Was ordered by the court to provide information on - Page 2

96TransAm · 01-04-2007, 06:55 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Wiredwrx

I will then chalk that up to an idiot cop and judge. I would have countered "but how do we know that you recorded it on SUCH AND SUCH DATE, and not the next day, and just used your computer to play a track from a different day/modified a different track to seem like it is from the day of the ticket. I guess the judge is just looking to let you off, but wants to give the cop a little fighting chance.

I hope you beat the ticket.

Michael

They did bring up that point, and I told them that that was beyond my capabilities, but if they were going to reach so far as to say I manipulated the entire thing, that it wouldn't matter what form of evidence I provided because anything can be forged/manipulated if enough time effort, and money is put into it.

96TransAm · 01-04-2007, 06:58 PM

The prosecution totally lost it when the Judge asked us to both write our case with technical data. He argued with the judge for 15 minutes that that was asinine for a speeding ticket and it was costing the city to much money.

After I first showed the video he tried to have it revoked saying it did not apply to the case. When the judge told him it obviously did because I was tracking my route he became very agitated, and started to act unprofessional.

Wiredwrx · 01-04-2007, 06:58 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Enforcer

Could set a nice little precedence

Well, it would have to be published, and traffic courts rarely if ever, get published and cited as precedence. All the California cases that I have cited during traffic court have gone to at least the superior court level (traffic is part of the Municipal court) and usually to at least the court of appeals.

Now, if it gets published, that would be quite interesting. It does give us all some hope though.

Michael

Wiredwrx · 01-04-2007, 07:03 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by 96TransAm

The prosecution totally lost it when the Judge asked us to both write our case with technical data. He argued with the judge for 15 minutes that that was asinine for a speeding ticket and it was costing the city to much money.

After I first showed the video he tried to have it revoked saying it did not apply to the case. When the judge told him it obviously did because I was tracking my route he became from aggitaed, and started to act unprofessional.

Prosecution sounds like a real winner. If it was costing the city so much money, then they should ask the court to dismiss the citation and be done with it.

I have consistently said, going to court and MAKING THE PROSECUTION make it's case is the best thing you can do. The cops think you are just gonna pay the ticket, and the prosecution thinks that even if you do fight it, you will be like a majority of the people who fight tickets, and come to court with no evidence, and say something like, Yo Hona, dere aint no ways my cars was goin dat fast, iz an 87 chevy (don't laugh, I was in court once (well several times) and heard someone say almost that exact phrase.) Of course, he lost. If you show up half knowing what you are talking about, acting and looking professional, the judge tends to listen more. Traffic court for the most part is the same ole thing, over and over, if the judge sees something unique, he tends to listen.

Michael

96TransAm · 01-04-2007, 07:09 PM

I presented my self niceley, I wore a suit, brought a brief case.

I started the case asking the officer specific information about his radar. model, training he received on it, if it was by a qualified radar instructor. I then asked him if he was aware of radar 'ghosts' or false positives. he said no, I then showed them information on what can make a radar show a false reading...even the modern units they kept bragging about.

After all of this I showed the video, and that's when things got interesting.

96TransAm · 01-04-2007, 07:12 PM

After this is over I will start a new thread with the results and provide detailed information. Right now I really need the information in my first few posts, and I'm on a very tight time table.

v8 scimitar · 01-04-2007, 07:21 PM

I hope you win this. I failed in the UK purely because my equipment wasn't certified and the police equipment was. No amount of arguing was going to change the verdict. The courts here wont accept the anything can be tampered with either because the police are honest and would never do such a thing where I am just Joe public and of course I would. Yeh right to the police being honest.

Anyway best of luck to you.

Marvin Hlavac · 01-05-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by 96TransAm

I don't want to try and explain how the microsoft gps receiver I stated I had magically turned into a pharos receiver...

