4 ms·

I assumed the judge didn't want to set a legal precedent for accepting cell phone GPS data. He entered the verdict in such a way that it couldn't be used to inf

I assumed the judge didn't want to set a legal precedent for accepting cell phone GPS data. He entered the verdict in such a way that it couldn't be used to influence later cases.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
I don't think that a local traffic court, in what's certainly an unpublished ruling, can create a precedent. That's not how the system works.
- catshirt 16y ago
  i presume he meant precedent more literally than legally
  - Bud 16y ago
    He might have simply meant that he didn't want to set any precedents for future rulings by himself; i.e., start handing out free passes to anyone with a smartphone.
    - catshirt 16y ago
      exactly my point.
- qeorge 16y ago
  No, that is how the system works. However, precedents can only go "downhill." From Wikipedia: "a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis Given, this court may not have any lower courts, in which case you'd be right - albeit for the wrong reason.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    this court may not have any lower courts, in which case you'd be right - albeit for the wrong reason. Actually, that was precisely what I was saying. It's obvious to me that a local traffic court has no lower courts below it. In addition, to be a precedent, the decision needs to be published (as I understand it, but IANAL). When you think about it, this must be true: no court can follow a precedent that cannot be discovered.
Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
Of course he's not going to set a legal precedent, he specifically admitted to not understanding it! What's he going to base that on? "I didn't understand what he was saying but that the nice man had a mighty smart looking phone." Or are you suggesting that he did understand it and was lying? I don't see a judge doing that over a speeding ticket - they tend not to be big on lying, they just make the ruling so specific it can never apply anywhere else or expressly say that they don't feel this creates a precedent.
sahaskatta 16y ago
Tyrannosaurs, you are very right that I got quite lucky taking note of the lawyer speaking before me. I also got lucky that the officer unfortunately was not prepared for traffic court with proper details about his training and calibration for his radar gun. Flemlord, You nailed it about him not wanting to get into a bigger mess by making a decision based on GPS information. Here's a ArsTechnica article about the ongoing debate between GPS and Radar Guns - http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/07/nabbed-for-speeding-gps-data-could-get-you-off-the-hook.ars http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/07/nabbed-for-speed...
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  I think you were very smart but I think it was you being smart rather than the GPS that made the difference What I'm not clear about is why you think the GPS was significant he the judge expressly said it wasn't and gave a perfectly clear rationale for his ruling which didn't include it.

I assumed the judge didn't want to set a legal precedent for accepting cell phone GPS data. He entered the verdict in such a way that it couldn't be used to influence later cases.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

I don't think that a local traffic court, in what's certainly an unpublished ruling, can create a precedent. That's not how the system works.

catshirt 16y ago
i presume he meant precedent more literally than legally
- Bud 16y ago
  He might have simply meant that he didn't want to set any precedents for future rulings by himself; i.e., start handing out free passes to anyone with a smartphone.
  - catshirt 16y ago
    exactly my point.
qeorge 16y ago
No, that is how the system works. However, precedents can only go "downhill." From Wikipedia: "a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis Given, this court may not have any lower courts, in which case you'd be right - albeit for the wrong reason.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  this court may not have any lower courts, in which case you'd be right - albeit for the wrong reason. Actually, that was precisely what I was saying. It's obvious to me that a local traffic court has no lower courts below it. In addition, to be a precedent, the decision needs to be published (as I understand it, but IANAL). When you think about it, this must be true: no court can follow a precedent that cannot be discovered.

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago

Of course he's not going to set a legal precedent, he specifically admitted to not understanding it! What's he going to base that on? "I didn't understand what he was saying but that the nice man had a mighty smart looking phone." Or are you suggesting that he did understand it and was lying? I don't see a judge doing that over a speeding ticket - they tend not to be big on lying, they just make the ruling so specific it can never apply anywhere else or expressly say that they don't feel this creates a precedent.

sahaskatta 16y ago

Tyrannosaurs, you are very right that I got quite lucky taking note of the lawyer speaking before me. I also got lucky that the officer unfortunately was not prepared for traffic court with proper details about his training and calibration for his radar gun. Flemlord, You nailed it about him not wanting to get into a bigger mess by making a decision based on GPS information. Here's a ArsTechnica article about the ongoing debate between GPS and Radar Guns - http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/07/nabbed-for-speeding-gps-data-could-get-you-off-the-hook.ars http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/07/nabbed-for-speed...

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
I think you were very smart but I think it was you being smart rather than the GPS that made the difference What I'm not clear about is why you think the GPS was significant he the judge expressly said it wasn't and gave a perfectly clear rationale for his ruling which didn't include it.