Radar terminology question...

[williamssd]

Hi All,

I recently pinched a guy doing 46 in a 25. He was a car salesman, and stated he knew why I stopped him when I asked. He said he was in a hurry to get to a dealership, because if he wasn't there in a "few minutes" the people were going to go to Appleton (WI) to purchase a vehicle. He said he knew it wasn't an excuse, but that's why he was speeding.

Well, I took my sweet-a$$ time writing that citation. Anyhow, I decided that since it was early afternoon, traffic was heavy, and he had been living in the area for at least ten years, I was writing him for the full amount (our municipal traffic court allows me to write the ticket for a lower amount, as long as record the "actual" in the agency space on the UTC).

Anyhow, I hand it to him and begin explaining it. I'm in my same routine, and I was my usual monotonous self. This guy flips, and asks, "So you're not gonna' give me a break?" I told him, "No, sir, I'm not." I have full audio/video in my car, and wear a very sensitive lapel mic. He starts asking where I started tracking him, what kind of radar/laser I was using, etc. etc. He started getting just plain nasty, and stated, "I was a law enforcement officer for 15 years, and I've been through the same training as you..." Then he asks if I know what "fencing" is? I'm radar certified in WI, and have never heard of this term before.

My question is if any of you from other states have heard of "fencing" in your radar training/ceritification?

The best thing is, he drops my Inspector's name saying their good friends, and he was going to make a phone call to let the Inspector know I refused to answer his questions (I answered a LOT of his pathetic, irritating questions, but eventually told him he could continue this at his non-mandatory court appearance because I need to get back on the road).

I checked with my Inspector, and he cracks up laughing (I was nervous at first because for one I'm new, and two I figured this really was a friend of his). My Inspector tells me this guy was washed out of our hiring process because he lied during the process -- either app or BI, I can't remember what the boss said. The Inspector said he did get a voicemail from the guy, and wasn't going to return the call. After I told the boss what happened, he laughed more and said now he WAS going to call the guy back.

Sorry for the long-winded story, but being a freakin' rookie I had to share it. I'm guessing I'll have MANY more of these in the future.

Thanks,
- Steve

PS: I even told the City Attorney about the citation, and she said she'll watch for it and prosecute it to the hilt. She's great, and will always back up us city officers.

[governor]

This comes straight from the FDLE Radar Operators Course manual:

Scanning:

The scanning effect may be produced when a hand held stationary RADAR is swung swiftly or "scanned" past the side of a parked car, a brick wall, or some other stationary object. Scanning can be eliminated by holding the RADAR unit stationary while obtaining a speed reading and obtaining a thorough tracking history.

Scanning effect in moving RADAR purports that an error in patrol speed can be produced by a chain link fence along the edge of the road, feeding a repetitive signal into the patrol speed window and thus causing an error.

There is no error produced here, because the fence or any other terrain feature simply serves to give the RADAR a target for patrol speed. Any scanning error that is claimed in moving RADAR can be refuted in court by obtaining a thorough tracking history and verifying the patrol speed.

Hope this helps.

George

[DelC]

Originally posted by williamssd
. . . I'm guessing I'll have MANY more of these in the future. . . Yep, you don't have to guess about it, it's a given. The guy sounds like the typical idiot. When they start dropping names, I always tell them; "Good, maybe you can have them take care of this ticket for you"

"fencing" I've never heard of as a "term" and I've been certified in the use of radar in two different jurisdictions, since the early 80's. "Scanning effect", yes but not "fencing". Relax, the guy was just blowing smoke.

When you go to court on a radar ticket, just remember to take the paper work where the unit was last certified/calibrated, be sure to state the radar was operating properly, you had made the external checks on it, (tuning forks, etc) no ghosting images were present, no electrical interference or other interference, you had tracked the auto visually for an x amount of distance, the vehicle appeared to be exceeding the posted speed limit of x MPH, a check with your radar unit confirmed the vehicle was speeding and indicated the vehicle was traveling x MPH and you will do fine.

[FLdeputy]

Fencing:

1. A structure serving as an enclosure, a barrier, or a boundary, usually made of posts or stakes joined together by boards, wire, or rails.
2. The art or sport of fencing.
3. One who receives and sells stolen goods.
4. A place where stolen goods are received and sold

I have extensive training in police radar operation and have never heard of the term "fencing" used in relation to radar operation.

The previous poster mentioned scanning, and there are other factors that can adversely affect radar operation, such as mirror switching, patrol speed shadow, panning, cosine effect, multipath beam cancellation, a/c fans, etc. (many more). But all of these can be easily avoided by an experienced and well trained operator.

Provided you can certify that the radar was operating properly and have accumulated a valid tracking history, complete with visual speed estimation, doppler audio confirmation, radar reading, and speedometer verification (if moving), you should have no problem in court.

FLdeputy

[williamssd]

I was pretty sure there wasn't a "fencing" phenomenon in radar usage. I'm familiar with batching and scanning, but was caught a little off-guard with "fencing." Unless he was referring to the sport. I was in moving mode, and there were definitely no fences around. I didn't mention it, but my Inspector also said the guy was never in law enforcement.

I'm betting the guy put himself through recruit school, and then through radar certification to improve his chances at a LE job. He did ask some pretty good questions, though.

Doesn't matter to me. I tracked him for 75 feet at my vehicle speed (23 mph), and had clear and steady audio tone (no interference), and the distance between his SUV and the little car in the left lane -- slightly back from his -- was opening very, very quickly.

Actually, I'm kinda' hoping this a-hole tries fighting this one in court. I hate testifying for anything (have only had to once in the last year for a criminal case, never once for a traffic case), but if I'm going to I want to win.

If this one goes to court, I'll make sure I find this post and add some details. ;)

Thanks again,
- Steve

[DelC]

Originally posted by williamssd
. . . I hate testifying for anything. . . My favorite part of the job. Love to put the a-hole's in there place.

[gbcop]

Originally posted by williamssd
I was writing him for the full amount (our municipal traffic court allows me to write the ticket for a lower amount, as long as record the "actual" in the agency space on the UTC).


I thought that it was up to courts and not the officer's to play judge when it came to fines? No Flames intended, just curious. Because that's not how it works down here.

[governor]

I think he was referring to the highest speed and not the fine. I think he was saying that he could have put a lower speed on the UTC as long as he recorded the actual speed.

George

[williamssd]

I'm not allowed to "increase" the speed to increase the fine, but I have the discretion to write the citation for a "lower" speed of the same infraction -- effectively reducing the bond (fine) amount -- since that was technically an offense they committed, and exceeded. This is similar to my discretion to write one, or many, citation(s) for a/many traffic offenses. Do I write the citation, or write a warning citation, or verbally warn?

Ultimately, my Asst. City Attorney will listen to our opinion on prosecuting cases in municipal court. Typically she's the one who would decide what speed to charge someone with (the judge doesn't decide immediately, though can during or after presentation of evidence/testimony), however she understands that she's not present at the traffic stop, and therefore doesn't have all of the information on the stop to evaluate the totality of circumstances for explaining the discretion we use at the time. Basically, she trusts us (city officers) and makes it a definite point to include out opinions in how she tries a case.

Overall, she really works with us, rather than sees herself as "above" the officers on the street. I'm 26 years old, and was talking with her the other day in her office and she asked my opinion on a purely legal issue in a case, and I only have a B.S. degree.

That's the reason for me being allowed to lower the official speed on a UTC. That may not be the case in every jurisdiction in WI, but it's certainly not against the WI Constitution.

I'm not offended at the question, in fact I like it because now I have a (relatively) well thought out response to it for when I'm asked by family or friends later. Anyone is invited to play "devil's advocate" too, since as a rookie that's how I'll learn.

Take care and be safe, everyone.

- Steve

[zee1313]

i think it should be also noted that if an officer does lower the speed on the ticket, if the violator takes the ticket to court and is found guilty of the infraction, often times the fine is raised to its full amount by the court.

(my opinion follows) maybe that is just a way to lower the amount of tickets that go to court (the possibility of a higher fine when there were getting a break) since it could be considered a waste of an officers time if he has to go to court for tickets too much.

[K9 Police]

From one very new rookie to another more veteran rookie. :D

So this guy is going 46 mph in a 25 mph zone. On the UTC, in the "actual" space you but 46. In the "limit" (I think thats what it is called) you put 25. And in the "over" you put 21. But, if your discretion dictates, you can write the dollar amount for that speed or any lower speed? As long as the speed numbers don't change. So if the actual amount for going 21(that bracket) over for you is $200, you could do $200 or any lower bracket? Basically, I am just a little confused on how you are writing out the UTC. Then you are looking at the bond book and thinking should I get him for this bracket speed, or another lower one.

I find this interesting due to the fact that I was taught that you leave it as what you saw and let a judge decide if the monetary and points should stand or go down. Like you said though, this sounds like a jurisdiction thing that doesn't apply down here.

K9

[williamssd]

Hi K9!

Good to hear from you... how is Racine treating you?

Well, "rookie-ness" is bliss. The way my department wants it written, is in the three boxes (the official part of the UTC), I would list whatever maximum speed would drop the person into the lower bracket -- my pick. Then I would list limit for that area, and then put the amount over. In the "agency space" I would list, "Actual: 46 mph" for the city attorney.

Basically, command staff, city attorney, municipal judge, and circuit judges here accept that. In recruit school I was taught to either write for the true speed, or give written/verbal warnings. Is Racine any different?

Stay safe,
- Steve

[K9 Police]

Racine is going good. I was also taught in the recruit training either you write for the true speed or give a warning. It was explained to us that the judge can make the final determination.

Hope everything is going good up there, haven't heard from you in awhile. I can understand how busy it can be. Stay safe up there and keep in touch.

K9

[Masscop]

In Mass, the basic, and lowest fine for speeding is $50.00

After 10 mph over the limit, the fine increases at the rate of $10.00 per mile over.

So if the limit is 55 and your driving 75, the fine is $150.00, however, I do not have to cite you for the $150.00, I can give you a break and only cite you for the basic $50.00.

The prosecuters do suggest writing for the full amount just in case they appeal the ticket, they will sometimes lower the fine amount to keep the public happy. If I only wrote for the $50.00, then there is no room for the prosecuter to move except to drop it completely.

Just another perspective that may help you guys.

[USSS1811]

just to chime in on the actual particulars of the Wisconsin UTC. whatever speed you note in the "actual" box and corresponding speed you note in the "over" box is what you smoke the defendant for in the bail/bond box (as listed in the bond book). and in Wisconsin, the officer has the discretion to adjust the bond amount by noting a speed other than the max speed or locked speed of the defendant. however, sometimes that can bite you in court, but some judges appreciate and understand the concept of officer discretion. personnally, i reduced tickets in the field regularly. WI forfeitures for traffic violations are huge!

ps
fencing in BS. remember your radar checks before and after the stop and your "tracking history checklist" and you will be fine in court. but usually the big mouths dont fight the tickets anyway. have fun and stay warm!