I agree he has no grounds to fight the ticket.
My point was that he wasn't exceeding the prevailing flow by anything close to 15MPH. "Driving dangerously" is a bit of a stretch.
(Hint: the cop didn't think he was driving dangerously, or the ticket would have been for reckless driving, not speeding.)

 

Ed...I've seen you in several of these threads...and if the law worked like you state it people would just all plead guilty on the basis of morality.

People like you, are why the system works with autonomy as it currently does...finding people guilty first and making them fight for innocence. It's not about what he was doing...it's not his job to provide them a case, it's their job to PROVE their case. If you don't make the system prove itself, it puts all your freedoms in jeapordy.

Attorneys getting OJ off are what keeps the system functioning and makes those police work harder and make their cases stronger. The problem is, traffic cops (i.e. tax collectors) never face that same scrutiny of probable cause and true reasonable suspicion.

Regardless of whether you were exceeding the flow of traffic or not...you are NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT....ED. There is plenty to argue pal.

The fact you said police are trained in high speed driving...lol...that's funny. I worked for pd for years man...that training is laughable. They drive at high speed in over weight family cars that are further loaded very near their gvwr with equipment and a cops fat ***. They are about the least capable speeding machines on the road. In terms of training...that's a joke.

 

How is going the exact same speed as the car in front of you exceeding the prevailing flow?

It's the cop that was exceeding the speed of traffic and thus setting a new speed of traffic.

The cop's driving was much more dangerous than the OP's.

Add in the fact that a cop with no lights on frequently ends up with people slamming on their brakes right in front of them when the car in front notices that they have a cop behind them and you have a situation that is MUCH more dangerous for the cop than the guy following him.

Leading is almost always more dangerous than following. The cop has no ground to stand on. If the OP was dangerous, the cop was dangerous.

 

We're not in a court of law. We're on an open forum in which the OP already admitted he was breaking the law. There's nothing to prove here.


He already admitted his guilt. What's left to prove? We're not in court here. I refer back to my first post in this thread in which I stated that he might have a chance at beating the ticket in court.


You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said the training was sufficient, nor did I say that police are as capable as they should be in high speed driving. I simply provided the reasoning why they are allowed to do so by law. That doesn't mean I agree with it.

Time for you to get down off the soapbox and quit putting meaning to things that aren't even being said here. There's a world of difference between stating why things are allowed and an agreement by myself that they should be.

 

Police cars do not set the speed limit. The signs on the side of the road that state what the posted speed limit is are what tell drivers what the maximum speed allowed by law is. Exceeding that posted speed limit is against the law, period.

 

If you think the prevailing flow speed is the speed of the fastest car, you're using a grossly non-standard definition.
Remind me to stay out of your way.

 

Since when ??? Maybe 'some' state troopers but damn sure not city cops !! They have a lot of wrecks around here where they are at fault ...

 

You said he exceeded the speed of traffic.

How is going the same speed as the car in front of you exceeding the speed of traffic?

How are his actions more dangerous than those of the police officer?

Let's not forget that the officer also "slammed on his brakes" at 80 to aggressively get behind the Corvette. Is that not a dangerous maneuver?

 

Ed...we're not in a court of law, but he is asking what he should do IN A COURT OF LAW. Your advice is misleading then, at minimum.

There are simple points and facts that must be in place for the officer to prove his case...and those are the points you must argue in order to win.

A. How was the speed obtained or paced?
B. Was the speedometer calibrated and proven to be accurate (pd should keep those records)
C. Was the station that certified the speedo authorized and certified to do so
D. Was the distance paced adequate to obtain an accurate estimate/determination of speed

The other option is to admit guilt, stating your vehicles speed indicating systems were off and you paced your flow off of the officer (and in accordance with your speedo) and was surprised you were stopped.

The state MUST PROVE THEIR CASE...end of story. It's not your job to admit guilt and say "you got me"...that's foolishness. The absolute WRONG thing to do is go in court saying the officer baited you or caused you to break the law...that's stupidity.

 

He wasn't going the same speed as traffic. He was going the same speed as the police car. The point is he was going faster than the posted speed limit. Just because one person breaks the law doesn't make it ok for everyone else to do the same.


The actions of the police officer have nothing to do with the fact that the OP broke the law, and has admitted to doing so. If he has an issue with the way the officer was driving he can file a complaint with that officer's department and it will be reviewed.

 

I stated what I thought the OP should do in my first post. All of my other responses have been in regards to the police officer's actions.

 

I never said they learned anything.

 

Your advice was "get a good lawyer"....very insightful....

 

It's also very accurate. His best chance to beat the ticket is to hire someone who has proven capable at doing so.

 

 

I do not know about other states but, in California, there is no "legal" way for a police officer to be speeding without their wig wags on. Unless their lights are on, they are just another car on the road and have to obey the rules.

Now we all know that is in a perfect world. They speed, follow too close, make unsafe lane changes and fail to come to full stops just like we all do. In one of my CHP ride alongs the officer went from the station to Starbucks at 85mph. When I asked him for his justification for speeding he said if he doesn't nobody else will. It is hypocritical, makes all officers look bad, and turns the public against them. This is just my opinion (and I am a big supporter of the police).

To the OP, if you challenge I would tell the judge I don't know how fast I was going. I was just following the officer. When he sped up, I did too. His lights were not on so I assumed he must have been following the speed limit. A judge with common sense might find for you.

But in the end, Corvette Ed is probably right, you were speeding, the officer will testify and you will be found guilty.

 

...................

 

I love this one.

Yes and so can in-laws of FBI agents

I agree to a point and disagree, I have seen Troopers and cops do this and traffic be afraid of passing a cop that is driving 10-15mph below the speed limit, I even though respect them wont fall for it, If a cop is driving slower then the posted speed limit I will pass them at the POSTED speed limit, and there is nothing they can do to stop me cause I am not breaking any moving violations.

We all know in most populated states there is a quota of tickets that need to be handed out, we also know that you have rookies trying to make a name for themselves, and you have by the book cops. You never know which one you will get. I say there is nothing wrong with going and stating what happened. Some judges may side with you if your not cocky, but I wouldnt give in and pay it, take the 50/50 chance you have nothing to lose at this point except a little bit of your time.

And in the future the consensus is correct, if you dont want another speeding ticket, the cop isnt your personal pace car.

 

I'm a lawyer - I handle tickets. I'm in the Inland Empire. Check you PM

 

"Okay to follow speeding police cars
Comment: During my career as a police
officer, I have stopped numerous vehicles for speeding as they followed my
fully marked police car. Usually, this is how the story goes. I'll see a
vehicle behind me on a highway approaching at a faster speed than I am
driving. As a rule, most officers will drive 5 miles an hour over the
speed limit so as not to back up traffic behind us.

I notice that the vehicle continues this speed until it nears my car. I
accelerate to a greater speed and watch as my speed is matched by the
trailing vehicle. I will then increase my speed to sometimes 20 mile an
hour faster than the posted speed limit and do a reverse pace on the
trailing vehicle for about a mile.

After about a mile, I'll pull over, let the vehicle pass, then pull it
over. When I make contact with the driver and ask them why they were
speeding, they tell me that they heard it was okay to following a police
car, no matter the speed, as long as the police car does not have their
emergency lights and/or siren activated.

This excuse never ceases to amaze me. The person I stopped today
for this, honestly believed this to be an accepted practice because her
mother told her it was okay. Taking this in to account, I let her off with
a warning"


That sounds like a grossly inaccurate way to gauge speed. Please tell me your'e not in CA