For the first time in about 16 or 17 years, I’m going to be paying a speeding ticket. I’m not paying it because I’m guilty, I’m paying it because I can’t afford the alternative.

Today I had my trial for a speeding ticket I received back in May. I was cited for doing 64 in a 45 frontage road. The officer, in this case, was dead wrong and clocked the wrong car. It was 5:40 in the morning and pitch black outside other than the headlights of all the cars heading to work at Fort Hood. I was less than ten miles from work and had nearly an hour to get there. I like to be at least in the parking lot by about 6 am to get ahead of the major traffic.

After exiting the ramp, I slowed my car to a speed of about 46 or 47 (non-digital speedometer) in a 45 mph frontage road. It was a construction zone, but there were no workers there at such an early time, so I wasn’t cited double.

I was driving in the left lane when the police car pulled out behind me. I got in to the right lane thinking he was going to pass me since I definitely hadn’t done anything wrong, but he switched lanes with me indicating he was pulling ME over.

The first thing the officer asked me was why I was driving so erratically. I assumed he was talking about when I got off the exit ramp and had to dodge to avoid an orange construction barrel I didn’t notice. I told I had just gotten off the highway and wasn’t paying attention. I assumed wrong as he was actually talking about why I was speeding. In court, I asked if he clarified with defendant (me) what he meant by driving “erratically” and he said he didn’t. I asked if it was safe to assume that the defendant misunderstood what he meant when he made that statement. The prosecutor objected claiming speculation. Sustained.

I then asked him what training he had to be qualified to visually estimate the speed of a vehicle. He explained he had X number of hours of training and that officers were tested estimated the speed of 25 vehicles while stationary and 25 vehicles while moving. I asked if there was a test to pass the course to which the officer replied there was. When asked about the pass criteria, the officer stated that he needed to guess within 2-3 mph 80% of the 50 situations. So, I stated, there is a 20% error rate in estimating speed visually without aids.

I then asked the officer if he understands how radar works. The prosecutor again objected and said that the question was too technical and officers aren’t expected to know anything beyond the operation of the equipment. I retorted that officers should at least have a base knowledge of how equipment works, even if it isn’t an in-depth technical knowledge. For example, I said, when I use a radio I at least understand that I must be within the range of tower emitting the frequency I want to listen to and understand that some structures will affect my signal. It’s no different than radar. I also explained that this line of questioning in imperative in my ultimate goal of proving my innocence. I was allowed to continue.

I asked the officer what the range fan of his radar was and he said he did not know. Later, he stated that there is a 12 degree variance from the center aiming point. I asked him if he understands how radar works. What he didn’t know was that I used to be a Signals Intelligence Specialist and am training on knowing how radar, radio frequencies, and cell phone signals operate (and how to jam them). Another objection was sustained by the judge and I had to rephrase my question.

“Is it possible that a bigger vehicle traveling down the highway beside me, and well within the 12 degree fan, at a much faster speed could have overridden your radar and gave you a false reading based on size and speed?”

“No, there were no other vehicles on the road.”

“Your honor, the video will clearly show that there WERE other vehicles on the road at the time on both the frontage road and the highway and that many of them were large trucks.” The speed limit on the highway next to the frontage road was, you guessed it, 65 mph.

Anyway, I was poking holes in every aspect of his testimony. I wasn’t trying to just be disagreeable, but when an officer is wrong, he’s wrong. It’s okay and it happens. I still respect them for what they do.

Once I was done questioning the officer, the prosecution rested. Here is where I completely screwed up my case. I falsely assumed that the video was going to be a part of the prosecution. It wasn’t. They provided no paperwork stating I was speeding other than a statement. They didn’t show the video. Nothing.

The judge asked me if I had any witnesses in my defense, to which I stupidly said, “no, your honor.” We then moved on to our closing statements. The prosecutor stated they had provided irrefutable evidence that I was indeed going 64 in a 45 and that I should be fined accordingly and found guilty. My turn.

“Your honor, the state has not only NOT provided irrefutable evidence, they haven’t provided any evidence at all other than an officer saying I was speeding. He is a respected member of the police force for an unknown number of years and I am a respected member of the military with a Top Secret clearance. It then become a matter of one person’s word against another, neither having a higher or lower assumed moral character.

“I used to be a Signal Intelligence Specialist and have training in how frequencies, waves, and signals operate. Radar is very easy to explain…and manipulate. The radar used by Officer Ramaes send out a frequency that transmitted in the form of an electromagnetic wave. The device also has an internal receiver that measures the signal as it is reflected off an object. Because technology doesn’t exist to concentrate these waves in to laser-like precision they can be distorted by buildings, landscape and, yes, other vehicles.

“A faster moving larger vehicle traveling alongside a smaller, slower moving vehicle and within the rangefan of the radar will reflect those signals back faster and more powerfully. It’s the same way that jamming works. In order to jam a frequency, one merely needs to emit a larger, more powerful signal at the same wavelength to drown out the offending signal.

“Your honor, this is what I believe happend on May 4th, 2010 when Officer Ramaes believed he was tagging me on his radar. The fact is that the highway right beside was active with larger vehicle traffic.”

At this point, it completely escaped me that I was doing a closing argument and the video hadn’t been shown yet. I had a chance to review the video which only strengthened my resolve to fight this a different way than I had in the past.

“As the video would show, there were indeed larger vehicles moving at highway speed within the rangefan and azimuth of the officer’s radar. These vehicles would have reflected a faster and more powerful frequency that was interpreted by the officer as being mine. Since the officer testified he was not aware of the specifics of his particular radar, there is reasonable doubt that I am the one actually picked up on radar. All this is in addition to other factors that could adversely affect radar signals like wind, temperature, and precipitation.

“Additionally, the prosecution testified that the officer did not have any night time speed estimation training at time he was certified. I would submit that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to estimate speed and distance at night staring at just headlights. Regardless, Officer Ramaes testified that there is a 20% acceptable rate, which injects doubt into his visual observations as well.

“I was not speeding, period. It was a simple mistake to say I was. This case should be dismissed and defendant found guilty based on lack of evidence.”

Well, after we were both done, the judge looked at me and said that everything said was not sworn testimony and that the court can only rule on sworn testimony and evidence (none of which was presented). I didn’t ask to see the video and falsely assumed it would just be a part of the trial. When I had the chance to request to see it, I spaced. When I was asked to present witnesses, I forgot that I was a witness and should have testified under oath. Because the only testimony heard before the court was the officer’s, that was the only testimony he could rule on. I shot myself in the foot and got fined $230.80 (fine, plus court costs).

When I went to the counter, I explained that I would be appealling the decision, recognizing that valuable testimony and evidence was not presented at this trial. I was then informed that I had to post a bond equal to twice the cost of the fine. In order to appeal, it would cost me nearly $500, not including any future costs. I’ve never seen that before. Maybe it was waved for me in other states, but not here. The state has effectively fined me out of a defense and I’m just gonna have to suck it up and pay the fine and receive the points on my license – the first points I’ve had put on my license since 1990! What a crock! Harker Heights really needs my money, I guess.