[bing]

Originally Posted by TurboFC3S

Didnt read others replies, but this is a story of when i was at course and a guy had the same case as you.

The guy tried to fight the same ticket, had soo many good questions for the officer and thought of everything he could possibly say to try to get out of the ticket. The judge still took the cops side though, and the cop said how he can judge speed by eye since hes has been doing it for xx amount of years etc.

Whats worse is the cop was doing this over the phone in court! which i think is bullshit. Cant even show up to court... so the police officer had no physical evidence to present, just his word against the defendants and he still won. You have a good point tho with your case and the guy never asked that question directly (for documentation of calibration)... Good luck with the case!

I believe traffic offenses are civil matters so verdicts are based on a balance of probabilities. This means that the officer only needed to convince a judge that his/her case is 51% likely to be true. Generally if there is no evidence on either side (i.e. officer's word against an individual), the testimony of the officer is considered to be more credible (less biased). Buddy here obviously did not have much of an "air of reality" to his argument/defense if this was the case. Usually if the officer does not show you pretty much get off so in this case the officer must have made arrangements with the court ahead of time to call in (and the court deemed it an acceptable way to give testimony). Keep in mind, the officer would have said the same thing anyways. My own experiences in court is that usually the only "evidence" presented by the officer is what they say based on their memory or notes written on the back of the ticket. This is after all not a criminal case where they will most likely need to be present.