WTF? Wife was fined for something that a cop accused her of THINKING about doing.

[Tsunamix]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the onus is actually on you to prove your innocence for traffic offenses. In other words, its guilty until proven innocent.

Fortunatley you are incorrect. The police have to prove reasonable doubt that you (or inthis case your Mrs) has committed the offence. I went to court challenging identification of my vehicle as in the police recording and in the police write up they described my car as Maroon, when a year previously I had the car repainted gunmetal grey flake. Let the cops babble on. Presented the receipt for the paint job including the paint color.

The cops challenged this saying they were focused onthe number plate area of the car.

I challenged the challenge saying how did you identify my car as a target for 'measuring speed by radar' without seeing it's body colour.

Unfortunatley for me the magistrate agreed with the cop - car color was irrelevant. When I pointed out that accurate identificatin of the target vehicle is critical - else how do you identify the car to pull over. He again disagreed, saying the only ID tag thats releavnt is the number plate.

When I pointed out that the 'speeding number plate' is not recorded until the vehicle is pulled over, he question police procedure, to which I handed over (always go in wella rmed) to which he ummed and ahhed for about 10 minutes. he clearly didnt want to go on record saying police procedure sucked or something, but his closing statement was 'I do not really doubt the officers words or actions, but in this case there is no clear link between identifying a set of rego plates that are mounted on a vehicle travelling over the limit and ensuring the same set of plates are on the vehicle of the driver penalised'.

All you have to do is create some doubt.

 

[Calaber]

Not quite correct for NSW. Legislation was introduced back in 2004 allowing Police in NSW to record the conversation on video and audio of motorists without their consent.

New candid camera for NSW police - National - www.smh.com.au

108D Person to be informed that conversation will be recorded

(1) A police officer who records a conversation between the police officer and another person under this Part must inform the person (either immediately before recording of the conversation commences or as soon as practicable after recording has commenced) that the conversation will be recorded using police in-car video equipment.

(2) This section does not apply to the recording of a conversation inadvertently or unexpectedly or incidentally to the recording of another conversation.

(3) Recording of a conversation does not require the consent of the person and the authority conferred by this Part is not affected by any objection or refusal to consent by the person to the recording.

OK, happy to be corrected.

However, I seriously doubt that any police officer is going to allow a motorist to do the same thing in reverse.

 

[Decicrate]

OK, happy to be corrected.

However, I seriously doubt that any police officer is going to allow a motorist to do the same thing in reverse.

Nothing that they can do about it if they are in a public place and the conversation is between the person recording and the police officer that is involved.

 

[tommygun]

Don't go word against word with a copper in court is my advice. I tried, I had proof that (his) facts in his statement were wrong. He just smiled and said, yes that may be so but this(the convicting line) was still said. I made it obvious he was lying but it still went in his favour. Just ring the copper and have an honest conversation and see how ya go , you will pay any other way IMO.

 

[K-BAGZ]

Nothing that they can do about it if they are in a public place and the conversation is between the person recording and the police officer that is involved.

So in that case, a public road is a public place?

 

[Decicrate]

So in that case, a public road is a public place?

That is correct.
But if you are going to record with a hand held device make sure the car is off and the handbrake is applied, and to be safe remove the keys from the ignition.
When you start to record state date and time and location as well as showing that the car is off and the hand brake applied and keys out.
Cover all bases.

 

[lease1]

That is correct.
But if you are going to record with a hand held device make sure the car is off and the handbrake is applied, and to be safe remove the keys from the ignition.
When you start to record state date and time and location as well as showing that the car is off and the hand brake applied and keys out.
Cover all bases.

Excuse me officer, please stop talking to me while I film my handbrake, film myself taking the keys out of the ignition and whilst I state a preamble onto the recording before you speak to me. Really? Your cars gonna get defected now too

 

[87RB30VL]

1. Before posting, consider if what you are posting is adding something intelligent. I know this may be a challenge, but give it a bash.
2. Its not my word against a cops given I didn't recieve the infringement.
3. Not sure how "Carma" has "cought" up with me? Please refer to item 2 and the over arching statement in item 1.

Karma coughed on you he means?

 

[DAKSTER]

OK, happy to be corrected.

However, I seriously doubt that any police officer is going to allow a motorist to do the same thing in reverse.

Not sure that I agree with this mate. It seems to me, if a police officer turns on a recording device with the specific intent of recording your conversation, then sure he has to tell you. Likewise, if you do the same, you would have to inform him.

Cop cars are equipped with cameras and sound, but they don't have to inform you that you are being recorded when they pull you up. Watch some of those fun youtube videos where the coppers pull people over. The sound is often clear enough to hear, even with the 'culprit' still in the car. I'm confident that my car camera could pick up similarly well (an app for an iPhone actually) especially if the cop has come to my window as they often do.

That recording is not premeditated, its just a part of a conversation between two people. That, and the video of the events themselves, would seem to me to be enough to assist in court, and I cant see how it could be invalid.

 

[Decicrate]

Excuse me officer, please stop talking to me while I film my handbrake, film myself taking the keys out of the ignition and whilst I state a preamble onto the recording before you speak to me. Really? Your cars gonna get defected now too

Hmm, the times that I have been pulled over, you usually have enough time to make and eat a cut lunch before the officer gets to your door. To do what I stated takes about 15 seconds.