Use of laser guns in Chicago to catch speeders is questioned

[oldsyd]

Not sure if anyone posted this yet....

from chi cago trib une web sight

Speeding tickets: Use of laser guns in Chicago to catch speeders is questioned
Many tickets are thrown out if use of lidar is challenged

By Megan Twohey

Tribune reporter

November 9, 2009

Many motorists nabbed for speeding by a laser gun, instead of radar, are seeing their tickets thrown out at Chicago's traffic court because of a legal issue that the city's law department has been unable to overcome.

Within the past year judges in Cook County Traffic Court in Chicago determined that speeds captured by lidar were not admissible because the devices had not been proven scientifically reliable in an Illinois court, said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the law department, which prosecutes most speeding tickets in the city.

The judges brushed aside the office's position that such a legal hearing was unnecessary because lidar devices, which use a light beam instead of radio waves, have been used by police departments across the country with no problems for a long time and because some courts outside Illinois already had found them to be scientifically sound.

The devices, widely used by police departments across the state, are the primary speed detectors used by the Chicago Police Department, Hoyle said.

As a result, many drivers ticketed for speeding in the city have been able to skate out of traffic court without having to pay the fine.

"Judges don't share our view that the technology is valid in court," Hoyle said.

The judges's findings do not benefit motorists who plead guilty and pay their fine by mail, Hoyle said. The city has continued to cash those checks.

Judges in traffic courts outside Chicago have not taken a uniform position, said Steve Fagan, a defense attorney who represents traffic violators in Cook, DuPage and Lake counties.

Some judges dismiss tickets that involve lidar, while others view it as legally sound, Fagan said.

The legal procedure required to prove a technology is scientifically reliable -- a Frye hearing, as it is known in Illinois -- is laborious and expensive, experts said. The hearing requires witnesses and can stretch for days.

That's the reason the city law department was reluctant to initiate one against a defendant, Hoyle said.

Since last month the department has begun seeking such a hearing in the small percent of speeding cases in which the defendant has a defense attorney, she said. But each time the defendant has chosen to pay the fine rather than participate.

The department hopes the Cook County state's attorney's office will secure a Frye hearing because that office handles the most serious speeding cases in which the defendant has more invested.

If they fail, Hoyle said, the prosecutors will seek a state law that explicitly recognizes lidar as scientifically reliable.

Meanwhile, the Chicago Police Department plans to continue using the device, said Roderick Drew, a spokesman for the department. "We believe it to be reliable and accurate," Drew said.

mtwohey at tribune dot com

[protias]

I would have to say that laser is much better than radar as it can target a specific vehicle. I find it pretty funny Cook County Courts would not see it that way.

[icantdrive55]

I would have to say that laser is much better than radar as it can target a specific vehicle. I find it pretty funny Cook County Courts would not see it that way.

esp. with the way Cook County/Chicago is SOOO financially in the dumps...ya think ANY income would be enticing....

[oldsyd]

So, on my last trip to Chicago, those stupid construction signs have some omnidirectional transmitter sending out false radar.

How do you deal with that and what is the purpose besides annoying radar detector owners?

[statusquo]

Might be because the ones who fight it and win have an attorney? As such - at least where I live - you pay nearly twice the amount of the ticket for a lawyer to handle it, but the result is the ticket is dismissed and no points.

Not so much luck if you have no attorney as the judge will often say "I'll send you me decision in the mail," which means you lost. I've heard that line too many times while sitting in traffic court for hours.

Seems the way it goes is the cop shows up for the first arraignment of you and your ticket. If it's just you, he probably will come back to a first arraignment or hearing. If it's an attorney who appears on your behalf, he probably won't reappear and it gets tossed for Failure to prosecute" or something similar. If he does show, then it gets humorous as the lawyer will come up with something that befuddles the cop in person and the case gets dismissed.

A cop's ego is really fragile and they don't like to be made a laughing stock by a smart lawyer in front of their peers who are sitting in the back of the court listening in and awaiting their ticket cases. If it happens too often, the judge will recognize the cops' name off the ticket and that officer's standing is already known to be a "Cop who would write his own wife or mother a ticket" and the smile of the judge shows the way the ticket will go when he reads the officer's name (i.e. the trashcan). Been there before.

It's all about the money and greasing the wheels of legal system. Nothing more.


sq~

[89shoman666]

So, on my last trip to Chicago, those stupid construction signs have some omnidirectional transmitter sending out false radar.

How do you deal with that and what is the purpose besides annoying radar detector owners?

I hear you there! I deal with that every morning on the Blue Route going in to Philly. There is a KA construction sign that pegs my STi at mile marker 15 and the PSP love to sit in the u-turn area right before that shooting I/O KA. Moral of the story I dont speed through that stretch, to risky. It's only safe when there shooting C/O K like yesterday then it picks up both.

[oldsyd]

I suppose one way to ignore those is to make note of the bogey counter and note how many radar sources are there.