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