[Jeff Higgins]

Mike Valentine used to have an article on the web about the problems with certain instant-on technologies. Something about taking a reading before they had enough time to go through some critical, self-checking verification cycle. The initial reading was absolutely unrelieable because of this. The manufacturer apparently knows this, and most departments using this model know this as well.

Does this prevent these departments from using them in this mode and busting people when they know full well they may be getting false readings? Hell no. Does this prevent courts from convicting based on these questionable readings? Again, hell no. So what is the answer?

Most folks do not realize traffic courts generally operate under the "preponderance of evidence" standard. This is a level of evidence intended for use in civil courts, where the court must find for one of the parties in the suit. It means essentially that "51%" of the available "proof" tilts it one way or another. It has too, really. The judge has to find for some one. But is "preponderance" appropriate for use in traffic court?

Hell no. The "State" (meaning any governmental jurisdiction for the sake of brevity) has charged a citizen with wrong doing. The standard used to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", just as in any criminal case in which the State charges a citizen. The State changed the rules when no one was looking, to the far lower "preponderance" standard, because they simply could not win under the "reasonable doubt" standard. They are miss-applying the lower standard simply to get more convictions.

Virtually any judge will assume 51% on the fact that you are there alone; on the fact that the cop wrote you. There is no longer effectively any burden of proof placed upon the State to prove you did it. Cop says you did; you did. You are now effectivle guilty until you can prove your innocence. Even with all of the players on the State's side knowing full well there are problems with radar in general, and instant on in particular. I will never feel the least bit guilty for running one in this environment, even if it is illegal to do so. What the State has chose to do in the name of traffic enforcement is illegal as well.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Here in the states, even if a cop thinks he got a "hit" on his detector detector, he still has to figure out who it was. If it is discretely mounted that is all but impossible, unless you are the only car in sight on the road. Even then, if you can get it locked in the glove box before he stops you, he has absolutley no legal right to ask you to open it for inspection. The only things he gets to look at are those that are visible from outside of the car. He cannot look in the glove box, the trunk, under the hood, or under the seats. Any luggage, brief cases, back packs, jackets, or whatever require a search warrant to inspect. So unless it is still in plain sight when he stops you, he will have to get a warrant to find it.

Yes, most will try like hell to intimidate you into consenting to a search. Here in the U.S., they can only detain you for a "reasonable" amount of time. Most courts consider 10-15 minutes "reasonable", after which time, in the absence of a warrant or any evidence, they must let you go. Most won't be able to turn up a warrant in that amount of time. The best part is, you don't even have to answer their questions, or talk to them at all for that matter. Provide them your license, registration, proof of insurance and shut up. If you have stuffed the thing into your glove box, or a backpack sitting next to you on the seat, or wherever, they will have one hell of a time finding it unless you let them.