows.

    When you get a ticket, the cop HAS passed judgement on you - however you want to look at it. He has tested your speed and found you guilty of going over. Now true, our legal system requires a judge to stamp his approval on it to make it official, but if it's your word against the cops you're going to lose every time. Showing speed records is weaker evidence then showing the records on video WHEN they are fresh. It's a lot harder to fake, therefore better evidence. I'm not saying you're going to get out of it, fact is you were probably speeding. But in the rare case you're just being hassled you'll have evidence.

    Besides, cops record everything - I see it on COPS all the time. People take cellphone videos of crap and it's used as evidence all the time. Do you think they go around and get everyone to sign off on it? I've never had a cop ask my permission to record our conversation when he pulls me over. Maybe you're thinking of laws concerning recording phonecalls.

    Only cops have rules about properly obtaining evidence. Evidence obtained by citizens is a lot easier to us in court. I think it was the OJ Simpson trial where this was a big issue - the cops improperly collected evidence so it was thrown out, but other evidence collected by a citizen was used.

  5. #15
    Calm
    Down
    Or
    Get
    A
    2
    Week
    Vacation
    -Love
    The
    Forum
    Policeman
    Wiredwrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,605
    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    All I'm saying is it is better data. And I doubt it would be inadmissible.
    You doubt it. O.K., read this http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...09/ai_n9272007

    Read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding admissability of illegally obtained recordings. Then read up about one party consent and 2 party consent states.

    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    Argue is the wrong word, I'm just saying show the cop what your data shows.
    Nothing is accomplished by that.

    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    When you get a ticket, the cop HAS passed judgement on you - however you want to look at it. He has tested your speed and found you guilty of going over. Now true, our legal system requires a judge to stamp his approval on it to make it official, but if it's your word against the cops you're going to lose every time.
    That is just a plain ignorant statement. First of all, Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Officer arrest and give tickets when they have PROBABLE CAUSE. He has NOT found you guilty. If he had, then you would not need a court . Do you REALLY think that someone is guilty if they are arrested/given a ticket? That is nuts. And, I have beaten ALL of my tickets (well, except one or two) Sure, word against word, the cop probably wins, that is why you need to bring EVIDENCE.

    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    Showing speed records is weaker evidence then showing the records on video WHEN they are fresh.
    Again, that statement is not legally sound. In fact, the Federal Rules of Evidence REQUIRE that the ACTUAL evidence be introduced in court, and evidence of evidence is not allowed. It is called the "best evidence rule", you should read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_evidence_rule

    Of course, we also have the issue of admissability because of relevance. It does not tend to prove or disprove a material fact of consequence to the outcome of a case whether the cop saw your evidence or not, which is the only thing that the video will show. What proves your speed is GPS data, and NOT a picture of your GPS data.

    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    It's a lot harder to fake, therefore better evidence.
    You are correct that evidence must be reliable, and a factor in that is the ability to "fake" it, but all evidence is evaluated on that bassis, and since a video and audio recroding is problematic for the reasons I mentioned above, the fact that it may not be fake is not enough to make it admissable, since the question of authenticity only arises after it is even possible to admit the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    I'm not saying you're going to get out of it, fact is you were probably speeding. But in the rare case you're just being hassled you'll have evidence.

    Besides, cops record everything - I see it on COPS all the time.
    First, that is because the guys from the COPS show run around with a camera and a bright light. If someone refuses to be video taped, and he knows he is being videotaped because the people with cameras, they probably won't show it, AND, the Supreme Court held that a criminal is not protected by privacy rights from being recorded by an officer(http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/05/...html#liability)

    The officer is protected by his right to privacy from being audio recorded. Mind you, audio is the most problematic, but video is probably also problematic.

    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    People take cellphone videos of crap
    True

    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    and it's used as evidence all the time.
    Uh, no it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    Do you think they go around and get everyone to sign off on it?
    See the reasoning above. Lawbreakers have no protection, and "newsworthy" stuff is not private and has no privacy protection, but an officer who is not breaking the law, is protected. Perhaps recording video of him may not be a violation, but ANY audio recording certainly is. Case in point, the rodney king video. First, there was no audio recording of what the officers and King were saying. Anything that was heard on the tape from the officers and King, in that situation, was loud enough for a bunch of poeple to hear, because the videographer was far away, that they would have no real expectation of privacy in what they said. The king video shows the officers action. Like I mentioned, video is less problematic, because no one has an expectation of privacy from being seen when they are in public. The "expectation" of privacy is what the Supreme Court has decided to protect. Also, the beating was newsworthy, and quite probably a video of a criminal offense. BUT, the officer that stopped you is not commiting a criminal offense, he has an expectation that what he is saying is only being heard by you (and the people in the car), and it is not newsworthy.

    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    I've never had a cop ask my permission to record our conversation when he pulls me over. Maybe you're thinking of laws concerning recording phonecalls.
    There is no difference between phone calls and in person conversations. I think I have a link that explains that, but if not, I will find you one later. He doesn't NEED your permission, because he is not attempting to introduce it in court. HERE IS A LINK, http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.p...d=40817&col=75 "

    Quote Originally Posted by gthing View Post
    Only cops have rules about properly obtaining evidence. Evidence obtained by citizens is a lot easier to us in court. I think it was the OJ Simpson trial where this was a big issue - the cops improperly collected evidence so it was thrown out, but other evidence collected by a citizen was used.
    Wow, I wonder where you got your legal education, was it watching the OJ trial? It is true that certain constitutional protections only grant protection from the Government and it's agents. The 4th amendment is not violated if I go through your bag and find drugs, cause only the Gov is barred for illegal searches and seizures. Your 5th amendment right to be represented by counsel when questioned only counts if the police are questioning you. BUT, NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO VIOLATE A PERSONS RIGHT TO PRIVACY. For the most part, video and audio recording is violating a person privacy right. Additionally, the Legislature has enacted laws to protect people from such "hidden recordings" (see the link above), including telephone and in person conversations.

    Can you guess what I do for a living?

    Michael
    ...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

  6. #16
    Confusion Master
    Auto Apps:loading...
    Enforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    If you go down to the woods today, You're sure of
    Posts
    14,625
    Code:
    [QUOTE=gthing;976053]All I'm saying is it is better data.  And I doubt it would be inadmissible.
    
    You doubt it.  O.K., read this http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...09/ai_n9272007
    
    Read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding admissability of illegally obtained recordings.  Then read up about one party consent and 2 party consent states.
    
    A[QUOTE=gthing;976053]rgue is the wrong word, I'm just saying show the cop what your data shows.
    
    Nothing is accomplished by that.
    
    [QUOTE=gthing;976053]When you get a ticket, the cop HAS passed judgement on you - however you want to look at it.  He has tested your speed and found you guilty of going over.  Now true, our legal system requires a judge to stamp his approval on it to make it official, but if it's your word against the cops you're going to lose every time.  
    
    That is just a plain ignorant statement.  First of all, Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  Officer arrest and give tickets when they have PROBABLE CAUSE.  He has NOT found you guilty.  If he had, then you would not need a court .  Do you REALLY think that someone is guilty if they are arrested/given a ticket?   That is nuts.  And, I have beaten ALL of my tickets (well, except one or two)  Sure, word against word, the cop probably wins, that is why you need to bring EVIDENCE.
    
    [QUOTE=gthing;976053]Showing speed records is weaker evidence then showing the records on video WHEN they are fresh.  
    
    Again, that statement is not legally sound.  In fact, the Federal Rules of Evidence REQUIRE that the ACTUAL evidence be introduced in court, and evidence of evidence is not allowed.  It is called the "best evidence rule", you should read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_evidence_rule
    
    Of course, we also have the issue of admissability becasue of relevance.  It does not tend to prove or disprove a material fact of consequence to the outcome of a case whether the cop saw your evidence or not, which is the only thing that the video will show.  What proves your speed is GPS data, and NOT a picture of your GPS data.
    
    [QUOTE=gthing;976053]It's  a lot harder to fake, therefore better evidence.
    
    You are correct that evidence must be reliable, and a factor in that is the ability to "fake" it, but all evidence is evaluated on that bassis, and since a video and audio recroding is problematic for the reasons I mentioned above, the fact that it may be fake is not enough to make it admissable, since the question os authenticity only arises after it is even possible to admit the evidence.
    
    [QUOTE=gthing;976053]I'm not saying you're going to get out of it, fact is you were probably speeding.  But in the rare case you're just being hassled you'll have evidence.
    
