Laser Jammer worked a treat but what now? HELP!

[Mr2Mike]

SteveCallaghan said:

The person we prosecuted for Obstruction for use of a Jammer on 2 occasions wasn't speeding on both occasions. We impounded his car for about 5 weeks, crushed the jammer and convicted him for Obstruction. Just to cheer you up.

Excellent stuff Steve, about time someone like yourself clamped down on these child murderers with laser jammers. All these nasty people who think you are interested only in keeping yourself in a cushy job by extracting as much money as possible from motorists will surely be silenced by your heroic actions. Out of interest, how many saved lives do you think this prosecution will add to the wonderfull reports that you publish?

[Mr E]

I'm more intersted in how you can Obstruct the police officer whilst not actually breaking the law....

Edit: Actually, I've had a think about this. If, for example, I didn't get out of an officiers way after being instruted to do so, I can see the point.

Preventing a laser gun from working while doing 30mph is a bit thin though.

Out of interest, if he'd turned the garage door opener off and allowed you to get a reading, would your case still have stood up?

>> Edited by Mr E on Thursday 16th September 16:12

[Cooperman]

There has been an extensive thread about this on the Cumbria site some time ago.
The chap they managed to secure a conviction for was, it is strongly suspected, a local lad who had jammed them several times before. He was challenged and allowed them to take his car and find the jammer. He then pleaded guilty to the obstruction charge.
When challenged on this, the Speedfinder-General, Mr. Callaghan, said that if anyone jammed their Talivans they would be around to their home at about 6-00 am with a posse of cops to take your car away. However, if it happened to be parked on your property there would not be much they could do without a warrant, and by that time the jammer would have been removed. They would be pretty stupid if they took your car away, stripped out its electronics, found nothing and had to pay damages. If you lived hundreds of miles out of their area they would almost certainly not bother unless you were doing a dangerous speed. What would they do about a company registered car as by the time they got to the keeper any jammer could well be removed?
Laser jammers are not illegal and they have to PROVE you jammed their silly toys - not necessarily easy for them. Bear in mind that if the Scamvan operator is a civvie they could not even go for obstruction.
Anyway, no points for obstruction, only a fine!!
KEEP ON JAMMING!

[blademan]

Mr2Mike said:

Out of interest, how many saved lives do you think this prosecution will add to the wonderfull reports that you publish?

[gh0st]

Cooperman said:

There has been an extensive thread about this on the Cumbria site some time ago. The chap they managed to secure a conviction for was, it is strongly suspected, a local lad who had jammed them several times before. He was challenged and allowed them to take his car and find the jammer. He then pleaded guilty to the obstruction charge. When challenged on this, the Speedfinder-General, Mr. Callaghan, said that if anyone jammed their Talivans they would be around to their home at about 6-00 am with a posse of cops to take your car away. However, if it happened to be parked on your property there would not be much they could do without a warrant, and by that time the jammer would have been removed. They would be pretty stupid if they took your car away, stripped out its electronics, found nothing and had to pay damages. If you lived hundreds of miles out of their area they would almost certainly not bother unless you were doing a dangerous speed. What would they do about a company registered car as by the time they got to the keeper any jammer could well be removed? Laser jammers are not illegal and they have to PROVE you jammed their silly toys - not necessarily easy for them. Bear in mind that if the Scamvan operator is a civvie they could not even go for obstruction. Anyway, no points for obstruction, only a fine!! KEEP ON JAMMING!

Yes, I think I will

Steve, do you have a beard? ?

[medicineman]

My understanding follows coopermans comments. The 2 people who have been done so far, neither has been taken to court and both where taking the proverbial. They where also using older constant on jammers which produce a very definate jam code. The new pulse jammers only display a fault code. There was a story about a guy on pepipoo arrested but the case was dropped.

[MajorClanger]

SteveCallaghan said:

The person we prosecuted for Obstruction for use of a Jammer on 2 occasions wasn't speeding on both occasions.

Presume that would be Obstructing a Police Officer

So, if I wore a bullet proof vest and for whatever reason a police officer tried to shoot me in the course of their duty, would I be obstructing them? Or hid/disguised my face to prevent identification etc? I'm only using these as an example of passive obstruction rather than active, physical obstruction (no matter how obscure it seems).

The point is that the law exists to protect policeman against physical restraint or creation of a physical barrier by someone trying to prevent them exercising their duty. Just because one case went through and no appeal has been made (I assume) it doesn't mean that the decision will hold for future cases, not that I would want to put it to the test. It seems to be that the decision to sentence pushed the law to a new intepretation... one that has yet to be tested in a higher court of law.

The police office wasn't prevented in carrying out his duty, just prevented from getting a speed reading with that item of equipment. Had he used radar speed measurement, or timed between two distance markers or used a car with a calibrated speedometer he still could have performed his duty. I'm lead to believe that a trained officer can also give evidence to state that in their experience and judgement a car was speeding.

I presume this case was tried by a magistrate. Did the defendent plead a defence i.e. not guilty? Are there other cases being persued and are any of these likely to go to a higher court?

I would be interested to hear other's views especially if you've legal knowledge.

MC

PS by the way I don't own or use detectors or jammers or condone their use.

[voyds9]

SteveCallaghan said:

minornut said: So - If you knew he wasn't speeding why the did you point the laser at him? Were you just fishing for some extra revenue as you hadn't persecuted enough taxpayers that day or did you have spat with missus and it just put you in a vindictive mood!? Well we thought he was, then found he wasn't. Nobody's perfect.

So how many times is a speeding expert (policeman) allowed to get it wrong and still maintain his position as an expert?
A surgeon gets it wrong once and may be infront of the BMA
A solicitor gets it wrong and is up infront of the law society
A BiB gets it wrong and targets the next car to make up for wasted time
Police seem to have acquired the status of judge, jury and executioner in speeding cases (look out here comes 2000AD )

[mobilecentre]

Have we established then beyond reasonable doubt that the camera van operator was a Policeman as this surely would need to be the case in order to obstruct him did he merely have on black trousers and a white shirt... as if it was a civillian this is impossible....

[Swilly]

SteveCallaghan said:

The person we prosecuted for Obstruction for use of a Jammer on 2 occasions wasn't speeding on both occasions. We impounded his car for about 5 weeks, crushed the jammer and convicted him for Obstruction. Just to cheer you up.

Steve, from your post you suggest you are Judge(Impounding his car), jury (conviction for Obstruction)and executioner (crushing his jammer).

How many drunk drivers, hit+runs, stolen vehicles and similar crimes have you prevented, investigated, prosecuted or convicted?

[blueyes]

SteveCallaghan said:

The person we prosecuted for Obstruction for use of a Jammer on 2 occasions wasn't speeding on both occasions. We impounded his car for about 5 weeks, crushed the jammer and convicted him for Obstruction.

Don't get too excited Sherlock, just seems like he had a useless legal team.

(ted, you can put him back in his box now)

[cuneus]

The jammer used generated a code of 7

The better garage door openers do not

[cptsideways]

Having the use of a laser gun for testing purposes I can assure everyone on here that its not always possible to clock a speed reading on every vehicle the instant the trigger is pulled.

It's also not possible to see the IR output given by jammers on long range video cameras. So for those making the occasional pass of a scamera van don't worry. Steve is just trying to wind us all up, the SCP's are trying to make us all scared & influence us drivers with bull. However we know better, are educated on such matters & don't take this crap lying down.

A police officer uses a laser device for corrobating his judgement. You might be blocking him gaining a speed reading but you are not obstructing in his duty of judgement. I'd be interested in the real legal position on this. Currently its not illegal to own & operate such a device & no amount of SCP bull will change that.

[john_p]

SteveCallaghan said:

Obstuction was committed as we couldn't get a reading.

How can you be sure you weren't operating the equipment incorrectly when you tried to get a speed reading from the vehicle in question?

Are you going to start prosecuting everyone who drives past you that you can't get a speed reading from, just because the operator's hands shook at a particular moment?

[mobilecentre]

This from the looks of the limited info supplied this was not a tried case. As the defendant decided to plead guilty to the offence based on the the information given by Steve. From his post he had first hand knowledge as he was actively involved in it ( We crushed his jammer etc ) If the defendant decided to plead guilty and surrender his jammer for destruction then he would of attended court for sentencing. As Steve has not supplied the information regarding his sentence I would hazzard a guess that he accepted a caution. As earlier this year I instructed counsel to investigate any cases brought by the CPS and none were found.

I will however say that if it was confiscated that potentially could consitute an illegal act on behalf of the Police but not being privy to the case files would make it impossible for me to comment fully.

Obviously Steve can advise us on the burden off proof, from your posts you give the impression that you are a Police Officer and able to comment in depth on the law.

The proof that he obstructed a Police officer ie the witness statement of the driver stating that he was using a jammer backed up with the Police eveidence of a jam code, notwithstanding the fact he was not speeding.

>> Edited by mobilecentre on Thursday 16th September 18:51

[BliarOut]

Wait till you get one that doesn't just roll over. You wouldn't have a hope in hell without a self confession and I very much doubt the CPS would run with it. Any half decent barrister would have the case laughed out of court.

Obstruction my arse.

[deltaf]

Steve Callaghan said:

Ya know, sometimes i really am a prick.

What an Uber loser.

[bryan35]

I was testing a device I had made to confuse laser guns with a kind chap I was introduced to on Pistonheads. It didn't work very well unfortunately, but I did play with the gun for a short while out of curiosity. I did infact get a speed reading of 7MPH from a silver golf GTI. It was mine. Parked in a carpark, with the keys in my pocket where I was standing some 20 meters away.
Sweep errors? you bet!

[mobilecentre]

BliarOut said:

Wait till you get one that doesn't just roll over. You wouldn't have a hope in hell without a self confession and I very much doubt the CPS would run with it. Any half decent barrister would have the case laughed out of court. Obstruction my arse.

That is a more "interesting" way of presenting my arguement.

If you are brow beaten into accepting something does not mean you are guilty of it

[mybrainhurts]

SteveCallaghan said:

something about digging holes for himself

Hi Steve....just to let you know I'm new to this topic, but it's persuaded me to put Cumbria on my list of places not to visit to spend my cash.....

Back soon, when your quango's been consigned to the history books.

Just to cheer you up...........