Rear shots... Not allowed?

BestRadarDetectors

Manufacturer
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
12,743
Reaction score
32,602

Transporter

ModWight Transporter
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
4,432
Reaction score
7,828
Location
In front of you but behind a Rabbit - Hot'Lanta,GA
How can rear shots be illegal in Georgia when in Georgia they are installing Laser Speed Cams that only shot the rear of the vehicle?

The Laser Speed Cams are ONLY legal in School Zones during school hours and are a non-moving violation IE administrative ticket for money only as Speed Cameras for actual full time traffic enforcement are illegal in Georgia.

Question: What moron speeds in a posted School Zone anyway?
Answer: The moron looking to get a very expensive ticket!

.
 

Sean

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
160
Reaction score
132
Fair points. Wouldn’t you agree that, “or is otherwise not visible for a distance of at least 500 feet” would be pretty clear any confusion up? Key word being FOR.

The way I interpreted this and case law seems to as well is unless you are GSP the officer must be visible to the motorists FOR and within 500 feet. That seems pretty clear to me. I’m not saying they do this and follow this. I’m simply just reading the official code.

So if you are driving under the bridge and the officer is shooting you in your rear on top of the bridge technically he is not visible to the motorists according to the law.

I wonder if taken to court how this would play out. That would be the only way to know for sure. I do see your side of things though.
Post automatically merged:


Sorry but I’m taking it to court if they are in violation of this code and it happens to me.
This 500-feet thing is ... not going to save anyone. Let's say the officer hides and doesn't respect the 500-foot law, lasers you, gets you for 15 over. You and he meet in court. He says, "traffic was very light, no other vehicles on the road, had good visibility, 1500 feet direct line of sight, easily visible." You say, "the officer was hiding, wasn't visible until I was on top of him at 150 feet." Judge evaluates both statements and sides with the officer because they always take the officer's word. You get the points, the fine, the court fee, and annoyed that the officer lied. So it goes.
 

Transporter

ModWight Transporter
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
4,432
Reaction score
7,828
Location
In front of you but behind a Rabbit - Hot'Lanta,GA
This 500-feet thing is ... not going to save anyone. Let's say the officer hides and doesn't respect the 500-foot law, lasers you, gets you for 15 over. You and he meet in court. He says, "traffic was very light, no other vehicles on the road, had good visibility, 1500 feet direct line of sight, easily visible." You say, "the officer was hiding, wasn't visible until I was on top of him at 150 feet." Judge evaluates both statements and sides with the officer because they always take the officer's word. You get the points, the fine, the court fee, and annoyed that the officer lied. So it goes.

Which is why in Georgia one has their case moved to State Court so the incentive for revenue by a county or city judge is reduced and one can get a fairer shake (and half the time the LEO no-shows and one gets a dismissal)! Why does this work, because the above law don't apply to GSP so the ticket has to be from a City or County LEO. Stay out of City and County run Courts!

.
 

Sean

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
160
Reaction score
132
For a while I was driving to GA. That ended. No reason to go there any more.
 

GregTec5

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
478
Reaction score
1,138
Location
Georgia
This 500-feet thing is ... not going to save anyone. Let's say the officer hides and doesn't respect the 500-foot law, lasers you, gets you for 15 over. You and he meet in court. He says, "traffic was very light, no other vehicles on the road, had good visibility, 1500 feet direct line of sight, easily visible." You say, "the officer was hiding, wasn't visible until I was on top of him at 150 feet." Judge evaluates both statements and sides with the officer because they always take the officer's word. You get the points, the fine, the court fee, and annoyed that the officer lied. So it goes.
This is where a dash cam comes into play.
 

DC Fluid

RDF Addicts Anonymous Member
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 7, 2019
Messages
3,990
Reaction score
12,238
Age
55
Location
Prince George, B.C. Canada
If I was LEO or prosecution, I would argue the law in question specificaly states:
where the vehicle from which the device is operated is obstructed from the view of approaching motorists or is otherwise not visible for a distance of at least 500 feet.

So your goose is cooked legally speaking in a case where a LEO has a handheld anything, stands outside the car. Especially if he's radioing ahead to chase cars waiting for victims.
No more clear cut case that LEO was not in the vehicle, doesn't have to be visible, if other officers do the pursuit.
Here, RCMP like to jump out into the street with thier lime jackets on after laser tagging you with thier tripod mounted device from their stakeout spot. No car involved other than chase support.
So it's entirely plausible that tactics to get around the above restrictions are employed by local LEOs, while those nasty state troopers get to run amok.
 

Transporter

ModWight Transporter
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
4,432
Reaction score
7,828
Location
In front of you but behind a Rabbit - Hot'Lanta,GA
. . . . . . . . .
So it's entirely plausible that tactics to get around the above restrictions are employed by local LEOs, while those nasty state troopers get to run amok.

Well the GSP was the only ones found to be following the few rules they had. The locals in the 50s, 60s, and 70s were using all the dirty tricks possible. Putting reduced speed limit signs behind trees and bushes creating their own speed traps, so all these laws for locals came into play like, drivers have to be 10 over now (no more $100 tickets for 3MPH over the PSL), cities and counties must post signs on highways upon entering their jurisdiction if they are using speed detecting equipment of a minimum size and in plain view (one would think with all the reminders Georgians would not be speeding), the 500 foot rule, and the 7 degree grade rule just for starters. Decades ago the cities and counties were out of control until the State reined them in with new laws.

.
 

GregTec5

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
478
Reaction score
1,138
Location
Georgia
So your goose is cooked legally speaking in a case where a LEO has a handheld anything, stands outside the car. Especially if he's radioing ahead to chase cars waiting for victims.
How do you figure? His patrol vehicle must be visible for at least 500 feet.
No more clear cut case that LEO was not in the vehicle, doesn't have to be visible, if other officers do the pursuit.
It's called a dash cam. Also wouldn't matter if other vehicles did the pursuit because the primary device's vehicle would be required to be visible.

“no stationary speed detection device (LIDAR AND NON-MOVING RADAR) shall be employed…where the vehicle from which the device is operated (THE OFFICER TAKES HANDHELD WHATEVER AND CAN USE IT LONG AS YOU CAN SEE HIS PATROL CAR FOR AT LEAST 500 FEET) is obstructed from the view of approaching motorists or is otherwise not visible for a distance of at least 500 feet.”

This means that the motorist must see the “police vehicle” for at least 500 feet in order for the detection to be effective. If one is not able to tell that the vehicle is operated by police, then pulling over a vehicle strictly based upon radar results could result in the Courts overturning the conviction or arrest.

This applies to all LEO with the exception of Georgia State Patrol.
Post automatically merged:

Well the GSP was the only ones found to be following the few rules they had. The locals in the 50s, 60s, and 70s were using all the dirty tricks possible. Putting reduced speed limit signs behind trees and bushes creating their own speed traps, so all these laws for locals came into play like, drivers have to be 10 over now (no more $100 tickets for 3MPH over the PSL), cities and counties must post signs on highways upon entering their jurisdiction if they are using speed detecting equipment of a minimum size and in plain view (one would think with all the reminders Georgians would not be speeding), the 500 foot rule, and the 7 degree grade rule just for starters. Decades ago the cities and counties were out of control until the State reined them in with new laws.

.
In speeding prosecution, the State must show that the speed detection device was visible to an approaching motorist before evidence gained by a speed detection device can be admissible. Carver v. State, 1993, 208 Ga.App. 405, 430 S.E.2d 790.
 
Last edited:

DC Fluid

RDF Addicts Anonymous Member
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 7, 2019
Messages
3,990
Reaction score
12,238
Age
55
Location
Prince George, B.C. Canada
How do you figure? His patrol vehicle must be visible for at least 500 feet.

It's called a dash cam. Also wouldn't matter if other vehicles did the pursuit because the primary device's vehicle would be required to be visible.

“no stationary speed detection device (LIDAR AND NON-MOVING RADAR) shall be employed…where the vehicle from which the device is operated (THE OFFICER TAKES HANDHELD WHATEVER AND CAN USE IT LONG AS YOU CAN SEE HIS PATROL CAR FOR AT LEAST 500 FEET) is obstructed from the view of approaching motorists or is otherwise not visible for a distance of at least 500 feet.”

This means that the motorist must see the “police vehicle” for at least 500 feet in order for the detection to be effective. If one is not able to tell that the vehicle is operated by police, then pulling over a vehicle strictly based upon radar results could result in the Courts overturning the conviction or arrest.

This applies to all LEO with the exception of Georgia State Patrol.
Post automatically merged:


In speeding prosecution, the State must show that the speed detection device was visible to an approaching motorist before evidence gained by a speed detection device can be admissible. Carver v. State, 1993, 208 Ga.App. 405, 430 S.E.2d 790.
So you have firm precident available for your defense that a handheld, outside of a vehicle (officer on foot), must have a "vehicle" visible? I don't see the law as quoted to be written that way and if I was an officer of the court, I would use it in the strictest defined terms of operated from within the vehicle for 500ft to apply.

In speeding prosecution, the State must show that the speed detection device was visible to an approaching motorist before evidence gained by a speed detection device can be admissible. Carver v. State, 1993, 208 Ga.App. 405, 430 S.E.2d 790.

So this is different, a speed detection device "period" must be visible.
So an officer on foot, with lidar, standing on an overpass can be totally visible as a pedestrian, and blast away and call ahead for your ticket presentation. No car or signage required, just no camo or behind billboard etc.
The arguement is the officer was visible, but you paid no attention to a person standing off to the side or overhead. Didn't you see that badge on his chest at 500 ft? LOL.
Whatever the legal interpretation, the odds are against us winning the arguement....
Just beat them with CMs.
 

GregTec5

PSL +5
Intermediate User
Joined
Jun 10, 2020
Messages
478
Reaction score
1,138
Location
Georgia
@DC Fluid

Not sure what else needs to be explained. I simply repeated the law. I have also provided many case law references which explain further but it doesn't appear anyone is reading them.

If you don't believe me just do a simple search on your favorite search engine.

For the simple fact that GSP alone can legally shoot in the rear I agree that it's important to have rear protection.

Other than that I'm exhausted trying to explain my point on this. :eek:
 

DC Fluid

RDF Addicts Anonymous Member
Corgi Lovers
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 7, 2019
Messages
3,990
Reaction score
12,238
Age
55
Location
Prince George, B.C. Canada
@DC Fluid

Not sure what else needs to be explained. I simply repeated the law. I have also provided many case law references which explain further but it doesn't appear anyone is reading them.

If you don't believe me just do a simple search on your favorite search engine.

For the simple fact that GSP alone can legally shoot in the rear I agree that it's important to have rear protection.

Other than that I'm exhausted trying to explain my point on this. :eek:
No need to explain.
It's simply two people reading the same code, with different interpretations.
If I'm playing the devils advocate, the arguement would be about if the speed measuring device was inside or outside of the vehicle.
Section 40-14-7 - Visibility of vehicle from which device is operated
If not operated from within a vehicle, and no other wording to specifically restrict on-foot use of a speed measuring device, the courts may not be favorable to the use of this particular code as a reason to dismiss.
If there's other codes specifically to protect drivers from the other types of ambush then all the better.
Best not to get that ticket cause it's a tough go to provide enough evidence to sway a charge it seems.
 

Transporter

ModWight Transporter
Premium Plus
Lifetime Premium
Advanced User
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
4,432
Reaction score
7,828
Location
In front of you but behind a Rabbit - Hot'Lanta,GA
How do you figure? His patrol vehicle must be visible for at least 500 feet.

It's called a dash cam. Also wouldn't matter if other vehicles did the pursuit because the primary device's vehicle would be required to be visible.

“no stationary speed detection device (LIDAR AND NON-MOVING RADAR) shall be employed…where the vehicle from which the device is operated (THE OFFICER TAKES HANDHELD WHATEVER AND CAN USE IT LONG AS YOU CAN SEE HIS PATROL CAR FOR AT LEAST 500 FEET) is obstructed from the view of approaching motorists or is otherwise not visible for a distance of at least 500 feet.”

This means that the motorist must see the “police vehicle” for at least 500 feet in order for the detection to be effective. If one is not able to tell that the vehicle is operated by police, then pulling over a vehicle strictly based upon radar results could result in the Courts overturning the conviction or arrest.

This applies to all LEO with the exception of Georgia State Patrol.
Post automatically merged:


In speeding prosecution, the State must show that the speed detection device was visible to an approaching motorist before evidence gained by a speed detection device can be admissible. Carver v. State, 1993, 208 Ga.App. 405, 430 S.E.2d 790.

Not following me, yes the State Court is the same. What I was saying that is if a GSP is involved there is no need to move to State court (other than hoping for a no-show because the law you are talking about doesn't apply to them. Not the Court the LEO and jurisdiction, GSP is exempt.
 

Discord Server

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Threads
93,319
Messages
1,422,731
Members
23,768
Latest member
mikelonghair
Top