My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Wisconsin
I've fought a good fight, but I am a bit taken aback at what has transpired here and maybe someone can knock some sense into me. I made myself aware of the case law for Wisconsin (State v. Hanson being the kingpin, and two later cases State v. Kramer and Washington County v. Luedtke). I'm going to give the disclaimer that I am a technical person, and understand the workings of these systems incredibly well, maybe my downfall is that the uninformed judges and officers and prosecutors could give two shakes about details, even if I have tried to make them aware of their importance.
The standard is clear and convincing, the existing later case law has testimony from officers operating moving RADAR that testify to the input speed of the patrol car and the speedometer speed in exact figures. They also testify to the exact times of calibration. They range from 1-2 hours before the stop, and in both cases only minutes after the stop (immediately, for all intensive purposes). The present case in question had a calibration long before the stop but within reasonable proximity to established cases, but the post-stop calibration was around 10 times longer than any in the existing case law. The more important detail, in my opinion, was that the officer testified to improperly calibrating the device by striking the forks on a metal surface, in direct conflict with the operator's manual. I got him to recognize the manual and it was admitted into evidence. I read about the damage that can be caused and how minor damage affects the forks. He couldn't testify if the forks matched the unit. (In WI there is no need for independent calibration of the forks and unit, which is sad because these things really should be checked by someone independent to get the trust of the public).
Can anyone tell me why the judge took absolutely no objection to this gross lack of procedure? The manuals state it can cause inaccuracy/invalid calibration which I raised both in my closing arguments and questioned the officer about. The officer also couldn't testify in a clear way to his training and had no certificates on file with the department to prove it either.
The calibration timeframes required (that have sufficient value) in Hanson are very vague, to the point where I believe the only way to get clarity is an appeal. I can't see any judge(s), aside the supreme court, attempting to create precedent by clarifying an establisted standard, vague as it is. So I'm not terribly surprised that these arguments of mine were set aside.
What I would like to know is WHY the existing case law is so clear and concise (in my view) with specific details and why the present case requires no details at all. This was a trial de novo, and during the first trial the officer didn't even know what RADAR unit was being used when I questioned him about it!! There are no paper records or logs of anything, yet they stand even when questioned for more scrutiny. Am I misled by the existing cases - does clear and convincing evidence not require the standard of proof they are providing?
Finally, with the improperly performed calibration my argument is that it effectively wasn't done at all. Is the standard really this low where RADAR is effectively given judicial notice of blanket accuracy in Wisconsin even though the cases don't deliver it this way?
Or are the courts being self-serving or just ignorant of what is required because most people don't care about the law at this level? Or is this just how the system works and I need to appeal to get to someone who will say that makes no sense to uphold? Does anyone think I have a good case for appeal? I'm guessing at this point a lawyer might be useful.
I'd just like to understand if I have too high of expectations of scrutiny. Thanks so much for considering this long-winded set of questions.
I've fought a good fight, but I am a bit taken aback at what has transpired here and maybe someone can knock some sense into me. I made myself aware of the case law for Wisconsin (State v. Hanson being the kingpin, and two later cases State v. Kramer and Washington County v. Luedtke). I'm going to give the disclaimer that I am a technical person, and understand the workings of these systems incredibly well, maybe my downfall is that the uninformed judges and officers and prosecutors could give two shakes about details, even if I have tried to make them aware of their importance.
The standard is clear and convincing, the existing later case law has testimony from officers operating moving RADAR that testify to the input speed of the patrol car and the speedometer speed in exact figures. They also testify to the exact times of calibration. They range from 1-2 hours before the stop, and in both cases only minutes after the stop (immediately, for all intensive purposes). The present case in question had a calibration long before the stop but within reasonable proximity to established cases, but the post-stop calibration was around 10 times longer than any in the existing case law. The more important detail, in my opinion, was that the officer testified to improperly calibrating the device by striking the forks on a metal surface, in direct conflict with the operator's manual. I got him to recognize the manual and it was admitted into evidence. I read about the damage that can be caused and how minor damage affects the forks. He couldn't testify if the forks matched the unit. (In WI there is no need for independent calibration of the forks and unit, which is sad because these things really should be checked by someone independent to get the trust of the public).
Can anyone tell me why the judge took absolutely no objection to this gross lack of procedure? The manuals state it can cause inaccuracy/invalid calibration which I raised both in my closing arguments and questioned the officer about. The officer also couldn't testify in a clear way to his training and had no certificates on file with the department to prove it either.
The calibration timeframes required (that have sufficient value) in Hanson are very vague, to the point where I believe the only way to get clarity is an appeal. I can't see any judge(s), aside the supreme court, attempting to create precedent by clarifying an establisted standard, vague as it is. So I'm not terribly surprised that these arguments of mine were set aside.
What I would like to know is WHY the existing case law is so clear and concise (in my view) with specific details and why the present case requires no details at all. This was a trial de novo, and during the first trial the officer didn't even know what RADAR unit was being used when I questioned him about it!! There are no paper records or logs of anything, yet they stand even when questioned for more scrutiny. Am I misled by the existing cases - does clear and convincing evidence not require the standard of proof they are providing?
Finally, with the improperly performed calibration my argument is that it effectively wasn't done at all. Is the standard really this low where RADAR is effectively given judicial notice of blanket accuracy in Wisconsin even though the cases don't deliver it this way?
Or are the courts being self-serving or just ignorant of what is required because most people don't care about the law at this level? Or is this just how the system works and I need to appeal to get to someone who will say that makes no sense to uphold? Does anyone think I have a good case for appeal? I'm guessing at this point a lawyer might be useful.
I'd just like to understand if I have too high of expectations of scrutiny. Thanks so much for considering this long-winded set of questions.
Hearings and Trials: Speeding Ticket in Wisconsin - Puzzling Trial Outcome
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire