On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:32:26 -0700, Tim Bengtson
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

In California, one could argue that the roadway markers constitute a
speed trap, as the aerial LEOs determine the speed of automobiles by
timing them between those marks.

Section 40802(a)(1): prohibits timing vehicles over a measured
distance, and 40801 makes using such evidence in assisting in a
person's arrest illegal.

The cops have a book called "Words to Use in Court".

You're making this up? :-)

In this case, the cop says that he matched the speed of the airplane
to the speed of the car, and then used the marks to confirm his own
groundspeed.

Hmmmm..... During this time, who was scanning for conflicting air
traffic? Perhaps the local FSDO might be interested in the operating
procedures employed by law enforcement...

I am not making this up.

Tim

Where can I obtain a copy of the book you mention? How about a scan
of the pertinent pages?

In this country, a 'person accused' has (had??) the right to confront
his/her accuser in a public court of law. That would be the officer
who observed the accused and signed the Notice to Appear (citation).
It would seem this might necessitate the aerial LEO landing to
complete the citation. I doubt that occurs.

I suspect, the officer on the ground is often able to pace the
motorist pointed out by the aerial LEO, and thus witnessed himself the
alleged Vehicle Code violation. It would then be appropriate for the
LEO on the ground to issue the citation.

Soon, it'll be UAVs loitering overhead in urban areas to go with the
RoboCop traffic signal cameras, and neighborhood intersection video
surveillance that already exist here.

To wit: http://www.politechbot.com/p-04920.html
"Government would have a reasonably good idea
of where everyone is most of the time."

Hang on to your hat, mate. The 21st century is gathering momentum as
it hurtles toward our Orwellian furniture. :-)