Radar in PA

[Zelmo]

The annual attempt to let the locals use radar is in the legislature again. Seems it might pass this time because they are taking a different approach. The current bill would set up a pilot program allowing selected municipalities to use radar. The stated logic is they can then monitor the results and discontinue the program if there are abuses.

What a joke! Sounds like a way for the state to try to get a share of a new revenue source.

[mikered30]

Did the article say when it could come into effect? Would the local police use K band?

[itisjustme]

The annual attempt to let the locals use radar is in the legislature again. Seems it might pass this time because they are taking a different approach. The current bill would set up a pilot program allowing selected municipalities to use radar. The stated logic is they can then monitor the results and discontinue the program if there are abuses.

What a joke! Sounds like a way for the state to try to get a share of a new revenue source.

Where is the source? I'd like to read about this.

[Buz]

The annual attempt to let the locals use radar is in the legislature again. Seems it might pass this time because they are taking a different approach. The current bill would set up a pilot program allowing selected municipalities to use radar. The stated logic is they can then monitor the results and discontinue the program if there are abuses.

What a joke! Sounds like a way for the state to try to get a share of a new revenue source.


Where is the source? I'd like to read about this.


All I can find about radar in PA is the Genesis debacle a few years ago.
Where did you get your info. Zelmo?

[Zelmo]

The bill was actually introduced last March and was amended in May, but it got swamped by the pay raise fiasco. It is supposed to come up for a vote soon.

http://www2.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/2005/0/HB1050P1964.pdf

[Buz]

The bill was actually introduced last March and was amended in May, but it got swamped by the pay raise fiasco. It is supposed to come up for a vote soon.


Nicely done.

I can't imagine why it wouldn't get adopted. More revenue for PA.
I love the line in the first page "This section does not apply to a person who was operating a pedalcycle or an animal drawn vehicle."
Only in PA! I grew up in eastern PA where the amish & meninites still use horse & buggy to get around. :shock:

[tjbender]

Hell, if I were in PA, I'd hope that laser was allowed for locals. Those VASCAR traps are hell to catch, and I'll take a lazy cop with constant-on over one that's actually paying attention to lines on the road any day.

[computersoc]

I would be unhappy if the locals used laser...

[itisjustme]

The annual attempt to let the locals use radar is in the legislature again. Seems it might pass this time because they are taking a different approach. The current bill would set up a pilot program allowing selected municipalities to use radar. The stated logic is they can then monitor the results and discontinue the program if there are abuses.

What a joke! Sounds like a way for the state to try to get a share of a new revenue source.

Has anyone heard any new information on this?

[ww9111]

Hell, if I were in PA, I'd hope that laser was allowed for locals. Those VASCAR traps are hell to catch, and I'll take a lazy cop with constant-on over one that's actually paying attention to lines on the road any day.Not to dredge up an old topic but I like the way it is set up now.

I try not to go more than 10 mph over around town and keep it under 30 in neighborhoods so I'm not really worried about VASCAR.

Keeping the locals off the highway and away from trying to be revenue generators using RADAR is a much more important item for me. Because the locals so rarely are permitted to patrol the highway that means very, very few VASCAR traps on the highway, and virtually none on interstates. On the interstate you only have to worry about aerial VASCAR and for that you just slow down when you enter one of the *clearly* marked zones.

I haven't seen any more news about RADAR for locals although the bastards keep trying to get the state to give it to them.

[mikered30]

On the interstate you only have to worry about aerial VASCAR and for that you just slow down when you enter one of the *clearly* marked zones.


The PSP also use regular VASCAR. I have never seen it used that way on interstates, but on US and state routes near me they do use it. I don't know how common this is in other areas outside of Reading.

[cbj54]

I would like to lend some clarification from the "bastard"/cop end of the spectrum. First of all, thank you ww9111 for referring to your local police as "bastards". I'm sure if it came down to it they would lay down their life in an effort to save yours, no matter what you called him or her. 2nd point, the proposed legislation would only allow for a total of 5% of the municipalities revenue to come from Radar generated speding tickets. As it stands now, there is no cap. If the 5% is reached the remaining funds would go to the state for civic endeavors such as parks, road repairs, etc. 3rd point, Pa is in the top 5 in the country for speed related deaths. There is a direct correlation between that stat and the police not being able to use radar because PA is certainly not in the top 5 for vehicles being operated on the roadway. 4th point, no matter what you may or may not think, the name of the game is deterence. Do you think I get a lot of joy from stopping someone and giving them a $150 citation? I work for a living as well, i would hate to fork out that kind of money either. the bottom line is we want to get people to slow down and sometimes the only effective way to get that point across (in a particular area) is to statrt issuing tickets. If the police could use Radar, people could turn on their detectors and everyone would statrt to slow down. If I'm using VASCAR, you have no clue that you are being clocked. If that little radar detector starts to beep at you, you automatically slow down. That's the whole point. I have had to make more death notifications that most or all of you. I have seen the other side of what sometimes happens due to excessive speed. I have looked in the parents eyes and told them that their son or daughter was dead. So please don't trivialize what we do and accept the fact that 99 percent of all the police out there are trying to do their job.

[cbj54]

Also....ww9111. I don't know what area of PA you're from, but in the southeast part of the state, the local police have jurisdiction over any road or highway in their respective municipality. Only two highways in this area where there are no local police patrolling, I-95 and the PA turnpike. Elsewhere (western and central Pa) may be different.

[ww9111]

cbj54:

I'm sorry you take exception to my description of the local cops abounding my area. Perhaps my choice of words was poor but it expresses my view on the "revenue generation" function of their job which encompasses many unsavory actions.

Truth be told the local cops in my town aren't too bad, its not really them I have a problem with.

My real problem is that in the few experiences I have had in the courtroom, for myself and with others, the officer has perjured themselves at least once. Anyone who feels the need to lie under oath for the job should be jailed.

Another friend was recently stopped and told the officer didn't need probable cause to pull them over. Where do they teach these guys crap like that?

Should I freely give up my rights simply because in another situation the officer would potentially be injured or killed responding to an assistance call for me?

I'm sorry, self altruism doesn't buy a free pass for abridgement of rights in my book.

As to Pennsylvania being in the top 5 for speed related deaths, you do realize that Pennsylvania is the fifth (sixth?) most populous state these days. That would be statistically normal, and we all know what bunk "speed-related" accident means.

I don't mind VASCAR around town as I almost never go more than 10 mph over around town and in neighborhoods I never break 30. It is anti-social to speed in people's neighborhoods, around their kids and pets. I much prefer that to having the cops riding around with radar guns shooting anyone they feel like.

A good friend of mine is from across the pond and tells stories of cursing out the officer who has pulled him over. The cops only response typically is, "No need to be angry sir." Here, I would put good money and being dragged out of the car and thrown in cuffs for cursing out the cop because I would have questioned his "authority."

The idea being the PSP not carrying badges is very smart; That is to say that your authority derives from your conduct and not from a piece of tin on your chest.

If the name of the game is deterrence then please elaborate a bit on operations like: http://www.tribune-democrat.com/siteSearch/apstorysection/local_story_077233735.html and Camo-Man. An effective deterrent is to make a very visible presence but being seen doesn't write as many tickets, does it?

I apologize you don't like my use of words, and conceed it may have been a bit harsh, however, keep in mind that most of my experiences with cops have been watching them violate the law over and over again or lying on the stand to obtain a conviction for a $100 traffic citation. Why risk you job and a jail sentence over a $100 fine for a simple moving violation? I keep an audio recorder in my car now in the event I get pulled over so that if I need to prove someone is lying I can. It's been kind of useless, however, as I haven't been pulled over in nearly 9 years now.

As to local police on the roadway, I'm sure you're familiar with 75 PaCS 6109, specifically paragraph a(11). I'm not saying they're not allowed on the highways at all, just that the state has typically taken a distrusting approach to local police patrol of limited access highways and I would like to see that continue. (ie no RADAR on limited access highways by local police)

[cbj54]

You seem to be a little paranoid. I'm not saying that there are no crooked cops in this world, because we all know that there are. But you make it sound as if every cop you've ever had contact with is a liar and would rather sacrifice his job for a ticket on the stand. The chances of you having contact with more than one in your life is rare. It is very easy to know if the cop is fibbing about the speeding citation you ahve been issued. VASCAR is all about distance divided by time. Check the numbers on the citation (they should be on it, if they're not the ticket should be thrown out). I have done this job for nearly 9 years. In my entire 9 years I have never lied on the stand for any reason. I have never met an officer who has. There are a few in this world that probably would, but they are few and far between. I have asked people people off the record and they will all tell you the same thing, the bottom line is they were speeding. The article you highlighted pertains to PSP. The state police are less inclined to write tickets for revenue because the money goes into a state general fund, it does not benefit them in the least. If the article was about a local police department, I might agree. Let us not forget, they are stopping people that are speeding. You may not like the method or practice of how they are doing it, but they are not in the cars with those people forcing them to break the law. Perhaps your real issue is not so much with the cops as it it with speed limits. If thats the case, get politically involved and have your lawmakers address underposted roadways. As far as your friend who got pulled over by a cop who said that he did'nt need PC to pull him over...I don't know the circumstances. There are times when PC is not needed...yes it's true. Equipment compliance checkpoints, seatbelt and DUI checkpoints. I am MICSAP certified commercial vehicle inspector. When I'm running a check, I don't need PC. Let us not forget that driving on a public roadway is not a right, but a privledge. I'm not sure what your reference to 75 PACS 6109 is all about. That section grants the right to local police authority on state highways. I don't see how you find "mistrust" in it. If your point is about the state not trusting local cops with radar, then you're right on and that's the whole point. They trust us with a gun and in some extreme cases having to take someone's life, but not to use radar?

[cbj54]

Also...just to let you know. If you record your conversation with a cop, you'd better let him know. It is illegal under wire tapping laws. If you don't and it comes up later, you'll probably get arrested. You're OK if you tell him that you are recording him/her. By the way, I have been cursed out more than I wish to remember and have never "dragged" dragged anyone out of the car...I can tell you this, they did'nt get any breaks at court though.

[ww9111]

cbj54:

It is only paranoia if they're not out to get you. :)

Perhaps you are one of the few (many?) that are reasonably good guys, my personal experience has been that you are few and very far inbetween.

As to the stop without PC, it was not a checkpoint or inspection of any sort. My understanding is that they were looking for a friend's house on a particular street and were driving real slow then came back through. The initial reason for the stop given was that someone had called in a suspicious car in the neighborhood. This guy drives a pretty new Jaguar with 20's on it so its pretty flashy but my gut tells me the cop just wanted a look inside. They did, however, meter the tint on the car and I can't remember now if they were issued an equipment violation on that or not.

After a few minutes the operator asked the police officer point blank what the PC was for the stop. The officer responded with, "We don't need probable cause to stop you."

I've been subject to the exact same reason for a stop but the officer quickly apologized to me and went back to his car. Total interaction time was probably under 20 seconds. I figured it was a legit stop and since the officer (older, probably late 50's) was so polite and respectful and apologized quickly for stopping me I never thought anything more about it.

While the assertion that checkpoints don't require PC is accurate in today's legal climate I believe they still are a fundamental violation of the Fouth Amendment as the SCOTUS has held that any vehicle stop is a seizure for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, but have also held that certain checkpoints provide such a public benefit as to outweigh the violation of individual rights. I disagree but that is the law of the land.

You sound like the kind of guy who isn't fazed by "Contempt of Cop." I applaud you for that and I can certainly agree with not giving them a break in court. The roadside is no place to argue your case, and the cop isn't going to suddenly say, "Hey, I'm sorry, let me tear that ticket up."

As to the audio recording, I would be interested to find the statutory authority the police use to audio and video record their stops then. The must be some implied consent to cover that as they would be subject to the same wiretapping laws without a warrant. Time for some research!

[Mackid343]

I would be unhappy if the locals used laser...

get a jammer and you'll be virtually immune if they only used laser

[cbj54]

ww9111

I am a firm believer that people are a product of their environment and experiences. I can respect your opinion of cops in general, but cannot agree with it. Your attitude has been shaped by prior experiences to which I was not privy. I can assure you that 99 percent of the cops out there are good, hard working, honest cops. You may find it hard to believe, given your experience but trust me. Very few "bad apples" slip through the cracks. The level of backround checking and rechecking and personal invasion that one must go through to become a police officer is sickening. When I was in the hiring process with my current agency they actually went to my elementary school and interviewed the grade school teachers that could remember me! They checked high school attendance records, grades and disciplinary records. They located my college roomates and interviewed them. The detectives conducting my backround check actually showed up at my house, unnanounced and asked to search my bedroom (living at home with mom at the time). I let them of course becuase I had nothing to hide, but had I refused I would not have been hired. I was subjected to a 5 hour polygraph examination where I was asked questions ranging from "have you ever had sex with animals?" to "have you ever had sex with a family member?'. And those were some of the less invasive questions. They checked with every employer I had ever worked for.

My whole point is this: They don't just let any Joe become a cop. By the end of the hiring process you feel like a piece of cattle that has been thouroughly inspected. This is where they weed out the liars and the cheats and the thieves... the majority of the time. A few slip through the cracks, no doubt. The fact that you have run into a dishonest cop was a rarity. More than once would be very unlucky. I can tell you this, as I said before, I have never lied for an arrest or citation or anything relating to my official duty (my wife...thats a different story:)). My integrity is more valuable than a statistic. Given that, I have been accused numerous times of being a liar, being called an a s s h o l e and having my family threatened because of what I do. The only thing I can reassure you of is there are more cops out there like me than of the type you ran into.

Regarding the PC conversation: There is case law on suspicious activity in high crime or drug areas regarding "suspicious vehicle" stops. Philly gets away with it all the time in there high drug areas. If they see a car "cruising" the block, not breaking any traffic laws, but just acting suspiciuosly, they may stop it. It has been held up in court. You may not like it, but thats the way the judges have ruled. I don't think it would hold as much water in a suburban low crime neighborhood. It really is a "totality of the circumstances" call for the cop. As far as DUI, equipment checkpoints go: I actually agree with you. These things have been appealed to the supreme court and upheld. I agree there are some constitutionality issues with them, but until they say they're illegal, they are not going to go away.

Wiretapping issue: The police actually do have to notify the person that they are being recorded. That usually occurs at the beginning of the encounter, ie. when the Officer askes you to step out of the car. In some states it actually falls under implied consent, and it is assumed that you are being recorded. The key word here is notify. We may notify you at any time, it doesn't have to be at the beginning. Many cops will tell you as they're arresting you at the end of an encounter. I believe the same holds true for John Q Public as well. You must notify the person at some point during the exchange, it can be at the end as well as the beginning. This only pertains to audio. If it is video only, no notification needs to be given. Obviously with more "high end high risk" surveillance stuff, the person does not have to be immediately notified, but warrants must be secured first. Anyway I hope some of this rambling made sense and was informative. - CBJ

[computersoc]

Just curious, what other kind of questions do they ask on the polygraph?

[cbj54]

The polygraph examiner asks a series of questions prior to hooking you up to the machine. You must give yes or no answers. If you answer yes to any question, you must elaborate. After the interview you are hooked up to the polygrapgh machine (in my case I was also analylized with a Voice Stress Analysis computer). Some of the questions were: Have you ever stolen anything in your life? (Includes pens, pencils, paperclips,etc). Have you ever had sex with animals? Have you ever had sex with a family member? Have you ever commited a crime higher than a summary offense in which you were never caught? Have you ever used any none prescription narcotics or illicit drugs? Have you ever talked to what you believed to be aliens, spirits or ghosts? Have you ever used a fictitious identity to avoid prosecution? Are you an agent for a subversive or anti government organization? Have you ever used any racial slurs? Have you ever slept on the job? Have you ever cheated on your current spouse or significant other? Have you ever had sex on the job? Have you lied to the police or any law enforcement entity to avoid prosecution? Have you in anyway attempted or researched how to beat this polygraph examination?

There were some others, but these were all I could remember. Answering "yes" did not automatically disqualify you during the question phase prior to taking the exam. There were a few automatic disqualifiers: Having sex with an animal or a family member. Being a member of an anti government organization and if you answered "yes" to committing a crime higher than a summary offense, they would ask you if it would have classified as a felony. If you admit to a felony, you are automatically disqualified. After you give your answers in the interview stage they then hook you up to the machine and give the test again. This time they ask the same questions, but add "other than what you admitted to" to the question. If any deception is detected, you are disqualified at this point. If you pass the exam, they give you a 30 minute break and you come back and do the test all over again. They ask the questions in a different order and check for deception again. If you pass both times with no deception, you have passed the test.

Prior to the test, they ask you to pick a number between 1-10. You do not tell the examiner what number you have picked. The examinaer will ask you starting with the number 1 and going to 10 if you picked any of these numbers. You are supposed to answer no to all 10. The examiner then tells you which number you lied about. This sets the baseline for the examiner, so he/she knows how your body reacts when you lie.

Hope that answered your question