Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Good Citizen
    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default The real story on Decatur Australia court case!

    Australian Court Hands U.S. Radar Company Major Victory in Legal Challenge

    DECATUR, IL — Australian courts handed U.S. based Decatur Electronics, Inc. and its moving radar a major victory late last year in a court test in Queensland, Australia.

    In Police vs. Favero, Livio Rino Favero argued against his traffic ticket issued by the Queensland Police Service for driving at more than double the speed limit in a construction zone. He attacked the credibility of the Decatur Genesis II radar used by the ticketing officer with testimony from Roy Zegers of Radar Speed Measurements in Australia. Zegers and other Favero witnesses claimed the case was a major test of the accuracy of the Decatur Genesis II and the validity of the testing and operational regimes of the Queensland Police Service.

    Decatur, a leading manufacturer and distributor of radar units worldwide, supported the local police in their court battle against Favero. Decatur’s lead radar engineer testified in conjunction with the Australia National Association of Testing Authorities, the Queensland Police Service and other prosecution witnesses.

    The Australian judge, Acting Magistrate Roger Stark, described the test as “hardly the usual case in respect to speeding.” The Australian police viewed the case as a challenge to the more than 500 Decatur Genesis radar devices in use in Australia. Due to the significance of the case, the magistrate reviewed the case for three months before handing down a guilty sentence to Favero at the end of January.

    Decatur Electronics, Inc. CEO Jim Sanner called the victory a major win for law enforcement in Australia and across the world. He said, “This court test validates the reliability and evidentiary value of Decatur Electronics’ Genesis radars.”

    The court decision reaffirmed the Genesis II’s ability to credibly corroborate and verify officers’ assessment of speed violations. Favero’s $700 speeding fine turned into almost $50,000 in costs and fines, as well as six months loss of license. None of Favero’s experts showed up for sentencing.

    Kimble Smith, Decatur’s lead engineer and designer of the Genesis II, called the case unfortunate.

    “Favero’s witnesses argued the Genesis II wasn’t certified by the International Association of Chiefs of Police,” Smith said. “Unfortunately for them, it is.”

    Garry Hawgood, representing Decatur Electronics in Australia, said the case should lay to rest many of the legal challenges and media hype surrounding radar use by officers.

    “We won the case simply by giving all the evidence openly and truthfully,” he said. “This victory categorically refutes biased attacks waged against traffic radar and specifically the Genesis II in Queensland.”


    Decatur and their reps have given their version of the story after a victory in a small country court presided by an Acting Magistrate (Clerk of the court) Experience of the acting magistrate in Traffic matters well figure it out.

    1. Documents not supplied as per subpoena. Police denied these existed!
    We obtained the documents three months later!

    2. Witness coherced by police to make a statement in their favor.

    3. Police officer unable to give exact location of the incident as indicated on the infringement.
    Location of speed reading recorded electronically and on part B of infringement to be 400 meters north of point A.

    4. Same officer under oath stated location 500 meters further north.
    Excuse.. at the time of electronic recording only an estimate!

    5. Magistrate excepted this and stated it is possible to have memory loss.

    6. Australian engineer who gave evidence on behalf of the prosecution is now under investigation for giving false evidence many times prior.

    7 Police radar technician involved in this case now under investigation for giving misleading evidence!

    8. Decatur engineer unable to answer many questions re the unit in question. When requested to supply circut diagrams of the suspect faulty radar magistrate stated it would be to difficult for him to digest!

    9. In general Decatur engineer was protected by the system and unable to answer a number of important questions.

    10. Nata officials stated the device was accurate in a lab but could not verify this in the field. Missing from the transcript!!

    11. The Australian agent for Decatur could not be found numerous times by professional servers when a subpoena was issued for him to appear in court to give evidence! He arrived with the Decatur engineer on day two of the hearing. No surprise!

    12. The electronic recordings taken in court did not match the transcript provided to the defense.

    13. NMI Australia (head of metrology) Decatur radar devices do not have pattern approval!

    14. Court costs awarded against the defendant were lowered from $50,000 plus to $6000. A rather huge carrot.

    15. Decatur Australia claims Zegers made statements re this case!
    Zegers was not in Australia at the time of the findings!

    This is not the end of the story for Decatur Australia or those involved in giving misleading evidence .. yes the truth will prevail!

    Have u figured it out yet????

    Investigations are now underway re this fiasco!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007


    so why is decatur in hot water?

    whats going on; someone got a ticket; faught it; opend up pandoras box?



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-24-2009, 09:27 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-22-2007, 01:16 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts