GPS Tracking Device Beats Radar Gun in Court

MojoKid writes "According to a release issued by Rocky Mountain Tracking, an 18-year old man, Shaun Malone, was able to successfully contest a speeding ticket in court using the data from a GPS device installed in his car. This wasn't just any old make-a-left-turn-100-feet-ahead-onto-Maple-Street GPS; this was a vehicle-tracking GPS device — the kind used by trucking fleets — or in this case, overprotective parents. The device was installed in Malone's car by his parents, and the press release makes no mention if the teenager knew that the device was installed in his vehicle at the time."

Heh, heh, heh.

Take that, you oppressive pigs!
We've got counter-measures.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

All of this doesn't resonate with what I have learned in Hollywood movies. Malone should be the cops name. Its just doesn't sound right.

Re:Heh, heh, heh.

Forgot to say that his VERY OPPRESSIVE PARENTS installed the device on his car...

Only to protect him from the cops.

mixed feelings about this

Good thing: enabling people to install these devices voluntarily to defend themselves against false claims of speeding or reckless driving.

Bad thing: having the government mandate their installation, and at some later time mandating that the data be uploaded to a central processing facility.

Re:mixed feelings about this

Agreed. While some people fret about modern society approaching the dystopia of 1984 [amazon.com] , I think it's scary that technology has moved to the point where government could easily do even more to hold citizens down. Orwell didn't foresee electronic tracking devices that could follow you wherever you go. In the book, the protagonist got a break from the telescreen for a few hours by walking down to a remote place. Now, even this means of privacy isn't guaranteed.

Another take

Good thing: enabling people to install these devices voluntarily to defend themselves against false claims of speeding or reckless driving.

Bad thing: having the government mandate their installation, and at some later time mandating that the data be uploaded to a central processing facility.

My thoughts...

Good Thing: Everyone thinks the output of electronic devices is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Bad Thing: Everyone thinks the output of electronic devices is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Re:mixed feelings about this

It's likely that you already have a monitoring device installed in your vehicle. Cars made in the last decade have increasingly sophisticated recording capabilities that record detailed information about the car's state at the time of an airbag deployment or a seatbelt pretensioning event. Some of the data stored includes the speed, throttle position, brake position, seat belt usage, etc., and it stores a buffer of information for 20 seconds before the crash event and five seconds after. The older Restraint Control Modules simply recorded safety equipment usage, but not operational information. The new recorders are located in the Powertrain Control Module and store a lot more about your vehicle. This information is usually downloaded by an officer on the accident scene, and is admissible as evidence in court.

Of course it's not as bad as your scenario. It's not retrieved unless there's an accident. But it can be retrieved without your approval, so if you had your foot on the gas and had no signs of brakes being applied, it'd sure come out in a courtroom if you lied about your driving.

Re:mixed feelings about this

In Quebec vehicle tracking GPS systems have been mandatory for years. It's mostly because the government made a deal with the car insurance people so all cars had to have the device installed as an 'anti theft' measure. It's a good example of how little it takes to force those things on people.

perhaps it was insurance motivated

I believe insurance companies give discounts to drivers (especially young ones) for having gps tracking installed in their cars.

Not always

Only if the drivers allow themselves to be tracked at all times and allow the data to be uploaded to a location where the insurance company can monitor the data at their own whim and fancy. You are right though - I know Progressive gives discounts for kids who have GPS trackers in their vehicles.

Damn you, technology!

The highly accurate radio wave reflection system or the highly accurate satellite positioning system? One of you must be wrong! Machines can't lie?! MACHINES CAN'T LIE?!!??!!

Re:Damn you, technology!

Computer says no.

Re:Damn you, technology!

>Now there's a neat project idea: create a GPS spoofing device.

That is a standard piece of GPS test equipment. A test GPS signal source and an antenna cone to place over the GPS device. Any time and location can be spoofed.

So... what was wrong with the gun?

The article says that he was doing 62 MPH according to the radar gun. The GPS says 45. If the GPS was right, why was the gun wrong? Bad calibration? Operator error? Dyslexia?

