Removing my front parking sensor this weekend

[Doorajar]

jm doc said:

Paperweight said:

RGC63 said:

Only cheap jammers throw up E codes,

Or your asking for trouble if you head stick out like a sore thumb ( Like In the original pic )

Or if your in the habit of getting Zapped twice as day and think your invincible

Some of the new jammers like Stinger Freedom CANNOT be seen, The transmitter is 2mm round and the receiver is smaller than a 20p coin,

The ALP system has a usb where all the control software is on a micro usb on a lead that can be anywhere you like, So when the usb is pulled, Say if you though you were getting a tug or when parking at home after seeing a Scamera van when out and about the system is no longer and CANNOT be mad to work as a jammer without your personal code ( on the usb ) supplied by ALP in the USA,

It reverts to a parking assist system,

So, Any worry's, pull the usb and eat / chuck / Hide it and unless when tugged you say " yes I had a operational jammer " your scot free, It CANNOT be proved you had a jammer operational unless..

1/ You admit it
2/ The twig the system you have ( unlikely ) And then find the USB stick and bring the system back to life

So..

1/ Don't fit a cheap ass system
2/ Make sure its fitted discretely
3/ Don't be a Ass
4/ if you think you have failed the above and MIGHT get a visit pull the heads off ( they are only held on with double sided tape ) and disconnect and remove the head units, They are on easy to disconnect connections
5/ If the bib want a chat SAY NOTHING, The Bib are not your friends, They are just wanting you to give verbal evidence against yourself.

Oh dear, what complete nonsense.

A qualified operator will be alerted for unusual alarms or indeed no alarms. It is also well known that some jammers are multi-functional and have ruses to remove or disable the jamming function.

Most, but not all, laser speed measurements are supported by video recordings that can be examined to see if there are circumstances that are unusual and indicate shenanigans by the driver.

Here’s how I see it playing out:
Officer attempts measurement of car and doesn’t see a speed, alarms not usual or no alarms.
Alert investigators.
Seize vehicle and get specialist to examine vehicle.
Examiner is not at all confused by the equipment and explains to the police that not only has it interfered with the measurement but the driver/owner or both have deliberately taken action to cover up the jamming function of the equipment found.
Court hears the story and considers their verdict. In one case I have seen the judge explains to the jury that they might not want to be duped by the deliberate “additional functions that suggests that people are stupid and gullible”.
Jury sees the ruse to cover the function and makes the right decision
Driver is found guilty of perverting justice and sentenced to a prison term.

So do you feel lucky? I’m figuring from your post you are not only feeling lucky but are also delusional if you think the police and courts are not wise to any Jammer including those that cost £thousands not only £100’s.

After all, if you know about them why shouldn’t someone else.

Here’s looking at for you.

Edited by Paperweight on Monday 20th November 07:34

Really???
It's perfectly legal to own a laser parking sensor.

As I understand the law, you have to PROVE that the person did what you allege they did. i.e., not that they owned it as this is legal, and not even that it may have been switched on which is also legal, but actually that it was switched on deliberately to prevent a man with a speed gun measuring your speed. Just asserting something does not make it true.

Now I'm not sure how you prove that someone, who owns something that is perfectly legal to own, and that does work as a parking sensor, and that he does have need of said parking sensor, bought the device to pervert the course of justice. Simple ownership of a legal device can surely never be said to be a criminal offence.

I will go further and say that in no other offence, without a confession, would such a ludicrous assertion even considered for prosecution.

The fact that it is even considered by some on here to be acceptable is a perfect demonstration how corrupt and incestuous the speeding industry and justice system have become.

I can’t see what your issue is.

Will speedy driver buys “parking sensor” that just happens to have an additional function that jams police speed guns. Even though better parking sensors that do no jam speed guns or even use IR light can be bought the wily speedster thinks he will get away with it because the cops will never guess what he’s done.
IR “parking sensors” despite being complete st at sensing obstructions, need to be specially constructed and programmed to react to laser speed guns or they cannot jam them. That too is something the manufacturers, retailers and users think the police and courts will not be able to work out.

So is it your position that someone who goes out with his tongue in his cheek and buys a so called “parking sensor”, all of which that jam laser speed guns, are programmed to do and whose instructions clearly explain they do, are simply poor saps who didn’t know what they did?

Thatnkfully the police and courts are not nearly as gullible as you...or are you just annoyed because your “parking sensor” might get you into bother.

[Doorajar]

Boosted LS1 said:

There must be many occasions when a gun doesn't get a reading straight away. The bib can't go and investigate every car that fails to give a speed indication. That would take up a lot of resources. Obviously if somebody is behaving like a cock they'll draw lots of attention and get looked at.

There is but most can be readily explained and accepted. Occasionally some are unexplained so get investigated. No need to drive like a cock, the chap that was convicted at the head of this thread wasn’t driving like a cock, just a little faster than he should, then slowed rapidly while jamming the laser. Suspicions raised and hey-ho a normally respectable chap is now wandering about with a big blot in his copy-book.

The only time he behaved like a cock was when someone convinced him to buy and fit a potentially unlawful device, he said OK then used it.

[jm doc]

Doorajar said:

Thatnkfully the police and courts are not nearly as gullible as you...or are you just annoyed because your “parking sensor” might get you into bother.

It's not about gullibility or otherwise. You have to prove that's what I did, I don't have to prove I didn't. It's legal to own and use one as a parking sensor whatever it's alleged other functions may be. Mere possession of one on your car is NOT an offense. What is it about the word "prove" that you don't understand??

And by the way, my car comes with parking sensors and so I have no use for a laser parking sensor.

[Durzel]

Correct me if I'm wrong but..

The guy prosecuted had actual parking sensors on his car, therefore had no need of a device that purported to do the same thing. It's a bit hard to argue that that's it's intended function when you already have parking sensors.

Also - again in this case, and others - it was enough that the Police found this device on the car after an investigation had commenced as a result of a failed reading for them to pin attempted PtCoJ on him. It didn't matter that in isolation the device was not in and of itself illegal, or that it had some ancillary legitimate function.

So I think the idea that you can just hold your hand up and say "they aren't illegal guv" like it's some magic get out of jail free card is a little naive, at best. As has been said already - the system isn't anywhere near as dumb as you seem to think it is.

[TooMany2cvs]

Durzel said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but..

The guy prosecuted had actual parking sensors on his car, therefore had no need of a device that purported to do the same thing. It's a bit hard to argue that that's it's intended function when you already have parking sensors.

The "parking sensor" side of it is an irrelevant distraction, whether he had them or not, whether he used that functionality on the jammer or not.

The only important detail is that he was using the jammer functionality to pervert the course of justice.

[Durzel]

TooMany2cvs said:

The "parking sensor" side of it is an irrelevant distraction, whether he had them or not, whether he used that functionality on the jammer or not.

The only important detail is that he was using the jammer functionality to pervert the course of justice.

I don't disagree. My point was that people seem to think you can just claim "parking sensors! parking sensors!" like it's some get out of jail free card, and the credibility of such a statement is particularly undermined in cases where people have been done for having jammers whilst also incidentally having actual parking sensors fitted - like this guy.

[anonymous-user]

I add that the law permits sensible inferences to be drawn. Thus: car that doesn't set off speed detector, found to be fitted with ostensibly innocent device - criminal intent may be inferred if appropriate in the circumstances. The prosecution has to hurdle the criminal standard of proof. In some cases, it can.

[Flibble]

RGC63 said:

The ALP system has a usb where all the control software is on a micro usb on a lead that can be anywhere you like, So when the usb is pulled, Say if you though you were getting a tug or when parking at home after seeing a Scamera van when out and about the system is no longer and CANNOT be mad to work as a jammer without your personal code ( on the usb ) supplied by ALP in the USA,

It reverts to a parking assist system,

So, Any worry's, pull the usb and eat / chuck / Hide it and unless when tugged you say " yes I had a operational jammer " your scot free, It CANNOT be proved you had a jammer operational unless..

