Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!wjh12!n44a!ima!inmet!grw
From: grw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Radar Traps - (nf)
Message-ID: <651@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Dec-83 23:42:49 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.651
Posted: Fri Dec 23 23:42:49 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Dec-83 00:28:47 EST
Lines: 17

#R:circe:-2500:inmet:2700037:000:884
inmet!grw    Dec 22 11:10:00 1983

Perhaps you should consider the ticket an 'educational expense' and invest
in a good radar detector to protect yourself from future problems.  

The courts are not likely to throw out radar evidence unless you can 
demonstrate that the gun was not a)used properly, b)serviced properly, 
and/or c)maintained regularly.  I do know of a case that was dismissed when 
the defense showed that the arresting officer had only second hand 
information regarding the proper function of the radar gun (i.e. he had 
no personal involvement in the maintenence and calibration of the gun 
and assumed it was working properly).  The success of such a defense 
depends heavily on how well prepared the police officer is, how good the 
records kept by the police department of maintenence to the guns is, and 
whether the judge has an open mind.  A very good trial lawyer, of course, 
helps as well.