[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
[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?