Twitter

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

I want to apologize in advance, but this is more of a venting post than pertaining to anything politically important.

So, on January 28th of this year I was pulled over and cited for going 65 MPH in a 55 MPH by the California Highway Patrol. The area where I was observed is a very curvy, dark mountain road. It's very difficult to go faster than 55 MPH in a truck that weighs 2.5 tons.

I had my court case today and I did research and compiled my evidence to best help me beat this ticket. A CHP officer relies on two tools to issue a speeding ticket. 1) Visual Estimation and 2) Radar.

My first goal was to discredit the radar gun. According to jurisprudence, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty and it's up to the officer to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am guilty and sometimes his word alone is not sufficient enough, especially when documents are available to provide proof. I asked the officer if he brought in his certificate of calibration of the radar unit where he then stated that he did not. I asked the judge to dismiss the radar unit as evidence since there was no way to be certain that it was properly functioning and calibrating on the evening of January 28. The judge overruled my motion. He said the inexperienced (2 years as an officer) officers word was enough to convince him it was operational.

My second goal was to use the officers own testimony on his visual estimation to discredit that as evidence. I asked the officer how far was the distance that he observed my vehicle and he said 300 feet. I asked him for how long did he observe it and he said 4 seconds. I used basic math in the court and said that's 75 feet per second. A car traveling 1 MPH goes 1.466 feet per second. So you take the 75 feet per second and divide it by 1.466 to determine the rate of travel. Which comes up to 51 MPH which was exactly the speed I advised the judge that I was traveling.

My third goal was to present evidence that I have a damaged knee and that I use cruise control while driving so that allows me to be aware of my speed and posted speed limits more so than an average user. I provided X-Rays and MRI's which the judge refused to look at, on top of refusing to look at photographic evidence of the area since he's lived in this county for 76 years of his life.

The entire day he was fairly reasonable, but abrupt with each defendant. He'd let them know that they really didn't build a defense and they never refuted anything the officer said. When it came to me, all he would say was "I'm not buying it."

I'm not asking you to buy it. I'm asking you to take the evidence presented and make an intelligent, well thought out decision. Everything I stated was true. The only thing that probably hurt me was me being nervous since this was my first time defending myself. So I rabbled through my points kind of quick. Maybe that came off as cocky or lying? I don't know. All I know is apparently I'm guilty until proven innocent when it comes to defending myself against a police officer, despite the evidence I provide and the lack of evidence he submits. I will be appealing this decision.

/rant