Here's a link to the press release by Pharos from 2005 announcing a renewed contract with Microsoft to supply GPS receivers for Microsoft Streets & Trips: http://www.pharosgps.com/news/press/20051012.htm

96TransAm · 01-05-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Marvin Hlavac

Here's a link to the press release by Pharos from 2005 announcing a renewed contract with Microsoft to supply GPS receivers for Microsoft Streets & Trips: http://www.pharosgps.com/news/press/20051012.htm

That is great, but I would like it to be as black and white as possible. Does anyone have something just like that but announcing they will be doing it for 2005?

Marvin Hlavac · 01-05-2007, 10:38 AM

"...perhaps 0.5mph accuracy in typical automobile applications would be what you can count on."

Source: http://gpsinformation.net/main/gpsspeed.htm

Marvin Hlavac · 01-05-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by 96TransAm

That is great, but I would like it to be as black and white as possible. Does anyone have something just like that but announcing they will be doing it for 2005?

I will still look. But if we don't find anything better, the press release does state this is a renewal of the contract.

durwood · 01-05-2007, 11:05 AM

Why not try to find documents on NMEA specifications? It looks like they cost a bit of money though. Kind of defeats the purpose of not paying the ticket. It's standard so each string of data contains the info about speed correct?

So if its the slowest baudrate of 4800, I think I read somewhere that GPS data is updated every second. They were concerned with how quickly your speed can be measured right, so I don't think you could slow down that quickly. I hope my thinking helps you in some way. Good luck

96TransAm · 01-05-2007, 11:14 AM

Correct, the officer said I could have gone from 35-50 and back down to 45 before the GPS readout updated.

nkotch · 01-05-2007, 11:27 AM

If you need something more black and white than that press announcement then you'll probably need to contact either Pharos or Microsoft directly and see if they had a document available online you can download or some sort of statement they can fax/email to you. Probably easy to deal with Pharos though if going that route.

I would think though that all you need is to find which chipset that gps used and then find the specs for that chipset, which wouldn't be too hard. You may bring up that with just about all electronic equipment there many more "brands" than there are actual manufacturers/supplies and with just about any device the "brand" name stamped on it didn't manufacture or put together the entire product, so it's really not that relevant as long as you know which receiver chipset is in it and can show that the chipset meets certain GPS specs.

Not sure if you've done it yet but you may also want bring in some sort of "How GPS works" guide from a reputable site showing how the system as a whole works so that the prosecution can't bring up technically bogus claims of the signal being delayed 30 seconds or something.

Good luck with this! I got a speeding ticket several months ago and I was fairly certain that I was not going as fast as the cop said I was, but the computer wasn't on at the time and thus no GPS log......

suffice it to say that I will know be logging everything just in case.

96TransAm · 01-05-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by nkotch

If you need something more black and white than that press announcement then you'll probably need to contact either Pharos or Microsoft directly and see if they had a document available online you can download or some sort of statement they can fax/email to you. Probably easy to deal with Pharos though if going that route.

I would think though that all you need is to find which chipset that gps used and then find the specs for that chipset, which wouldn't be too hard. You may bring up that with just about all electronic equipment there many more "brands" than there are actual manufacturers/supplies and with just about any device the "brand" name stamped on it didn't manufacture or put together the entire product, so it's really not that relevant as long as you know which receiver chipset is in it and can show that the chipset meets certain GPS specs.

Not sure if you've done it yet but you may also want bring in some sort of "How GPS works" guide from a reputable site showing how the system as a whole works so that the prosecution can't bring up technically bogus claims of the signal being delayed 30 seconds or something.

Good luck with this! I got a speeding ticket several months ago and I was fairly certain that I was not going as fast as the cop said I was, but the computer wasn't on at the time and thus no GPS log......

suffice it to say that I will know be logging everything just in case.

I have found many how GPS works sites that have a ton of golden information, the problem is they also go into detail on how a GPS signal can be inaccurate while traveling through the atmosphere. By inaccurate they mean down to a very small degree...and even that gets worked out when comparing it with other satellites...but they don't say that which will give the prosecution valuable ammo.

Here is one I liked http://www.howstuffworks.com/gps.htm

Also, remember I have already been to court, this part is going to be mailed in, and the prosecution gets the final word...so anywhere I leave myself open I won't be able to defend myself.