Glock Pro Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In Jackson county....Jefferson. The officer was just over a hill and in a curve where the speed limit dropped to 35 from 45. Radar got me at 56. He was very nice though and didn't ask about any weapons or drugs in the vehicle. I thought officers has to be in plain sight when they were using radar. My cousin lives near by and says this is a speed trap. Is there any way I can fight this? I found a couple of statutes that I think would apply but I don't know how to measure to prove them. Any help would be appreciated.

O.C.G.A. § 40-14-7 (2011)

§ 40-14-7. Visibility of vehicle from which device is operated


No stationary speed detection device shall be employed by county, municipal, college, or university law enforcement officers where the vehicle from which the device is operated is obstructed from the view of approaching motorists or is otherwise not visible for a distance of at least 500 feet.

O.C.G.A. § 40-14-9 (2011)

§ 40-14-9. Evidence obtained in certain areas inadmissible; use of device on hill


Evidence obtained by county or municipal law enforcement officers in using speed detection devices within 300 feet of a reduction of a speed limit inside an incorporated municipality or within 600 feet of a reduction of a speed limit outside an incorporated municipality or consolidated city-county government shall be inadmissible in the prosecution of a violation of any municipal ordinance, county ordinance, or state law regulating speed; nor shall such evidence be admissible in the prosecution of a violation as aforesaid when such violation has occurred within 30 days following a reduction of the speed limit in the area where the violation took place, except that this 30 day limitation shall not apply to a speeding violation within a highway work zone, as defined in Code Section 40-6-188, or in an area with variable speed limits, as defined in Code Section 40-6-182. No speed detection device shall be employed by county, municipal, or campus law enforcement officers on any portion of any highway which has a grade in excess of 7 percent
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,962 Posts
Go post this on GPDO ... I dare you. :p

Man up and pay the ticket. Unless there is some really blatant disregard for all things legal the officers know what they are doing & how they can do it within the law. Most actually have sort of pre-checked, measured (roughly at least) distances, line of sight, etc. for their honey holes. It is unlikely you would get out of the ticket in court anyway. Slow down and take it as a lesson learned.

Most places called "speed traps" are merely places the LEOs take traffic enforcement seriously. Usually, these are going to either be (1) places with a budget high enough to have a dedicated traffic unit (2) places with a low rate of "real" crimes or (3) places where they use traffic enforcement as a means of reducing drug trafficing through their area.

I will say this though ... I am always careful with my speed in Jackson County. You think Jefferson is bad ... go through Arcade (at least I think Arcade is also in Jackson County).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
I friend of mine was in a similar situation, fought and won. It was on a highway exit where the speed drops to 45 and right after to 35. He presented pictures of similar exits on the same highway where the speed was 45 and didn't drop to 35, arguing that there was no reason for the specific exit to have a 35 MPH limit. BUT, he was clocked at 47 MPH, which would be OK for a 45 limit. Unfortunately you were way above even if it was a 45 MPH limit.

Maybe that's not what you want to hear, but you should accept responsibility for it. I'm sure many folks speed at that section, you were just unlucky to get caught.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
Right. You were already doing 11 over the original speed limit and didn't slow down for the drop from 45 to 35. You can get away with about 10 MPH on any given time but 21 over is a bit excessive, don't you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
I guess no one cares whether this speed trap was set up in an illegal location according to the GA statutes that I posted.
It's not that we don't care, but Vol is probably right in that this guy wouldn't have set up there if he didn't have good intel from his predecessors that it was a hot spot. I'd say go for it, but remember, traffic court is inherently "fast and furious", so the judges move em' in and move em' out quickly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,883 Posts
We care, but you may have other issues to contend with. If you are wanting to pursue the speed trap issue, you may want to do a little homework. I would go back to the scene and physically measure the distances at which you originally mentioned. You could take some pictures of the sign in relation to the officers position as well as the line of site. If all your claims are in line with the statute that you quoted, you may stand a chance. On the other hand your speed is going to be your other challenge to contend with. You may consider having a plan B in case the judge doesn't see things your way.
 

·
None
Joined
·
1,525 Posts
Here is an article that I wrote on speed detection in GA:

Notes on Speed Detection « Chief Weems' Blog

I am familiar with the area, and I do not recall a hill anywhere there that approaches a 7% grade.

The visibility requirement is 500 feet. This doesn't mean that you have to actually have seen them. It simply means that they have to be visible visible.

GA requires a permit for local agencies to run speed detection. The specific portions of roadways have to be listed on the permit. If the grade is over 7%, that portion of roadway would not be approved and on their permit.

At 56mph, it only takes you six seconds to cover 500 feet.

The officer has to conduct a visual estimation of speed and establish a tracking history. I expect that it took him six seconds to do all of that.

It is also common that in places where officers run stationary radar that all of this stuff has already been measured by the agency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
as for the first one, i dont think he counts as a stationary radar device, since he was in his car. i am thinking that pertains to the camera ones that are planted there (do you have those there?)

and i am willing to bet the officer knows where his 600 ft. limit is.

you were going 56... in a 45. you take it to a judge and you might get the fine reduced... but you wont win.

im interested to hear what zenas has to say......
 

·
None
Joined
·
1,525 Posts
as for the first one, i dont think he counts as a stationary radar device, since he was in his car. i am thinking that pertains to the camera ones that are planted there (do you have those there?)

and i am willing to bet the officer knows where his 600 ft. limit is.

you were going 56... in a 45. you take it to a judge and you might get the fine reduced... but you wont win.

im interested to hear what zenas has to say......
If he was parked, he was running stationary radar under GA law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
According to my GPS coordinates from where his car was parked and the location of the reduced speed change sign, he was only 289 ft away from the sign. This was inside the Jefferson City limits.

O.C.G.A. § 40-14-9 (2011)

§ 40-14-9. Evidence obtained in certain areas inadmissible; use of device on hill

Evidence obtained by county or municipal law enforcement officers in using speed detection devices within 300 feet of a reduction of a speed limit inside an incorporated municipality or within 600 feet of a reduction of a speed limit outside an incorporated municipality or consolidated city-county government shall be inadmissible in the prosecution of a violation of any municipal ordinance, county ordinance, or state law regulating speed;

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,962 Posts
It is also common that in places where officers run stationary radar that all of this stuff has already been measured by the agency.
This is exactly what I am getting at. I know LEOs from lots of different agencies and they have all told me pretty much the same. They know where they are legal and they are not. Also, considering this county is often referred to as a speed trap ... they are aware they will be under close scrutiny. Doubtful they would try to get away with something.

I do find it kind of interesting you are going through this much trouble to try to get out of a few bucks; taking GPS coordinates, surveying the grade, physically measuring, etc. I think you are going to be sorely disappointed when it is all for not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,883 Posts
Melissa,
I don't blame you for doing whatever it takes to get out of a ticket. With the fines, and insurance that comes with a ticket, I don't think anyone wouldn't want to at least try to fight it if possible. Who knows, sometimes hard work and a little luck pays off. You are right, cops aren't perfect and they do make mistakes. If a mistake works out in your favor, rock on. It is our duty as citizens to keep them in check as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,142 Posts
I'm just glad I don't prosecute in Georgia. In Ohio it is my burden to show the device was working properly and was a device that was using acceptable technology, then it is the burden of the defense to try to point out issues with its reliability in each case such as distances and such. If my officer testifies the radar is of the type approved and was calibrated properly, that he witnessed a visual estimation of speed, and that his radar confrimed that estimation, I can get a conviction. If the defense claims there wasn't enough distance to get a good readout, he can attempt to challenge it on his case in chief. Sounds like overlegislation to me.

Anyway, as for my opinion of this case, I agree with doing your own homework. Check for yourself if the cop was wrong. Then if you think so, take it to trial. I firmly believe we have a right to a trial no matter what. The burden of proof is on the State as it should be, and therefore we should hold the State to that burden. And you are right, cops make mistakes and we shouldn't blindly trust them. I personally would pay the ticket since I knew I was speeding, but I see nothing wrong with holding the State to their burden at trial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,962 Posts
You know...cops aren't infallible and I hope you don't blindly trust them to always do the right thing.
I don't blindly trust anyone ... LEO or otherwise.

However, we are all making assumptions (and posts) based on one of the following theories;

1. The LEO is acting within his understanding of the laws he is charged with enforcing.

2. The LEO is negligent in his duties.

3. The LEO is dishonest.

That's what it comes down to.

I won't post any further on this topic.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top