Admissibility of Video Stills In lieu of Photos?
Discussion
Wilts Fuzz use mobile van-mounted laser equipment. I was caught as I appeared over the brow of a hill outside Avebury, at a range of 135m from the equipment. Not an excessive speed for a country road, I hasten to add, but blatant surprise-tactics from Plod!
Naturally I asked for the photographs, which actually make this point abundantly clear - here I am, balanced on the horizon-line, behind which I had not been visible, coming towards the camera. Needless to say, I'm fuming!
The video 'photos' from a front-facing laser device raise other questions as well. The law, I believe, states that any photographs used in evidence must be originals taken straight from the negative, and without being enhanced for clarity, etc (dated rules, obviously). How can you do this with video tape, and not be 'enhancing' the image (well, there's actually no original 'image' to start with, is there?).
Do we think this might be a line worth pursuing?
There were two photos. The first one shows the car at the moment the device was triggered, with the superimposed laser data, and the second is titled a 'close-up', taken 2-secs later when the car was close enough for the number plate to be read (couldn't quite do that in the first one - but that might explain the selected targetting range being so close), and had no speed data on it. Can they link the two together? That's the only way they'll actually prove it was my car.
Leaving that aside for a moment, my best argument is probably the siting of the equipment, in that the triggering of the reading is supposed to be to confirm the officers' prior suspicion. In this case I was not visible before caught.
Grateful for comments from the floor. Thanks Guys.
Paul
Naturally I asked for the photographs, which actually make this point abundantly clear - here I am, balanced on the horizon-line, behind which I had not been visible, coming towards the camera. Needless to say, I'm fuming!
The video 'photos' from a front-facing laser device raise other questions as well. The law, I believe, states that any photographs used in evidence must be originals taken straight from the negative, and without being enhanced for clarity, etc (dated rules, obviously). How can you do this with video tape, and not be 'enhancing' the image (well, there's actually no original 'image' to start with, is there?).
Do we think this might be a line worth pursuing?
There were two photos. The first one shows the car at the moment the device was triggered, with the superimposed laser data, and the second is titled a 'close-up', taken 2-secs later when the car was close enough for the number plate to be read (couldn't quite do that in the first one - but that might explain the selected targetting range being so close), and had no speed data on it. Can they link the two together? That's the only way they'll actually prove it was my car.
Leaving that aside for a moment, my best argument is probably the siting of the equipment, in that the triggering of the reading is supposed to be to confirm the officers' prior suspicion. In this case I was not visible before caught.
Grateful for comments from the floor. Thanks Guys.
Paul
The law, I believe, states that any photographs used in evidence must be originals taken straight from the negative.....
.......There were two photos. The first one shows the car at the moment the device was triggered, with the superimposed laser data, and the second is titled a 'close-up', taken 2-secs later when the car was close enough for the number plate to be read (couldn't quite do that in the first one - but that might explain the selected targetting range being so close), and had no speed data on it. Can they link the two together? That's the only way they'll actually prove it was my car.
Video tapes are perfectly admissable in court, enhancing a video is no problem as long as continuity of the evidence can be shown.
Leaving that aside for a moment, my best argument is probably the siting of the equipment, in that the triggering of the reading is supposed to be to confirm the officers' prior suspicion. In this case I was not visible before caught.
Sure there wasn't prior warning from a colleague you may already have passed....or even a cross view of you approaching....
Regards
Rob
Surely the act of triggering their device is tantamount to the creation of a prior suspicion that is then confirmed by the video.
Secondly, I'd be very careful about using an argument based on them not having been able to see you before the video was taken - by using that, you'll also be saying "I was speeding while coming over the brow of the hill unable to see what was on the other side of it, and thus potentially unable to avoid any hazards".
Secondly, I'd be very careful about using an argument based on them not having been able to see you before the video was taken - by using that, you'll also be saying "I was speeding while coming over the brow of the hill unable to see what was on the other side of it, and thus potentially unable to avoid any hazards".
I'm not convinced that aiming the laser can be costrued as an act of suspicion. Surely it has to result from a suspicion.
I did not judge my speed to be excessive for the road conditions and surroundings. However, my alleged speed is not neccessarily the issue here. The issue is one of improper targeting.
Does anyone know what the act of pressing the trigger on this (unfortunately as yet unknown) laser device produces? Is it a continuous video 'film', of which they have sent me two prints, or a single video 'photo' with each activation?
Paul
I did not judge my speed to be excessive for the road conditions and surroundings. However, my alleged speed is not neccessarily the issue here. The issue is one of improper targeting.
Does anyone know what the act of pressing the trigger on this (unfortunately as yet unknown) laser device produces? Is it a continuous video 'film', of which they have sent me two prints, or a single video 'photo' with each activation?
Paul
If its like the devices I have used there are 2 parts, a laser device that is attached to a tripod, also attached to that is a high quality video camera, then the video is set on record and away you go. The video will record until it runs out of tape even if you don’t catch anyone speeding. However when the laser detects a vehicle moving over the pre set limit it will momentarily pause the video (not noticeable on playback) to get the still, it will then overlay the speed data, date time etc onto it and print off automatically a copy of the pic.
So later down the line in court they can produce the video evidence of you speeding as well as the still.
Hope this is of some help.
So later down the line in court they can produce the video evidence of you speeding as well as the still.
Hope this is of some help.
For definitive advice post your query on the fightback forum at www.pepipoo.com
In the meantime here's my take on things:
Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act rules that only the evidence generated by the speed measuring device is admissible. In the case of a Gatso that means the original negatives, in your case the video.
www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2.htm#mdiv23
The 1996 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act rules that any party (including the police) who wishes to rely on evidence at a Court hearing must disclose the content of that evidence, whether written statement, photographic evidence or other, to their opponent. I believe it is 7 days before the hearing in speeding cases. The Police therefore are legally obliged to disclose that video to you, if you contest the charge. However you may experience difficulties in getting your hands on it. If they outright refuse to hand it over I suggest you go to Court, get your solicitor to politely point out what constitutes admissible evidence under Section 23 and get the case thrown out. Any evidence not disclosed to the defendant within the allowed time period cannot be relied upon at Court.
In the event of them disclosing the video to you the following may be useful:
Section 32.5 of the ACPO guidelines clearly states that the officer should only use speed-measuring equipment to corroborate their prior personal opinion of excess speed. Also bear in mind that ACPO guidelines are not recognised in law!
If you were caught by an LTi 20/20 then have a read of this:
www.pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_LTi2020_screen.htm
There are a variety of error codes generated by the LTi20/20 and if the frame being used to verify your speed shows "TIMEOUT" or "ERROR 0#" (where # = 1, 2 or 3) then it is invalid and inadmissible. You may suspect that an error code may have been digitally removed from the copies of the prints you have received. That is why, if you contest the charge, it is essential to get hold of the original video to check for "continuity of evidence."
If you were caught by a Kustom ProLaser system then have a read of this:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=16113&f=0&h=0&hw=
BTW, paragraph 4 of Section 23 states that evidence from a speed measuring device is only admissible if compliance with conditions of Type Approval can be proven. If you haven't received documented proof of this when you requested the all the evidence supporting the prosecution's allegation then it's another nail in the coffin of the prosecution's case (re the Dwight Yorke case).
Good luck.
In the meantime here's my take on things:
Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act rules that only the evidence generated by the speed measuring device is admissible. In the case of a Gatso that means the original negatives, in your case the video.
www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2.htm#mdiv23
The 1996 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act rules that any party (including the police) who wishes to rely on evidence at a Court hearing must disclose the content of that evidence, whether written statement, photographic evidence or other, to their opponent. I believe it is 7 days before the hearing in speeding cases. The Police therefore are legally obliged to disclose that video to you, if you contest the charge. However you may experience difficulties in getting your hands on it. If they outright refuse to hand it over I suggest you go to Court, get your solicitor to politely point out what constitutes admissible evidence under Section 23 and get the case thrown out. Any evidence not disclosed to the defendant within the allowed time period cannot be relied upon at Court.
In the event of them disclosing the video to you the following may be useful:
Section 32.5 of the ACPO guidelines clearly states that the officer should only use speed-measuring equipment to corroborate their prior personal opinion of excess speed. Also bear in mind that ACPO guidelines are not recognised in law!
If you were caught by an LTi 20/20 then have a read of this:
www.pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_LTi2020_screen.htm
There are a variety of error codes generated by the LTi20/20 and if the frame being used to verify your speed shows "TIMEOUT" or "ERROR 0#" (where # = 1, 2 or 3) then it is invalid and inadmissible. You may suspect that an error code may have been digitally removed from the copies of the prints you have received. That is why, if you contest the charge, it is essential to get hold of the original video to check for "continuity of evidence."
If you were caught by a Kustom ProLaser system then have a read of this:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=16113&f=0&h=0&hw=
BTW, paragraph 4 of Section 23 states that evidence from a speed measuring device is only admissible if compliance with conditions of Type Approval can be proven. If you haven't received documented proof of this when you requested the all the evidence supporting the prosecution's allegation then it's another nail in the coffin of the prosecution's case (re the Dwight Yorke case).
Good luck.
(Afterthought)
If I were to see the full video, would I see a whole series of laser 'shots', prior to the one that timed-out? Perhaps I've just been (un)lucky with the single 'timeout' print they've sent me and actually on the video somewhere is the previous 'frame', but with a valid reading. Er, not sure exactly how these things work. Any thoughts?
Paul
If I were to see the full video, would I see a whole series of laser 'shots', prior to the one that timed-out? Perhaps I've just been (un)lucky with the single 'timeout' print they've sent me and actually on the video somewhere is the previous 'frame', but with a valid reading. Er, not sure exactly how these things work. Any thoughts?
Paul
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff