Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: djf
does that mean that a traffic camera must come into court to testify against you?
2 posted on 03/12/2004 8:13:09 PM PST by Forrestfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Forrestfire
No, but you have to admit, Scalia kicks serious ass.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

3 posted on 03/12/2004 8:14:34 PM PST by section9 (Major Motoko Kusanagi says, "John Kerry: all John F., no Kennedy..." Click on my pic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Forrestfire; djf
I hate those cameras. The taxi drivers got it right in Taiwan, where they beat the ugly things into "dis-service" with baseball bats! LOL Also, the government there would put in fake ones, but the people all knew which were which ;)
19 posted on 03/12/2004 9:33:08 PM PST by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Forrestfire
Not only that, the traffic camera has to be subject to a cross-examination.
20 posted on 03/12/2004 9:39:59 PM PST by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Forrestfire
there is in fact case law requiring the officer upon request to bring the acrual radar unit that was used into court. this can be useful in a jury trial. the officer will invariably call the thing a "device" or "instrument," while good defense counsel will call it a "machine," or, occasionally, "gadget."
28 posted on 03/12/2004 10:34:10 PM PST by dep (Ense Petit Placidam Sub Libertate Qvietem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson