Speeding and Cowboy Cop

Conn2012 · 07-11-2012 7:38pm #1

ok.. So I was driving to Dublin today.. Tipping away nicely on the way up tbh :rolleyes:.. Seen a marked gardai car ahead so slowed down, kept the distance... ( fair distance now ) Thinkin if I stayed well behind didn`t over take.. ( thats a no no ) I would be fine..

5 mins later they pull into the fast lane, with lights on and start to wave me into hard shoulder.. ( i was in slow lane )

Out comes Gaurd... 'Do u know speed limit ?'..Me: 'Yes 120'... etc.. And tells me I was over, I replied 'I didn't tink so and this is company car first time driving it' etc.. He explains that he was speeding and slowing back down to see if i`d catch up with him.. ( from threads here I see this is totally legal for him on duty to go over limit - didnt know that.. thought they had to hav on the blues or siren on for this )

Takes my companies my details and tells me hes gonna report me for 'driving without care'.. Because wait for it.. 'I didnt know what speed I was doing twice', the twice is when he sped up and slowed down btw..

Can he do this ? He needs me on cam to clock my speed for speeding offence right?
And for the careless driving ? How can he prove I didn't know what speed I was doing if he can't clock me and prove me wrong that I was over?

So I`ve been checking on citizens info site... The offence is fairly serious a mandatory court appearance - has 5 points and up to 1,500eur...

A bit much ??? :eek:

finnegan101 · 07-11-2012 7:47pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

ok.. So I was driving to Dublin today.. Tipping away nicely on the way up tbh :rolleyes:.. Seen a marked gardai car ahead so slowed down, kept the distance... ( fair distance now ) Thinkin if I stayed well behind didn`t over take.. ( thats a no no ) I would be fine..

5 mins later they pull into the fast lane, with lights on and start to wave me into hard shoulder.. ( i was in slow lane )

Out comes Gaurd... 'Do u know speed limit ?'..Me: 'Yes 120'... etc.. And tells me I was over, I replied 'I didn't tink so and this is company car first time driving it' etc.. He explains that he was speeding and slowing back down to see if i`d catch up with him.. ( from threads here I see this is totally legal for him on duty to go over limit - didnt know that.. thought they had to hav on the blues or siren on for this )

Takes my companies my details and tells me hes gonna report me for 'driving without care'.. Because wait for it.. 'I didnt know what speed I was doing twice', the twice is when he sped up and slowed down btw..

Can he do this ? He needs me on cam to clock my speed for speeding offence right?
And for the careless driving ? How can he prove I didn't know what speed I was doing if he can't clock me and prove me wrong that I was over?

So I`ve been checking on citizens info site... The offence is fairly serious a mandatory court appearance - has 5 points and up to 1,500eur...

A bit much ??? :eek:

hmmm did you get reg of his car.... think someone may have witnessed a crazy car speeding up and slowing down for no reason on that very stretch of road ;-)
reading between the lines......
you were catching up with him when he slowed down!! makes sense... no worries there id say .....

may be you you didnt know what speed you were doing.... but because of the speed limitor in your car you know you were not going over the limit !!!

Pat Mustard · 07-11-2012 7:51pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

Can he do this ? He needs me on cam to clock my speed for speeding offence right?
And for the careless driving ? How can he prove I didn't know what speed I was doing if he can't clock me and prove me wrong that I was over?

So I`ve been checking on citizens info site... The offence is fairly serious a mandatory court appearance - has 5 points and up to 1,500eur...

A bit much ??? :eek:

He can send you a summons alright, but it's going to be very interesting to see how he plans to achieve a conviction.

Did the Garda know your speed?

Did he have a second Garda with him in the car who could verify your speed?

If he sends you a summons, find a solicitor who does district court defence work and get advice.

tayto lover · 07-11-2012 7:56pm

Something not right with this opening post.
How could someone driving in front of you know your exact speed which he would have to prove in a court? I can't even believe that this happened at all.

finnegan101 · 07-11-2012 7:59pm

think sometimes they take a chance that you will admit it... and pay up...

Conn2012 · 07-11-2012 8:01pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Something not right with this opening post.
How could someone driving in front of you know your exact speed which he would have to prove in a court? I can't even believe that this happened at all.