If you think that's going to work as a defence in court you're in fantasy land. They'd just demand the jammer USB and charge you with PCoJ if you didn't supply, or ask ALP for it, who would give them it (as it's in their interests to co-operate with law enforcement).

[Durzel]

I would also add (IANAL though) that as far as Perverting the Course of Justice goes, it is - to my knowledge - sufficient to show intent, that is a successful prosecution could occur in such cases where the accused had actually failed to obstruct the investigation (of speeding), and similarly that someone who it is discovered during the course of an investigation has fitted a laser jammer has in fact acted in such a way "which has a tendency to pervert and which is intended to pervert the course of public justice".

If this were not the case, and that perverting could only stick in such cases where the original offence could be proven, you'd end up with an illogical state where the CPS couldn't prosecute someone for speeding because their act obstructed the investigation of the offence, and perverting couldn't be charged because they couldn't prove the original offence had been committed.

[jm doc]

Durzel said:

I would also add (IANAL though) that as far as Perverting the Course of Justice goes, it is - to my knowledge - sufficient to show intent, that is a successful prosecution could occur in such cases where the accused had actually failed to obstruct the investigation (of speeding), and similarly that someone who it is discovered during the course of an investigation has fitted a laser jammer has in fact acted in such a way "which has a tendency to pervert and which is intended to pervert the course of public justice".

If this were not the case, and that perverting could only stick in such cases where the original offence could be proven, you'd end up with an illogical state where the CPS couldn't prosecute someone for speeding because their act obstructed the investigation of the offence, and perverting couldn't be charged because they couldn't prove the original offence had been committed.

Yep, that's right. These are legal to own and fit to your car. You have to PROVE that the offence took place, not it might have or possibly could have. This is a serious criminal offence and the standard of proof is correspondingly high.

Oops, unless of course it's speeding related. Then you are guilty and have to prove you are innocent. Just read the posts from the kangaroo court judges on this thread.

[TooMany2cvs]

jm doc said:

Yep, that's right. These are legal to own and fit to your car.

But not legal to use to block a speed camera. The PCoJ charge doesn't relate to their ownership or fitment, but to their use.

jm doc said:

You have to PROVE that the offence took place, not it might have or possibly could have. This is a serious criminal offence and the standard of proof is correspondingly high.

Oops, unless of course it's speeding related. Then you are guilty and have to prove you are innocent.

And there is evidence to do so. There's technical evidence relating to the capabilities of the device fitted, but that - obviously - is not enough on its own. There's also the witness testimony of the camera operator, which may well be backed up by video evidence of the laser giving an error that corresponds to the device being used to jam it, probably with technical expert evidence to demonstrate that.

So the prosecution has a raft of evidence - technical, witness, video, expert.

How is the defence planning on casting reasonable doubt on that? "Oh, little ol' me? No, I'm just really bad at parking, honest..."?
Let the jury decide...

[anonymous-user]

Parking sensors don't interfere with speed enforcement equipment. Devices disguised as them do. Just as devices disguised as 'garage openers' do.

Jm doc's insistence and focus on, 'Well they need to prove it', rather than keeping in mind the bigger picture and how it looks to regular people (who would sit on a jury), reminds me of people who decline legal advice because they think they're clever enough to get out of whatever they've done.

[schmunk]

La Liga said:

people who decline legal advice because they think they're clever enough to get out of whatever they've done.

ProTip: They're not.

[anonymous-user]

Correct.

I was interviewed a couple of times by the police / IPCC. I had legal advice and I know the game.

The idiots who 'no commented' ('advice' I've seen on here) were the best.

Why have a caution when you can have a conviction?

[Durzel]

Regardless of feelings about speed camera enforcement...

1) Camera operator forms opinion that target vehicle is speeding
2) Camera operator attempts to corroborate that opinion with type-approved equipment
3) Equipment is defeated by actions taken by suspected offender
4) Subsequent investigation reveals equipment installed on offending vehicle whose principal and unambiguous function is to defeat type-approved equipment
5) Offender charged with PtCoJ on the basis that he/she has committed an act "which has a tendency to pervert; and which is intended to pervert the course of public justice"

You can of course argue that such equipment has ancilliary functions e.g. parking sensors (despite the fact that parking sensors use ultrasonic or electromagnetic) and it will be up to the courts to decide on the balance of probabilities if this statement is true. I'd venture that it would be an uphill struggle.

[anonymous-user]

Balance of probabilities is not relevant. That standard of proof only applies when statute places an onus on a defendant. Where the onus is on the prosecution the standard is beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecutors can and do meet that standard in PCOJ cases. A jury is not a kangaroo court.

[Stout99]

TooMany2cvs said:

jm doc said:

Yep, that's right. These are legal to own and fit to your car.

But not legal to use to block a speed camera. The PCoJ charge doesn't relate to their ownership or fitment, but to their use.

jm doc said:

You have to PROVE that the offence took place, not it might have or possibly could have. This is a serious criminal offence and the standard of proof is correspondingly high.

Oops, unless of course it's speeding related. Then you are guilty and have to prove you are innocent.

And there is evidence to do so. There's technical evidence relating to the capabilities of the device fitted, but that - obviously - is not enough on its own. There's also the witness testimony of the camera operator, which may well be backed up by video evidence of the laser giving an error that corresponds to the device being used to jam it, probably with technical expert evidence to demonstrate that.

So the prosecution has a raft of evidence - technical, witness, video, expert.

How is the defence planning on casting reasonable doubt on that? "Oh, little ol' me? No, I'm just really bad at parking, honest..."?
Let the jury decide...

The case at the head of this thread shows that the police and CPS have proved the case to the required standard. The process can simply be repeated as required.
The police and CPS employ experts to examine and explain the device capabilities and the specific way that the device has a jamming function that it simply doesn't need to open a door or indicate an obstruction.
Laser speed guns are not confused by garage door openers and parking sensors; they are not even confused by laser guns of the same make and model working at the same location on the same targets; interference with laser speed guns is not accidental. It isn't a difficult technical concept to explain how a parking sensor/garage door opener jams a laser speeed gun reliably and on every occasion it is illuminated by a laser speed gun. It is also not a difficult concept to explain why a parking sensor/garage door opener that doesn't have a jamming function WILL NOT jam a speed gun.
The easiest way to show the unecessary and significantly different function is to film the jammer with an IR camera.
Some defendants are convicted by the jury others acquitted. That isn't really anything to do with the case being proven to the required standard, the required standard is decided upon by the CPS before a trial occurs. It's more to do with the way the jury receive the cases presented by the 2 adversaries.
The case at the head of the thread had no provable speed that was above the speed limit and the car had no factory fitted parking sensors. There was after market acoustic sensors on the rear but only a laser jammer/parking sensor on the front. The defence was "it's a parking sensor", the jury didn't buy that.

[Stout99]

Durzel said:

Regardless of feelings about speed camera enforcement...

1) Camera operator forms opinion that target vehicle is speeding
2) Camera operator attempts to corroborate that opinion with type-approved equipment
3) Equipment is defeated by actions taken by suspected offender
4) Subsequent investigation reveals equipment installed on offending vehicle whose principal and unambiguous function is to defeat type-approved equipment
5) Offender charged with PtCoJ on the basis that he/she has committed an act "which has a tendency to pervert; and which is intended to pervert the course of public justice"

You can of course argue that such equipment has ancilliary functions e.g. parking sensors (despite the fact that parking sensors use ultrasonic or electromagnetic) and it will be up to the courts to decide on the balance of probabilities if this statement is true. I'd venture that it would be an uphill struggle.

The uphill struggle remains with the prosecution to prove the case. The technical issue is reasonably simple for an expert in the matter; more difficult for those who assume they are experts and obviously know little about it. It is the knowledge of the jammer fuction in the defendant that is the main point to be proven. While difficult, there is no doubt that it can be done.

[agtlaw]

Has anyone heard anything about any recent cases put before a jury?

[Steviesam]

I heard that a superstar barrister got 2 not guilty verdicts on one of these cases