nrv@ulysses.UUCP (N. Richard Venditto) (02/09/84)
It has been a while and many of you are probably wondering how the State of New Jersey v. Venditto turned out. Score 1 for K-55 radar, 0 for defense. First I would like to thank all of you who contributed information to the cause. You provided the support and encouragement I needed to give it a shot so to speak. Though I lost the case I did learn quite a bit in the process, some of which may be useful to some of you in the future. 1 Do not alienate the officer issuing the summons, but try to be polite and friendly. He may let you off with a warning. In my case I refrained from any hostile comments until after the ticket was in my hands. WRONG THING TO DO! If I had been friendly with the officer after receiving the ticket he might have been more receptive to my plea bargaining attempt in court to lower the convicted speed 3 MPH. This would have made a difference on my permanent driving record. Both judge and prosecuting attorney would have obliged this request, but the officer would not. 2 Ask the officer politely to see the reading on the speed device, and if you dare, ask him to check its calibration as you watch. If the calibration test fails, you're off the hook. If it doesn't fail you still have some hope, though somewhat less than before. 3 If the device is the K-55 radar and you live in N J your chances are bleak. The State of N J, in the interest of justice, conducted a hearing to prove the accuracy of the K-55 device (this can be found in vol. 170 of the N J Superior Court Reports). Essentially they outlined under what circumstances the device can be considered accurate and acceptable evidence. The police and the prosecution are familiar with this case. In addition, MPH Industries, the manufacturer of the K-55, provide the service of practically insuring convictions for the police departments that buy their equipment by providing proper training for the officers (as required by the hearing in vol. 170) and probably the script used by the prosecution in presenting its case. They covered all possible loopholes in the law. 4 The K-55 can be discredited if: a) the officer was in moving mode, either coming towards you or following b) there is traffic in the area with your car, especially trucks or other large vehicles. 5 If the device is other than K-55 you have a chance, though it might require the hiring of an expert witness to testify on your behalf. Only a few specific types of radar have been examined by the state courts. 6 Remember that you are dealing with the legal system and you must change your way of thinking. What seems right is not always admissible evidence. What seems unfair may very well be but without some hard facts the court cannot do anything about it. The system itself can provide you with your defense if you research the legal collections of large library. You should concentrate on the cases tried by the state court, with the most recent having the most impact. 7 For those with the resources and the determination to appeal if necessary: if the officer presents no evidence that suggests he thought you were speeding prior to the reading on the radar, then according to the 4th amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search, he had no probable cause to aim the radar at you in the first place, and any evidence gained by such action would be inadmissible (maybe). Good luck to all of you in your private pursuit of justice, and thanks again. Rich Venditto (ulysses!nrv)
leichter@yale-com.UUCP (Jerry Leichter) (02/10/84)
Another recommendation, for what it's worth; this one comes from Roy Cohen (in his book "How to Fight For Your Rights (and Win)": The cop you are dealing with also deals with many other similar cases all the time. He will have trouble remembering the details of any one case unless something about that case makes it stand out. (It will be a while before the case comes to trial.) So...make your encounter with the cop as short and "usual" as possible. DON'T argue, don't apologize; just accept the ticket and get out of there. When your day in court arrives, there will basically be two stories: Yours and cop's. If yours is specific and has a lot of details, it will be more believable than a vague tale of non-specific wrong-doing on the cop's part; you will have a better chance of carrying the day. This advice is NOT meant to encourage anyone to lie. (Cohen is quite explicit in stating this, but then he has to; if he were to encourage perjury openly, he'd be disbarred. Me, I am under no such legal constraint; I don't encourage lying because it's wrong. It is just a fact of life, however, that the best strategy for the innocent is often also a helpful strategy for the guilty.) -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale