[legion]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

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.

This is the real issue IMO. Speeding is a crime where you are guilty until proven innocent. This is a perversion of the justice system.