🚀 go-pugleaf

c.c.eiftj@18.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:

>>Actually the odds are about even here.  If you get stopped without a
>>detector the officer may issue a warning or make it a no-point cite.
>>With the detector it's a full blown ticket every time.  We kind of
>>figure that evens things up a little bit.  On top of that most traffic
>>court judges will also increase the fines to the max if the evidence
>>shows the detector was in use. 

>I believe both are illegal practises, in as much as they punish a legal
>activity.  But they are hard to prosecute because (a) both cops and
>judges have immunity from prosecution in such cases, and (b) the
>activity is hard to prove. 

They're hard to prosecute because there's nothing illegal about either
practice.   One judge once stated in court that in his opinion the use
of a radar detector showed intent to commit the violation which he
believed deserved the maximum punishment.  

>Doesn't make it right, though.  If you want
>to punish speeding, punish speeding independent of whether or not a
>radar detector was in use.

Officers have discretion whether to write the full charge or let it go
as a reduced charge or warning.  That has always been perfectly legal.
Likewise the judge has the right to assess a maximum fine on any case
based on the evidence.  Some view the use of a radar detector as
intent which warrants a maximum fine.  In either event the defendant
has an appeal process available and locally as far as I know no one
has appealed such a decision.


efaubion@oklahoma.net
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/