When a cop gives you a ticket for speeding or not wearing a seatbelt, how does he prove that you actually did this if he doesn't have it on video? Couldn't a cop just point the radar detector at another car and then say it was you? It's basically your word against his in court, and isn't that just hearsay? Don't they actually need to prove that you did something in order to punish you for it?
2007-01-31 06:39:21 · 8 answers · asked by dust1n1488 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
It's usually his word against yours and his usually carries more weight.
2007-01-31 06:46:15 · answer #1 · answered by Herr Raging Boehner. 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, the police officer is considered the "expert" in court testimony, because he is trained and certified to know the laws and vehicle codes. If he made an error in writing out the ticket, you can ask to have the case dismissed, but, other than that, you have to prove that you didn't, or couldn't, have done what he claims you did. If you do get a ticket, ask to go to court. If the police officer doesn't show up, the case is dismissed, and you win. And even if he does show up, you can usually ask for either a reduced sentence (Tell the judge how poor you are) or ask to go to traffic school. That keeps the conviction off your record. But the single most important thing: Anything you admit to the officer before or during the time he writes your ticket can be used as evidence against you. If, for example, he asks you "Do you know how fast you were going?" and you say "No", then you're guilty, because part of the driving laws state that you always must know your vehicle's speed. Likewise, if you say "57 miles an hour?" in a 55 zone, you're admitting you were speeding, and you just confessed your guilt - he has to write a ticket for that.
2007-01-31 14:49:57 · answer #2 · answered by mvsopen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A police officer is a disinterested observer. When he testifys in court he cites observations and evidence. Judges normally give a lot of weight to their testimony. Video is just another tool to prove guilt. Its not necessary for a conviction. What would be the purpose of pointig a RADAR gun at another car. There's no printout it just shows a number in a window.
Its not just his word against yours. Its the word of an officer of the law against yours.
2007-01-31 20:45:02 · answer #3 · answered by JOHN 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well how can you prove that you didn't. The issue is that a police officer has the upper hand in the situation and does not need to show you his radar if he pulls you over.
2007-01-31 15:01:49 · answer #4 · answered by Michael R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
a police officer acts as a witness when he issues you a citiation. obviously, the law gives quite a bit of strength to the word of the police officer, otherwise, how could there be enfocement if no one was trusted enough to do it. so, yes there is a good deal of trust in the testimony given by a police officer. why would a good police officer lie about you speeding or wearing a seat belt
2007-01-31 18:41:57 · answer #5 · answered by Officer Baz Says... 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You would be surprised at the technology used these days..As a former police officer, dont embarass yourself by fighting a speeding ticket...it will cost 5 times as much and you will lose 95% of the time
2007-01-31 14:45:33 · answer #6 · answered by exidement99 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In the end it is just your word versus the officer's. But it is not heresay, because he saw it himself. The burden of proof is not high because the violation is only an infraction.
2007-01-31 14:58:52 · answer #7 · answered by vlad35421 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Does it matter? If you kill someone, and no one sees it, you can still be tried and convicted based on evidence found at the scene.
Moral of the story: Don't speed, and don't kill anyone.
2007-01-31 14:46:59 · answer #8 · answered by SassySours 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