4 ms·

The cop that heard the backfire would likely be called to testify that fact in court. If they fail to show up, and the arresting officer (a different cop) claim

The cop that heard the backfire would likely be called to testify that fact in court. If they fail to show up, and the arresting officer (a different cop) claimed they made a probable-cause traffic stop based on what the other cop heard, and that cop refuses to testify, the prosecution is going to have a bad time.

SilasX 4y ago
A better analogy would be, if you asked the cop how he decides it’s a gun firing vs some other innocuous cause, and his department refused to allow the records of his brain scans to be admitted into evidence to determine if he were perfectly consistent in going after gun-like sounds (assuming it were a department that had brain scans going on for officers on duty).
- throwaway17_17 4y ago
  But that’s a ridiculously non-applicable analogy. Any request for such brain scans would be deemed, at least in almost all conceivable circumstances as over reach by the defense. In reality all the cop has to do is say based on his training and experience he is comfortable in distinguishing the sound of gun fire in a city environment. The proper analogy is to say that this company is not allowing for the experience and training testimony to be shown to the court. That would be how I would argue against probable cause in this case. However, as another comment in the thread discusses, this is probably not an issue since there is a heavy dose of parallel construction argument going on.
Syonyk 4y ago
> ...the prosecution is going to have a bad time. Probably not. Cop said it, court saw it written, that settles it. Now prove your innocence without the ability to face your accuser. They're a cop, of course they're 100% correct in everything they wrote down, so... yeah, pay your ticket. I've seen this a few more times than I'm the slightest fan of, for me and other people accused of "impossible things" in cars (like "being clocked far faster than the car is capable of having accelerated to based on where it turned onto the road"). The prosecution has no problems with, "But the cop wrote that they saw you doing 70 in a 35, wrote the ticket for 45, and they're not here, so you're guilty."

SilasX 4y ago

A better analogy would be, if you asked the cop how he decides it’s a gun firing vs some other innocuous cause, and his department refused to allow the records of his brain scans to be admitted into evidence to determine if he were perfectly consistent in going after gun-like sounds (assuming it were a department that had brain scans going on for officers on duty).

throwaway17_17 4y ago
But that’s a ridiculously non-applicable analogy. Any request for such brain scans would be deemed, at least in almost all conceivable circumstances as over reach by the defense. In reality all the cop has to do is say based on his training and experience he is comfortable in distinguishing the sound of gun fire in a city environment. The proper analogy is to say that this company is not allowing for the experience and training testimony to be shown to the court. That would be how I would argue against probable cause in this case. However, as another comment in the thread discusses, this is probably not an issue since there is a heavy dose of parallel construction argument going on.

Syonyk 4y ago

> ...the prosecution is going to have a bad time. Probably not. Cop said it, court saw it written, that settles it. Now prove your innocence without the ability to face your accuser. They're a cop, of course they're 100% correct in everything they wrote down, so... yeah, pay your ticket. I've seen this a few more times than I'm the slightest fan of, for me and other people accused of "impossible things" in cars (like "being clocked far faster than the car is capable of having accelerated to based on where it turned onto the road"). The prosecution has no problems with, "But the cop wrote that they saw you doing 70 in a 35, wrote the ticket for 45, and they're not here, so you're guilty."