Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!decwrl!daemon
From: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS OF RADAR DETECTION
Message-ID: <5402@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Feb-84 12:59:40 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.5402
Posted: Fri Feb  3 12:59:40 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Feb-84 07:34:05 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Western Research Lab, Los Altos, CA
Lines: 25

From: topcat::mccamy
Newsgroups: net.legal
Path: decwrl!
Subject: Successful defense against speeding violation
Posted: Fri Feb  3 12:49:21 1984


From: RHEA::TOPCAT::MCCAMY


IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ON RADAR DETECTION, I BELIEVE IN SOME STATES IT
IS NOT LEGAL TO OPERATE RADAR FROM A POLICE CAR IF THAT POLICE CAR CANNOT BE
SEEN BY A PASSING CAR.  

IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU ARE PULLED OVER BY RADAR AND YOU CAN PROVE THAT THERE 
WAS NO WAY FOR YOU TO SEE THE ACT OF RADAR DETECTION, THEN YOU MAY BE ABLE TO 
FIGHT THIS ISSUE IN COURT.

I WOULD CHECK WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES BEFORE ATTEMPTING SUCH ACTION.


NICK MCCAMY
Path: decvax!decwrl!rhea!gold!turano