You got off because the Radar gun didn't have a certificate of Calibration less than 6 months old. Plain and simple. In almost every state radar guns must be operated according to the manufacturers directions which includes calibration every 6 months. If the Officer doesn't have an up to date calibration certificate, he has no case.
Agree with the above. I have a fair amount of experience with traffic court- you did not get off because of your GPS; it was because of the officer's answers to your questions. Good job asking, though.
The #1 tip for any court situation like this is the question the officer about events on the day it happened. By default the officer's word (and/or his radar gun) is worth more than your own, but if you can get him to say ANYTHING that calls into question his recollection of events, then his credibility is reduced. Incidentally this is also why most cops take great notes.
"He mentioned that he was not familiar enough with GPS technology to make a decision based on my evidence, but I can’t help but imagine that it was an important factor."
So the judge categorically stated that it wasn't a factor in his decision but the author imagines it was...
The difference between what you want to hear and what was actually said.
The reality is that he got lucky because he heard what the lawyer before him said and copied it and the police officer was ill prepared (possibly because he knew that the defendant was representing himself which is normally a sign that someone doesn't know what they're doing).
I assumed the judge didn't want to set a legal precedent for accepting cell phone GPS data. He entered the verdict in such a way that it couldn't be used to influence later cases.
Technically, GPS uses both pseudorange and doppler data as an input. These are usually combined with the previously measured position and speed using a Kalman filter. Speed is generally more accurate than position (to the extent that it makes any sense to compare them) because pseudorange errors tend to change comparatively slowly. Of course how the receiver outputs the speed is up to it, but since it falls out of the position calculation for free it's unlikely many will be storing straight delta position/delta time.
Having said that, it's not especially strong evidence since it's pretty trivial to fake. However, in this case the title is correct: it contributed to him getting off because it gave him the confidence to challenge the ticket.
My GPS, right now, has me clocked at a top speed of 273mph. I haven't a clue how that happened, but I'm sure as hell not bringing it to court to prove I wasn't speeding.
This is silly and dumb. GPS doesn't measure average speed. GPS measures location. Speed is calculated. It's calculated over the entire run - average speed - and it can be calculated between any two location measurements - which can be very close to instantaneous speed. Radar guns measure location too, for that matter - distance from the gun is measured at two instances, and speed is calculated. There's absolutely no inherent reason why GPS-based speed calculations are any less reliable than a radar gun. The better GPS systems update their position 5 times per second - far more precision than is necessary for good vehicle speed readings.
This seems like a non story to me. The judge did not confirm at all the GPS data affected their decision.
However, I have used GPS data successfully in a somewhat similar situation. I was riding my bicycle to work and got hit by a car that was pulling out of a driveway. My GPS recorded the entire incident and showed quite clearly that the car pulled out and hit me well after I had already ridden pass the driveway, showing they just plain weren't looking (and not the other way around). The whole incident ended up in my favor.
I run at least one logging GPS in my car at all times for OpenStreetMap mapping. As a result, I've asked several lawyer friends about this situation should I ever be cited for speeding. Just about everyone has said that the GPS data would most likely be overlooked because it can easily be faked (or at least the decision makers have that perception) and/or judges don't know about it (so they default to ignoring it).
Another problem with GPS is the accuracy (or lack thereof). Sometimes you get a good GPS signal (e.g. outside, clear view of the sky etc.), sometimes you don't, and you position could be off by 10m. Some GPS store the accuracy of each track point (e.g. VDOP and HDOP), some don't. If your GPS doesn't store the accuracy, then someone could claim your GPS is off by 20m, and hence you were speding (or the data is unreliable).
I'm glad the judge & author pointed out that it wasn't necessarily the GPS that got him off: the chain of custody could probably have been successfully challenged. But it's darn good circumstantial evidence.
Warning: probable abuse of lawyerly language in above post.
Basically the only help your phone provided is to give you guts to defend yourself in court. The data you obtained with google tracks has as much legal authenticity IMHO as data you could pull out of your behind. But the fact that you asked the officer the right questions and he didnt have the right answers is in my opinion why the judge decided in your favor.
Not long ago, I got pulled over and discovered my proof of insurance card was out of date. I was able to use the iPhone app of my insurance company to load up a PDF of the most recent copy and prove that my insurance was current. The cop was amazed that I could do this. No ticket. :)
My uncle was driving a truck a few years ago and hit a woman who walked in front of his vehicle. It was not his fault because the woman stepped out looking the wrong way, and the wet weather and short distance meant it wasn't possible for him to stop in time.
In this instance, the GPS tracking data was used by the police to verify that he was not travelling faster than the speed limit. The data backed up his statement to the police and he therefore wasn't considered negligent or liable for the accident in any way.
Technology like this certainly has its benefits, particularly when the presumption of guilt is so often on the driver in this kind of situation.
I can't remember specifically the example, but there was a recent case where someone recorded the conversation with a police officer without the police officer's knowledge or consent. This ended up getting the person in a lot more hot water than the original issue. If someone could provide specifics, would be appreciated.
Some phones, at least in the Droid line, have car mounts which include chargers; he mentioned a car mount in the article, so it's quite likely using it as a GPS was having a positive impact on battery life in this case!
I got out of a speeding ticket in 2004 because the officer had allowed his radar certification training to lapse in 1982. The guy before me in court also got his case dropped when the judge found out the officer hadn't been radar certified.
This guy's GPS data was a novelty. No more a deciding factor in the judgment than his choice to wear business attire.
[+] [-] pilom|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammock|15 years ago|reply
The #1 tip for any court situation like this is the question the officer about events on the day it happened. By default the officer's word (and/or his radar gun) is worth more than your own, but if you can get him to say ANYTHING that calls into question his recollection of events, then his credibility is reduced. Incidentally this is also why most cops take great notes.
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Tyrannosaurs|15 years ago|reply
So the judge categorically stated that it wasn't a factor in his decision but the author imagines it was...
The difference between what you want to hear and what was actually said.
The reality is that he got lucky because he heard what the lawyer before him said and copied it and the police officer was ill prepared (possibly because he knew that the defendant was representing himself which is normally a sign that someone doesn't know what they're doing).
[+] [-] Flemlord|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbutler|15 years ago|reply
GPS measures average speed (delta position vs delta time). Radar guns measure instantaneous speed (doppler shift).
GPS also tends to be less accurate in a partial Faraday cage (like a metal vehicle).
Bottom line: don't expect GPS to get you out of your speeding ticket with a tech-savvy judge.
[+] [-] zb|15 years ago|reply
Having said that, it's not especially strong evidence since it's pretty trivial to fake. However, in this case the title is correct: it contributed to him getting off because it gave him the confidence to challenge the ticket.
[+] [-] ghurlman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jellicle|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pilom|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thalur|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] city41|15 years ago|reply
However, I have used GPS data successfully in a somewhat similar situation. I was riding my bicycle to work and got hit by a car that was pulling out of a driveway. My GPS recorded the entire incident and showed quite clearly that the car pulled out and hit me well after I had already ridden pass the driveway, showing they just plain weren't looking (and not the other way around). The whole incident ended up in my favor.
[+] [-] dotBen|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yellowbkpk|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|15 years ago|reply
Warning: probable abuse of lawyerly language in above post.
[+] [-] mychacho|15 years ago|reply
btw here is a similar story with an iphone and a radar detector http://www.americanbankingnews.com/2011/01/21/radaractive-he...
[+] [-] lukifer|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mryall|15 years ago|reply
In this instance, the GPS tracking data was used by the police to verify that he was not travelling faster than the speed limit. The data backed up his statement to the police and he therefore wasn't considered negligent or liable for the accident in any way.
Technology like this certainly has its benefits, particularly when the presumption of guilt is so often on the driver in this kind of situation.
[+] [-] Mizza|15 years ago|reply
http://www.openwatch.net
[+] [-] PakG1|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Estragon|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omh|15 years ago|reply
It seems that he probably was speeding, albeit only slightly. That makes it more impressive that he ended up not guilty!
[+] [-] martincmartin|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tocomment|15 years ago|reply
Otherwise I'd love to record everywhere I go like this. I'm hoping the next generation of phones won't have this problem.
[+] [-] jff|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] osipov|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgieporgie|15 years ago|reply
This guy's GPS data was a novelty. No more a deciding factor in the judgment than his choice to wear business attire.