How many other people were caught "speeding" by the same gun,and are they planning to notify any of them that they have reason to believe the gun was wrong?

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

After he provided his GPS data as evidence, the cops should have back tracked from the point in time where the speed camera and the GPS disagree. They know the spot in the road, they know the direction he was heading in. He's an 18yo kid so surely he was speeding somewhere within the last 5 minutes.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

Except for a little something we call the Fifth Amendment: it wasn't the cops' GPS data, was it?

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

5th amendment doesn't protect you there. It only prevents you from incriminating yourself - it doesn't prevent evidence from your GPS being used. Especially if you introduce evidence from your GPS unit as a defense.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

Likely operator error.

For all their bluster guns are only accurate under very specific circumstances. The dopler effect and software used in the gun assumes certain things when making it's speed "measurement", the first is that the measurement is head on, a cop shooting your speed from greater than a 5 degree angle can alter the measurement dramatically and greater than 15 degrees and you might as well just disregard whatever it reads as the error will exceed 35mph. Second most guns are calibrated for approaching traffic, if shot from behind, they are extremely inaccurate. Third, unless the gun is a laser based measurement system the gun picks out the fastest object in it's line of site and a typical gun has a 15 to 25 degree measurement window such that if there is a car anywhere near you going faster than you then that car is the one that will get measured. Cops are typically trained such that they know these limitations and abide by the requirements, that doesn't mean all do and it doesn't mean cops don't lie or that your age,sex,ethnicity,clothing and what you are driving plays a greater role in whether you get tickets than just about any other factor including how fast you drive. An 18 year old in gang attire driving a sporty car can drive by a cop going 15mph slower than a station wagon with a 45 year old guy in a suit and the 18 year old will get the ticket and the cop won't look twice at the other guy. Such is life.

Re:So... what was wrong with the gun?

I'm no fan of the cops, but measuring at an angle to the direction of travel decreases the speed as perceived by the radar gun.

The most important point of the article

is the so called professor revising his "expertise" so quickly and so radically. Now it would be interesting to know (or the court forcing him to say) on WHAT he based his first expertise and what new publicly available information made him change his mind, and why he did not make use of this information for the first written testimony. I get the feeling this guy is as much expert in GPS & radar gun, as my expertise in medicine forensic is (not much).

Re:The most important point of the article

My guess is the expert's original statement was based on the assumption that the device was a run-of-the-mill GPS navigation system, which probably aren't accurate when it comes to speed and position.

Although if that hypothesis is correct it does leave one wondering why they made that assumption and didn't bother checking; it certainly reads like he then took a closer look at the device, when the finding was contested, and realized that it was a much more high end device.

You can never trust the client ...

It's the same thing as a desktop, web client, or indeed the browser itself - the client can never be trusted.

Are the cops or the courts going to audit every GPS device or line of device code to ensure that 20 mph is *not* being deducted off what is written to the log above a certain speed?

Come to think of it, that's a great idea for OS or FSF - create code for popular GPS devices, and then produce the code for audit when you go to court contesting a ticket, while asking that the cops produce the code off of their device!!

Re:You can never trust the client - Already done

Come to think of it, that's a great idea for OS or FSF - create code for popular GPS devices, and then produce the code for audit when you go to court contesting a ticket, while asking that the cops produce the code off of their device!!

A variation of this has been done in a number of DUI/DWI cases. A number of defendants have demanded [google.com] that the source for the breathalyzer be made available for review by the defense.

In the cases I'm aware of, the manufacturer has refused to release the source as their agreement/license with the relevant law enforcement agency does not provide for this.

I believe the outcomes have ranged, but in general this has been a successful defense.

Even a consumer grade

I have a handheld Garmin GPS (with car mount) that specifications claim that it is within .75 knot accuracy on the speed display.

I used it to get out of a speeding ticket outside of El Paso. I said the GPS said I wwas doing 75, the cop said his radar gun said 76 and it is calibrated. I responded thatt my GPS uses government satellite signals. He let me go.
 

Re:How he did it

If only.
GPS device gets time from GPS satellite, not user.