Exactly wat I was thinking??? It's absolutely how it happened above.. I was over, but how can he really prove it?

Conn2012 · 07-11-2012 8:09pm

The Mustard wrote: »

He can send you a summons alright, but it's going to be very interesting to see how he plans to achieve a conviction.

Did the Garda know your speed?

Did he have a second Garda with him in the car who could verify your speed?

If he sends you a summons, find a solicitor who does district court defence work and get advice.

He said that he was doing up to 160 down to 120 and he wasn't pullin away from me.. 'That I was maintaining the same distance'

There was another person in passenger seat- I jus seen the hand wavin me into hard shoulder, I'd assume another Garda..

Pat Mustard · 07-11-2012 8:45pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

He said that he was doing up to 160 down to 120 and he wasn't pullin away from me.. 'That I was maintaining the same distance'

There was another person in passenger seat- I jus seen the hand wavin me into hard shoulder, I'd assume another Garda..

So it seems as though there were two Gardai, at least one of whom is willing to give evidence that you were travelling in excess of the speed limit.

That puts a different slant on things.

Still, the advice is the same. Go to a solicitor if you get a summons.

Harry Bosch. · 07-11-2012 8:47pm

If it was a unmarked traffic car it could have a forward facing camera near the windscreen that can be rotated backwards to record and photograph you, or if it has ANPR it will have a rearward facing camera. He could have it all on tape, your speed and the driving without due care. I was stopped for going a tad fast by the lads in traffic while they where in front of me, all caught on camera. They were sound and just had a chat..

Conn2012 · 07-11-2012 8:50pm

The Mustard wrote: »

So it seems as though there were two Gardai, at least one of whom is willing to give evidence that you were travelling in excess of the speed limit.

That puts a different slant on things.

Still, the advice is the same. Go to a solicitor if you get a summons.

Yes two, but they need to clock me on a peice of equipment surely.. And by that a speed gun or cam? Fair enough if they were behind me and clocked me at a consistent speed.. ?

Conn2012 · 07-11-2012 8:54pm

Harry Bosch. wrote: »

If it was a unmarked traffic car it could have a forward facing camera near the windscreen that can be rotated backwards to record and photograph you, or if it has ANPR it will have a rearward facing camera. He could have it all on tape, your speed and the driving without due care. I was stopped for going a tad fast by the lads in traffic while they where in front of me, all caught on camera. They were sound and just had a chat..

It was a marked car.. Not traffic corps though.. Jus the local lads ( u know from the car ) sounded from tip? - But I know they can be placed anywhere in country

tayto lover · 07-11-2012 8:57pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

Exactly wat I was thinking??? It's absolutely how it happened above.. I was over, but how can he really prove it?

He can't prove it in court. If he had equipment then he would have showed it to you. It was just a lad on a wee ego-trip i'd say so you will hardly hear anymore about it. No need to go to a solicitor unless you get a summons, which you won't.

Turner · 07-11-2012 11:03pm

Did you keep to the speed limit or keep to the speed of the Garda car?

If he had ANPR he can measure your speed over distances using the handset, ie from bridge to bridge or lamp post to lamp post.

Many marked and unmarked garda cars have ANPR.

goldie fish · 07-11-2012 11:16pm

What speed were you doing?

Leo Demidov · 07-11-2012 11:39pm

goldie fish wrote: »

What speed were you doing?

Worth a shot :-Q

Zambia · 08-11-2012 12:21am

Conn2012 wrote: »

Takes my companies my details and tells me hes gonna report me for 'driving without care'.. Because wait for it.. 'I didnt know what speed I was doing twice', the twice is when he sped up and slowed down btw..

eek:

From your post it appears you are not getting a ticket for speeding. He is or may be charging you with not paying
Attention , this is pretty obvious as you are gauging your speed by the distance to him. At all times you should know the speed you are doing otherwise your not really in control.

im invisible · 08-11-2012 12:31am

Zambia wrote: »

At all times you should know the speed you are doing otherwise your not really in control.

ah now, thats hardly right?

Zambia · 08-11-2012 1:17am

im invisible wrote: »

ah now, thats hardly right?

It is if your on a motorway or anywhere that has a speed limit

MagicSean · 08-11-2012 1:41am

tayto lover wrote: »

He can't prove it in court. If he had equipment then he would have showed it to you. It was just a lad on a wee ego-trip i'd say so you will hardly hear anymore about it. No need to go to a solicitor unless you get a summons, which you won't.

Why can't he prove it in court?

wicklaman83 · 08-11-2012 11:10am

MagicSean wrote: »

Why can't he prove it in court?

If he was using his own odometer to gauge the OPs speed,he will have no physical proof. Therefore he cant prove it happened so he'll just have to give his word that it happened

MagicSean · 08-11-2012 11:38am

wicklaman83 wrote: »

If he was using his own odometer to gauge the OPs speed,he will have no physical proof. Therefore he cant prove it happened so he'll just have to give his word that it happened

You mean he would have trouble supporting it. Testimony can be proof in itself.

wicklaman83 · 08-11-2012 12:02pm

MagicSean wrote: »

You mean he would have trouble supporting it. Testimony can be proof in
itself.

No no. I mean he cant prove it. How can word of mouth be proof.

If my house got broken in to and i seen someone in my yard but not my house and tell the guards this,they wont arrest the person on my say so. They will look for proof.

The guard seen the OP driving fast but has no proof

pa990 · 08-11-2012 12:13pm

wicklaman83 wrote: »

No no. I mean he cant prove it. How can word of mouth be proof.

If my house got broken in to and i seen someone in my yard but not my house and tell the guards this,they wont arrest the person on my say so. They will look for proof.

The guard seen the OP driving fast but has no proof

Ehhhh.. Direct evidence.. The Guard saw it happen.
Proof can be what someone witnessed, remember, the legal system operated long before camera's and videos etc

The Judge listens to both sides, spoken evidence or otherwise and makes his decision on that.

MagicSean · 08-11-2012 12:26pm

wicklaman83 wrote: »

No no. I mean he cant prove it. How can word of mouth be proof.

If my house got broken in to and i seen someone in my yard but not my house and tell the guards this,they wont arrest the person on my say so. They will look for proof.

The guard seen the OP driving fast but has no proof

Yes his testimony is proof. As is the testimony of his passenger. Not sure why you are having difficulty understanding it.

Zambia · 08-11-2012 12:35pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Yes his testimony is proof. As is the testimony of his passenger. Not sure why you are having difficulty understanding it.

A lot of people think if its not on video well it just didn't happen.

wicklaman83 · 08-11-2012 3:17pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Yes his testimony is proof. As is the testimony of his passenger. Not sure why you are having difficulty understanding it.

The OP said the guard had no proof. I think he is right. Just because the guards say they seen something doesnt mean it did.

If we go by your basis there was a mis-carraige of justice in waterford. Did the 3/4 guards not get convicted for assault yet they gave testimony that they were not involved.

They were convicted because there was proof.

savagecabbages · 08-11-2012 4:50pm

The OP also implied that he/she was breaking the speed limit.

tayto lover · 08-11-2012 6:00pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Why can't he prove it in court?

If he had no equipment then he can't prove it.
If they have equipment they always show you you're speed.

Conn2012 · 08-11-2012 6:01pm

Turner wrote: »

Did you keep to the speed limit or keep to the speed of the Garda car?

If he had ANPR he can measure your speed over distances using the handset, ie from bridge to bridge or lamp post to lamp post.

Many marked and unmarked garda cars have ANPR.

I was over alrite, he said sumtin about 'opdometer in back of his car'? But if he'd could clock me over - he'd done me for speeding? I was on motorway and fair distance behind - so very little to measure from.. Even at that, if he could its not really 'evidence' in court is it?

Conn2012 · 08-11-2012 6:02pm

goldie fish wrote: »

What speed were you doing?

Between 120 -160.. When I seem d cop car..

Conn2012 · 08-11-2012 6:07pm

Zambia wrote: »

From your post it appears you are not getting a ticket for speeding. He is or may be charging you with not paying
Attention , this is pretty obvious as you are gauging your speed by the distance to him. At all times you should know the speed you are doing otherwise your not really in control.

I did know my speed at all times.. I told him 120.. He says I was over.. And because he says I was over = I didn't know my speed!

But his evidence as far as I can see is his opinion?? While being in car a distance ahead - speedin up and slowin down.. ?

MagicSean · 08-11-2012 6:20pm

wicklaman83 wrote: »

The OP said the guard had no proof. I think he is right. Just because the guards say they seen something doesnt mean it did.

If we go by your basis there was a mis-carraige of justice in waterford. Did the 3/4 guards not get convicted for assault yet they gave testimony that they were not involved.

They were convicted because there was proof.

tayto lover wrote: »

If he had no equipment then he can't prove it.
If they have equipment they always show you you're speed.

I don't think you know what the word proof means. If you are walking down the road with a Garda and a guy runs up to you and shoots you dead then throws the gun in a river would there be no proof of the act even though the Garda witnessed it? Witness testimony is evidence, no matter wether it is from a Garda or not, and a case can be proved by testimony alone.

Conn2012 · 08-11-2012 6:25pm

MagicSean wrote: »

I don't think you know what the word proof means. If you are walking down the road with a Garda and a guy runs up to you and shoots you dead then throws the gun in a river would there be no proof of the act even though the Garda witnessed it? Witness testimony is evidence, no matter wether it is from a Garda or not, and a case can be proved by testimony alone.

Aaa come on now.. ( The body is the proof the crime happened, not the gun btw ) We are on about speeding, he says I was speeding he has to prove I was over 120... In his opinion I was.. Surely he needs to tell me my exact speed? And if he could he'd done me for speeding right?

What we doing with all the guns / cameras.. Jus stick gaurd on side road and let them hav crack guessing who's over?

MagicSean · 08-11-2012 6:33pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

Aaa come on now.. ( The body is the proof the crime happened, not the gun btw ) We are on about speeding, he says I was speeding he has to prove I was over 120... In his opinion I was.. Surely he needs to tell me my exact speed? And if he could he'd done me for speeding right?

What we doing with all the guns / cameras.. Jus stick gaurd on side road and let them hav crack guessing who's over?

If he was travelling at 120 kmph and op was gaining ground on him then that is proof op was speeding. It's mathematical proof. You can obvioulsy try and challenge the accuracy of his speedometer or honesty of his testimony. I'm not sure where you get this idea that he needs some kind of electronic proof?

Conn2012 · 08-11-2012 6:47pm

MagicSean wrote: »

If he was travelling at 120 kmph and op was gaining ground on him then that is proof op was speeding. It's mathematical proof. You can obvioulsy try and challenge the accuracy of his speedometer or honesty of his testimony. I'm not sure where you get this idea that he needs some kind of electronic proof?

My idea I more like.. I give u example.. The guards opinion a driver was drunk- he still needs proof - a roadside breath test / a validated machine at station or a doc to take blood / urine.. Seal it and send it to be tested in a lab.. The even at the lab two analysts need to sign it...

In speeding the gun/cam needs to be tested and calibrated to b proof.. Not jus his own cars speedometer?? And if he's watchin me in rear view is he not more of a hazard?

Pat Mustard · 08-11-2012 6:48pm

tayto lover wrote: »

If he had no equipment then he can't prove it.

I think that you are referring to the rule where the uncorroborated evidence of a Garda cannot result in conviction for speeding.

It seems that there was no speed detection equipment to corroborate the Garda's evidence. However, this does not mean that the Garda's evidence cannot be corroborated.

A second Garda could give the necessary corroborative evidence.

MagicSean · 08-11-2012 6:50pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

My idea I more like.. I give u example.. The guards opinion a driver was drunk- he still needs proof - a roadside breath test / a validated machine at station or a doc to take blood / urine.. Seal it and send it to be tested in a lab.. The even at the lab two analysts need to sign it...

In speeding the gun/cam needs to be tested and calibrated to b proof.. Not jus his own cars speedometer?? And if he's watchin me in rear view is he not more of a hazard?

Section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Acts 2010-2011 does not require a sample to prove drink driving.

Mpre of a hazard? You're just grasping at straws now.

tayto lover · 08-11-2012 7:03pm

MagicSean wrote: »

I don't think you know what the word proof means. If you are walking down the road with a Garda and a guy runs up to you and shoots you dead then throws the gun in a river would there be no proof of the act even though the Garda witnessed it? Witness testimony is evidence, no matter wether it is from a Garda or not, and a case can be proved by testimony alone.

Very poor analogy there. Not like you.
If that Garda took me to court I would have them produce their own car to have their speedometer examined to see the accuracy of it's calibration.
A Garda, no more than anyone else, can guess your speed. The element of proof still exists in our courts. How can they tell the exact speed he was doing if they have no speed reading device?
They can't say "Judge he was doing the same speed as us and we were doing 140 k.p.h.". and he could say "well my speedometer was reading just 120 k.p.h."
There would be a serious doubt in that case and I couldn't see a Judge convicting him tbh.

Pat Mustard · 08-11-2012 7:03pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

And if he's watchin me in rear view is he not more of a hazard?

MagicSean wrote: »

Mpre of a hazard? You're just grasping at straws now.

You may be right, but there's an interesting point there.

If the Garda driver was (first) watching the road ahead of him, doesn't it cast doubt on whether he could accurately (secondly) keep an eye on the speedomoter and (thirdly) accurately monitor the OP's distance behind him?

Maybe the Garda could give convincing evidence of carefully watching all three, but it would be interesting to see how he would manage under cross-examination.

Al Capwned · 08-11-2012 7:04pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

Between 120 -160.. When I seem d cop car..

And you call him a cowboy cop????

Absolutely no idea of what speed you were doing... You SHOULD be done for dangerous driving if it's possible you were doing 160kph and not know about it.

Conn2012 · 08-11-2012 7:05pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Acts 2010-2011 does not require a sample to prove drink driving.

Mpre of a hazard? You're just grasping at straws now.

When a Garda decides to prosecute someone for drink driving they must provide the court with certain proofs in order to obtain a conviction. The proofs required under Section 4(2), (3) and (4) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 (i.e. blood, urine and breath test) are slightly different to that of Section 4(1) (driving while under the influence of an intoxicant).
This charge is normally preferred where an arrested person has failed to provide a blood, urine or breath specimen with the result that it is not possible to bring a case under either Section 4(2), (3) or (4).
For an offence under 4(1) the following elements or proofs must be given to the court;
That you drove or attempted to drive
That you must have driven or attempted to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle
That your driving or attempt to drive took place in a public place
That you were under the influence of an intoxicant to such a degree that you could not properly control the vehicle

Conn2012 · 08-11-2012 7:15pm

alproctor wrote: »

And you call him a cowboy cop????

Absolutely no idea of what speed you were doing... You SHOULD be done for dangerous driving if it's possible you were doing 160kph and not know about it.

Now now don't be like that, i knew exactly and was in full control.. when he slowed I slowed I kept the distance.. Must of been at least 15 car lengths between us.. ( measuring/explaining distance would not b my strong point ) An the 'cowboy' was in regards to his tactics used to try gauge my speed..

MagicSean · 08-11-2012 7:17pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Very poor analogy there. Not like you.
If that Garda took me to court I would have them produce their own car to have their speedometer examined to see the accuracy of it's calibration.
A Garda, no more than anyone else, can guess your speed. The element of proof still exists in our courts. How can they tell the exact speed he was doing if they have no speed reading device?
They can't say "Judge he was doing the same speed as us and we were doing 140 k.p.h.". and he could say "well my speedometer was reading just 120 k.p.h."
There would be a serious doubt in that case and I couldn't see a Judge convicting him tbh.

The analogy is sound. Your claim is that witness testimony is not sufficient proof. My claim is that witness testimony can be sufficient.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position though.

The Mustard wrote: »

You may be right, but there's an interesting point there.

If the Garda driver was (first) watching the road ahead of him, doesn't it cast doubt on whether he could accurately (secondly) keep an eye on the speedomoter and (thirdly) accurately monitor the OP's distance behind him?

Maybe the Garda could give convincing evidence of carefully watching all three, but it would be interesting to see how he would manage under cross-examination.

All three are things every driver is supposed to be able to when driving at all times.

Conn2012 wrote: »

When a Garda decides to prosecute someone for drink driving they must provide the court with certain proofs in order to obtain a conviction. The proofs required under Section 4(2), (3) and (4) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 (i.e. blood, urine and breath test) are slightly different to that of Section 4(1) (driving while under the influence of an intoxicant).
This charge is normally preferred where an arrested person has failed to provide a blood, urine or breath specimen with the result that it is not possible to bring a case under either Section 4(2), (3) or (4).
For an offence under 4(1) the following elements or proofs must be given to the court;
That you drove or attempted to drive
That you must have driven or attempted to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle
That your driving or attempt to drive took place in a public place
That you were under the influence of an intoxicant to such a degree that you could not properly control the vehicle

All of which can be provided by witness testimony without any other supporting evidence.

Pat Mustard · 08-11-2012 7:17pm

alproctor wrote: »

And you call him a cowboy cop????

Absolutely no idea of what speed you were doing... You SHOULD be done for dangerous driving if it's possible you were doing 160kph and not know about it.

Nice horse. Did you purchase him locally?

Pat Mustard · 08-11-2012 7:23pm

MagicSean wrote: »

All three are things every driver is supposed to be able to when driving at all times.

I don't fully agree. When driving normally, a driver must be aware of his his speed and his surroundings, but it is a further stretch to be able to monitor the speed of the car which is behind you.

I'm not saying that the Garda cannot give strong enough evidence to secure a conviction.

What I'm saying is that perhaps cross-examination on this subject might cast enough doubt for an acquittal.

Conn2012 · 08-11-2012 7:24pm

MagicSean wrote: »

The analogy is sound. Your claim is that witness testimony is not sufficient proof. My claim is that witness testimony can be sufficient.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position though.

All three are things every driver is supposed to be able to when driving at all times.

All of which can be provided by witness testimony without any other supporting evidence.

Should the person refuse or be unable to provide a sample..

tayto lover · 08-11-2012 7:27pm

MagicSean wrote: »

The analogy is sound. Your claim is that witness testimony is not sufficient proof. My claim is that witness testimony can be sufficient.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position though.

I have read of cases where the Gardai were chasing people and where they gave evidence of the speed the car was travelling and the manner it was being driven in.
In this case nobody was being chased and the Gardai had to slow down to measure the driver's speed on occasions. A good solicitor would make a laugh of this case in fairness if it ever went to court at all, which I doubt it will.
The Gardai would also be in trouble with their own bosses if they mentioned in court that they sped up and slowed down to catch someone speeding.

MagicSean · 08-11-2012 8:18pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

Should the person refuse or be unable to provide a sample..

That is only one case where such a charge can be brought.

tayto lover wrote: »

I have read of cases where the Gardai were chasing people and where they gave evidence of the speed the car was travelling and the manner it was being driven in.
In this case nobody was being chased and the Gardai had to slow down to measure the driver's speed on occasions. A good solicitor would make a laugh of this case in fairness if it ever went to court at all, which I doubt it will.
The Gardai would also be in trouble with their own bosses if they mentioned in court that they sped up and slowed down to catch someone speeding.

The op isn't being done for speeding though so an exact speed isn't required, just evidence of him exceeding a particular speed.

Conn2012 · 08-11-2012 8:23pm

MagicSean wrote: »

The op isn't being done for speeding though so an exact speed isn't required, just evidence of him exceeding a particular speed.

Thats brilliant... - I cant be done for speeding because they cant prove it.. But I can be done for 'driving without care' reson being = speeding... Are you kidding me ?

tayto lover · 08-11-2012 8:23pm

MagicSean wrote: »

That is only one case where such a charge can be brought.

The op isn't being done for speeding though so an exact speed isn't required, just evidence of him exceeding a particular speed.

Right. So if his solicitor asks "what speed was my client doing exactly Garda"? What answer will he get? We don't know exactly but it was over 120kph.
It would be thrown out without question. If you can't tell the speed then don't try and make a case.
I can't see this case going to court. The Gardai are not fools and I stand up for them very often on these threads but this case would be laughed out of court. Seriously. That's why it won't reach court.

TheNog · 08-11-2012 8:42pm

Estimated speed of a driver is done a lot of the time. Personally I have given evidence against a dozen or so drivers on dangerous driving which included speed which I was able to determine from the speedometer of the patrol car.

Where you agree with it or not doesn't matter. It has and continues to be done

Speeding and Cowboy Cop

Comments