    [QUOTE=gthing;976053]Besides, cops record everything - I see it on COPS all the time.  
    
    That is because the Supreme Court held that the officer recording a criminal is not protected by privacy rights (http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/05/...html#liability)
    
    YOU have no such protection for video and audio recording the officer.  Mind you, audio is the most problematic.
    
    [QUOTE=gthing;976053]People take cellphone videos of crap
    
    True
    
    [QUOTE=gthing;976053]and it's used as evidence all the time. 
    
    Uh, no it is not.
    
    [QUOTE=gthing;976053]Do you think they go around and get everyone to sign off on it?
    
    See the reasoning above.  Lawbreakers have no protection, and "newsworthy" stuff is not private and has no privacy protection, but an officer who is not breaking the law, is protected.  Perhaps recording video of him may not be a violation, but ANY audio recording certainly is.
    
    [QUOTE=gthing;976053]I've never had a cop ask my permission to record our conversation when he pulls me over.  Maybe you're thinking of laws concerning recording phonecalls.
    
    There is no difference between phone calls and in person calls.  I think I have link that explains that, but if not, I will find you one later.  He doesn't NEED your permission, because he is not attempting to introduce it in court.  HERE IS A LINK, http://news.inq7.net/opinion/index.p...d=40817&col=75  "
    
    
    
    Wow, I wonder where you got your legal education, was it watching the OJ trial?  It is true that certain constitutional protections only grant protection from the Government and it's agents.  The 4th amendment is not violated if I go through your bag and find drugs, cause only the Gov is barred for illegal searches and seizures.  Your 5th amendment right to be represented by counsel when questioned only counts if the police are questioning you.  BUT, NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO VIOLATE A PERSONS RIGHT TO PRIVACY.  For the most part, video and audio recording is violating a person privacy right.  Additionally, the Legislature has enacted laws to protect people from such "hidden recordings" (see the link above), including telephone and in person conversations.
    
    Can you guess what I do for a living?
    
    Michael



    Michael, you must have been in such a rush to get every bit of information out before you forgot what you wanted to say, you seem to have lost your way with the quote function.

  7. #17
    Calm
    Down
    Or
    Get
    A
    2
    Week
    Vacation
    -Love
    The
    Forum
    Policeman
    Wiredwrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Enforcer View Post

    Michael, you must have been in such a rush to get every bit of information out before you forgot what you wanted to say, you seem to have lost your way with the quote function.
    Ooops, at work, have some things that need to get done, and forgot to close all the quotes. I made the appropriate corrections.

    Michael
    ...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

  8. #18
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiredwrx View Post
    Ooops, at work, have some things that need to get done, and forgot to close all the quotes. I made the appropriate corrections.

    Michael
    Wow, looks like someone went to law school! :P

  9. #19
    Neither darque nor pervert DarquePervert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    13,949
    Quote Originally Posted by legallink View Post
    Wow, looks like someone went to law school! :P
    Yes, law school is a prerequisite to becoming a lawyer.
    Have you looked in the FAQ yet?
    How about the Wiki?



    Under normal circumstances, a signature would go here.

  10. #20
    Calm
    Down
    Or
    Get
    A
    2
    Week
    Vacation
    -Love
    The
    Forum
    Policeman
    Wiredwrx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,605
    Quote Originally Posted by DarquePervert View Post
    Yes, law school is a prerequisite to becoming a lawyer.
    Boy how I wish it wasn't

    Michael
    ...I love the French language...especially to curse with...Nom de Dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperies de connards d'enculés de ta mère. You see, it's like wiping your *** with silk, I love it.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FS: New in Box 7'' Black Lilli VGA Touchscreen
    By wonderworm in forum Classified Archive
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-09-2005, 07:07 PM
  2. FS: New in BOX All Black 7'' Lilliput VGA Touchscreen
    By wonderworm in forum Classified Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 11:58 PM
  3. FS: New in Box 7'' Touchscreen LIlliput, Black
    By wonderworm in forum Classified Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-16-2004, 04:10 PM
  4. Case design for a stowage box.
    By nibix in forum Fabrication
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-10-2004, 05:12 PM
  5. BMW pre-installed system - TFT ?
    By tsingsu in forum LCD/Display
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-05-2002, 02:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •