With the fastest moving target argument, he cannot be sure which vehicle he was hitting. Which bike or which car was fastest? How can he write up the other 3 when he only had 1?
There was mention that they were pretty much travelling in a group. The officer could argue that this was the average speed of the group, and as long as they remained grouped together, they would all have to maintain at least that speed....
LIDAR.. Can he use that while travelling at a high rate of speed (over 80 at least), while navigating turns and watching out for oncoming cars? Since he was a ways back, he didn't have much time to hit each vehicle before they disappeared around the next corner. Can he hit each individual vehicle within about 600 yards while travelling at a high rate of speed? Maybe even operating the radio to tell someone that he's in pursuit of 4 vehicles. With the distance he was at, the LIDAR cone would have spread enough for John's detector to go off, even if the trooper was aiming at the rear license tag.
hehe, well, don't believe everything the radar/lidar detector manufacturers tell you, ok? I have yet to see a lidar detector that actually identified a true lidar signal.
The faster the vehicle speed, the easier the speed measuring device can lock on to it (lidar or radar)
Lidar has the disadvantage in that the patrol vehicle must be stopped to use it. I imagine they could use some type of VASCAR system if they were measuring vehicle velocities that were exactly parallel to the patrol vehicle, but in that case the patrol vehicle could just pace them. Police speedometers are certified calibrated to be accurate, and therefore admissible in court.
Lidar doesn't have a cone, it has a beam. Radar has a cone.
In order for a lidar detector to work, it would have to have a sensor on your license plate. I have never seen one that does.
But it could be enough to put a doubt in the judge/jury's mind about the conditions surrounding the time. That's all that's required to get them off.
...if there is no tape. A video tape all but erases any doubt.... I'm not trying to screw them, just being realistic from my experiences in court.
There was no one near them. They overtook the tow truck in a safe manner, the oncoming car passed, and then they started to play around. They would have to be endangering other vehicles, which they were not because the oncoming car had cleared them and they had cleared the tow truck before they started to play. I didn't see a house along the side of the road until I came upon them pulled over, so there goes the property argument. Not a single vehicle came in the other direction before I came upon them pulled over.
Even so, they were still in close proximity to each other, and each other's vehicles. Therefore, they can be convicted of endangering each other and each other's property, and hence the reckless driving conviction.
