laser diffusers / jammers
Discussion
anyone know for definite whether the USE of either a laser jammer OR a laser diffuser is illegal? if it is not, is there any way the plod can get you for anything else for using one? phoned up thames valley police.... their answer? 'Dunno - ask dept. transport'... 'kin useless bunch of d*ckweeds.
also what's the difference between a laser gun and a radar gun in terms of how they work?
this goes on to the next question - which radar / laser detector unit is the most sensible to opt for (not interested in gps type stuff or ones that detect gatsos). i'm only interested in detecting hand held devices....
also what's the difference between a laser gun and a radar gun in terms of how they work?
this goes on to the next question - which radar / laser detector unit is the most sensible to opt for (not interested in gps type stuff or ones that detect gatsos). i'm only interested in detecting hand held devices....
was just reading www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/jamlaw.htm on that very subject.....
From www.lawontheweb.co.uk (Lawyers - April 2004)
Police charge man for blocking speed gun
A thirty year old man from Staines has been arrested by Surrey Police for using a laser jammer device on his car.
It's alleged that when driving through a speed trap on the A308, the man used the jammer to prevent a speed reading being taken. His registration was noted by the recording equipment and police visited his home later that day to confiscate the device and arrest the man. He has been charged with obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.
Casualty Reduction Officer for Spelthorne PC Mike Pritchard said: “I want to emphasise that these devices are illegal. People are under the impression that the device will jam the laser signal and that’s all. What they fail to recognize is that the police speed detection device identifies that the vehicle is fitted with a laser jammer. The offence is recorded on tape and the vehicles are then traceable through the Police National Computer
DVD
Police charge man for blocking speed gun
A thirty year old man from Staines has been arrested by Surrey Police for using a laser jammer device on his car.
It's alleged that when driving through a speed trap on the A308, the man used the jammer to prevent a speed reading being taken. His registration was noted by the recording equipment and police visited his home later that day to confiscate the device and arrest the man. He has been charged with obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.
Casualty Reduction Officer for Spelthorne PC Mike Pritchard said: “I want to emphasise that these devices are illegal. People are under the impression that the device will jam the laser signal and that’s all. What they fail to recognize is that the police speed detection device identifies that the vehicle is fitted with a laser jammer. The offence is recorded on tape and the vehicles are then traceable through the Police National Computer
DVD
Zod said:
If you use it then you are breaking the law.
Since there is no statute to this effect and there has been no successful contested prosecution in a precedent-setting court, this statement is a fallacy.
It’s not a fallacy; the reasoning behind my statement is based on fact.
Rubbish, you have no idea of the law. Yourattempt at a reply is absurd. What do you think you mean by "based on fact"? The only relevant fact here is the fact of the law. The fact is that there is currently no law, either statute or case law, that makes laser jammers illegal.
If you really are a Policeman, you should make sure you know what you are talking about before declaring what you believe the law to be.
Why do you think that the CPS didn't have the confidence even to proceed against that idiot in Wales last year?
>> Edited by Zod on Thursday 3rd June 22:44
If you really are a Policeman, you should make sure you know what you are talking about before declaring what you believe the law to be.
Why do you think that the CPS didn't have the confidence even to proceed against that idiot in Wales last year?
>> Edited by Zod on Thursday 3rd June 22:44
Zod said:
If you use it then you are breaking the law.
Since there is no statute to this effect and there has been no successful contested prosecution in a precedent-setting court, this statement is a fallacy.
He didn't say that the jammer was illegal - just that using it is. This has case law behind it and is common sense also - if using one prevents a policeman carrying out his duty it's illegal.
Why worry about wheather theyre legal or not?Just buy one,fit it and enjoy.If you ever get zapped and your jammer is activated then youll know.Then you can take it off the car for the next week or two(it unplugs easily)if your worried that the bib will come round and look for it.Reality probably is that the error message that theyll get when trying to zap you will just put them off untill they try the gun out on the next car.They often get error messages when using the guns,for all sorts of reasons,so its unlikely theyll follow it up.I can reccomend the lrc100 btw!
echo said:There is no binding case law behind it.
bluesandtwos said:
If you use it then you are breaking the law.
Since there is no statute to this effect and there has been no successful contested prosecution in a precedent-setting court, this statement is a fallacy.
He didn't say that the jammer was illegal - just that using it is. This has case law behind it and is common sense also - if using one prevents a policeman carrying out his duty it's illegal.
supraman2954 said:and as for that joke of a Magistrates' Court case
Zod,
Surely you know what is happening in at least two other forums right now. Here is one:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&t=103468
preventing the police from securing evidence that driver was or could have been speeding.
Zod said:
Zod said:
bluesandtwos said:
If you use it then you are breaking the law.
Since there is no statute to this effect and there has been no successful contested prosecution in a precedent-setting court, this statement is a fallacy.
He didn't say that the jammer was illegal - just that using it is. This has case law behind it and is common sense also - if using one prevents a policeman carrying out his duty it's illegal.
There is no binding case law behind it.
There is lots of case law AND statute
- some statute for you.. It is unlawful for a person to obstruct a police officer. A person commits obstructing a police officer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, or physical interference, or obstacle, he knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a police officer acting under color of his official authority.
It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the police officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he was acting under color of his official authority as defined in subsection A. (Ord. 1931, § 1, 1980: prior code § 29.3)
The Police Act 1996 consolidates legislation relating to the police. Section 89 contains the offence of resisting or wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty.
89(2) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, commits an offence.
89(3) This section also applies to a constable who is a member of a police force maintained in Scotland or Northern Ireland when he is executing a warrant, or otherwise acting in England or Wales, by virtue of any enactment conferring powers on him in England and Wales .
Notes
(i) The obstruction must be wilful. The defendant must intend to behave in such a way as to make it more difficult for the constable to carry out their duties.
(ii) It is most important to prove that the officer was acting in the execution of his duty, click here for examples of where this has been a problem.
(ii) There is an offence of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty under section 89(1).
89(2) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, commits an offence.
89(3) This section also applies to a constable who is a member of a police force maintained in Scotland or Northern Ireland when he is executing a warrant, or otherwise acting in England or Wales, by virtue of any enactment conferring powers on him in England and Wales .
Notes
(i) The obstruction must be wilful. The defendant must intend to behave in such a way as to make it more difficult for the constable to carry out their duties.
(ii) It is most important to prove that the officer was acting in the execution of his duty, click here for examples of where this has been a problem.
(ii) There is an offence of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty under section 89(1).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff