Tracka

you don't get "lag" with a system like this. I have Infrared CCTV cameras around my house and its instant

trust me, there is no statdec involved. police will get you to give a statement and in the first part of the statement is where you say all the information you give is true and correct. (same weight as a stat dec) anybody can complain to police. if there is no evidence, there is not much they can do. simple. you can refuse to give a statement. its your right.

contact chatswood police and ask to speak to the duty officer. explain to him you want to make an appointment with him to make a formal complaint about the GD officers who attended the scene. then go down and see him and explain the situation. if you don't have chatswood's number, call 92810000 and ask them to transfer you.

if there is no evidence and you do not admit to anything, if is very difficult to prove an offence. forget speeding offences. GD police (general duties) vehicles are not calibrated and even if you are going 120 in a 70km/h zone, the only thing a magistrate will probarbly hold up is a 0-15km/h ticket. if the witness is happy to attend court and give evidence about the offence, (and there is some other supporting evidence) you can be found guilty. red lights. etc.you can't be found guilty if you deny it and a police officer or autherised person did not see you in the act. 'stat declarations' are useless unless they attend court. actually been involved in an accident and you found to be at fault is a totally different situation. there are specific sections under the road transport act for you to get a ticket. (neg driving usually) Intell reports can only be used to advise the officer about your history. thats it.

unfortunatly this is incorrect. if the image is watermarked it can be used been there, done that. once again the information you have supplied here is incorrect and I wish people did not comment on things they have no knowledge about! now the FACTS! in the original court hearing, the solicitor for the driver contested the fine and wanted proof that the image had not been altered in any way, the only way to do this would be for the RTA to produce an 'expert' to testify to the authenticity of the image. the judge requested that the rta produce evidence/the expert to tell him the image had not been altered. now, the police prosecutor did not notify the RTA untill 2 weeks before the court case that a expert was required or the case would be thrown out. the RTA then stuffed around and contacted the speed camera company to request one of their experts attend court on the day as requested by the judge. due to the short time frame, a expert was not able to make it to court on the day. (p.s. this 'expert' would also be charging over $1k to attend court). the police requested that the case be held over till an expert was available which the reply was no and costs awarded to the defendant. there has now been a direction from the minister. (joe tripodi) that any future case requiring an expert be dealt with straight away and an 'expert' be available on the day. Also, when the rta wins after you contest it, expect that YOU will have to pay the RTA's legal fees with will far exceed $4k for the day. so, the point here is this. the only reason the guy won was because the expert was not given enough notice to attend court. simple.

any police officer that sees your car and thinks its to loud just has to fill out a EPA form and memo it over to the EPA. they then send you a letter and require you to come in for an inspection. saves police time buy not having to pull you over especially if the car was full of people at the time. (i.e. 1 officer, 4 passengers)

test

Guys, I have a full r32 GTR workshop manual for sale. it is complete and comes with all diagrams (lift out ones etc) and is a few inches thick. (manual is not bound) only have one so first in best dressed. if you want it, email [email protected] or PM me Located in Sydney (Fairfield area) if you pick it up I'll take $80 for it

not correct. I assure you that all you need to do is do the course

20 seconds with a hacksaw straight through your steering wheel will have the clublock off without a problem! get a decent alarm instead

pitty you don't know what your talking about!!!!!!! to drive a manual police vehicle you just need to do a 2 day manual certification at Police driver training centre at goulburn.

mine from justdoit23

If you have any information about officers that are using police computers for personal use, I urge you to contact the Duty officer at your local station. or, PM me your details and ill get somebody to contact you. what state are you in ?

COURT CASE IMPACT Sgt. J. Rau of Scotch Plains Police, New Jersey USA says, “We’ve found that 99% of the time video succinctly refutes allegations of officer misconduct and reduces the number of traffic cases that are contested when defendants become aware there were videotaped.” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police, North Carolina USA responded that, “The Mobile Video Recorders have reduced officers time in court and they have also reduced the amount of time a case may be in court. With the technology today that supports the video recording (tape counters, etc..) there is little room for the argument that "the Police Officer has 'doctored' the evidence". Sgt. J. Townsend of Wyoming Highway Patrol reports that, “Our entire department of State Highway Patrol use in car video cameras. Many hundreds of police agencies from around the world responded to requests for information on the court case impact of mobile video recording and all reported huge reductions in court cases. As I mentioned earlier cost/benefit study done for the New South Wales Highway Patrol for 2000-2001 showed 9,982 contested infringements at an estimated cost of $5,739,650. Reduced court cost payback Reduction in court matters Saving Payback period 50% $2,869,825 0.641154 Years 75% $4,304,738 0.427436 Years 85% $4,878,702.50 0.377149 Years Payback is recurrent, that is, every year the annual cost of the systems would be recovered in the number of months given for the noted reduction in contested traffic matters Cost savings of millions of dollars every year expected from an in-car video program in the New South Wales Highway Patrol fleet of 344 vehicles were so massive that New South Wales Police Service could not ignore them. Later you will read what they have done. It is obvious from the evidence provided by the worldwide law enforcement community that in-car video recording has a positive and significant impact on court cases for police, courts and the public. COMPLAINTS IMPACT Over the years I have found that video evidence never lies, it always helps to put off potential complaints and is always going to back up the “good guy.” Royal Canadian Mounted Police reported that, “In car video reduce the public complaints.” Sgt. J Faccio of Michigan State Police, USA says that, “The in-car video camera becomes a silent witness that methodically collects and documents both video and audio evidence.” North Carolina State Police USA reports that, “The officer in charge of training our Troopers in the use of the video systems states that complaints and time to investigate complaints has been reduced. Sgt. J. Rau of Scotch Plains Police, New Jersey USA says, “We’ve found that 99% of the time video succinctly refutes allegations of officer misconduct ….” The evidence provided by the worldwide law enforcement community suggests that public complaints against officers using in-car video are reduced significantly and almost entirely. Reduced public complaint cost Total cost of complaints $87,360 Traffic only Saving if no adverse finding not made $59,405 Traffic only Total annual indicative savings $2,929,230 50% reduced $4,364,142 75% reduced As I mentioned earlier the cost/benefit study done for the New South Wales Highway Patrol showed some 104 traffic related complaints for 1999-2000 at an estimated cost of $87,360. Although it is expected that the reduction in public complaint costs will be greater than 75%, a 50% reduction will save New South Wales Police $2.9m per year, which more than covers the annual cost of maintaining in-car video in their 344 vehicle Highway Patrol fleet. In-car video systems have improved significantly in recent years in terms of recording capacity, data storage and even recording abilities. No longer are we restricted to 6 or 8 hour videotapes requiring large storage facilities with antiquated searching abilities, instead we have hard drive recorders, solid state memory recorders and DVD-RAM recorders capable of storing days or weeks of incidents that can be stored on computer servers or data tapes enabling an incident recording to be located in seconds and viewed by any authorised person via agency terminals. Digital video systems employ memory buffering that provides the ability to capture video up to several minutes prior to actually activating the record function. This feature means that systems are operating continuously but only temporarily recording the footage to memory not to the recording media. When an incident occurs the operator triggers the device and what is held in memory is now saved to the recording media ahead of the recording; in effect stepping back in time. This feature is extremely valuable for actually capturing evidence of incidents such as red light runners, moments leading to car crashes and others. Digital video systems can be linked to mobile data terminals, radar, GPS locator/navigator, automatic number plate recognition devices and other tools. Depending on the agencies desire, the video can be downloaded in a number of ways such as direct connection, wireless connection or hot swapping. Technological advancements are such that agencies can view footage immediately and as it is being recorded, providing dispatch or supervisors the same view as the patrol officer. The cost of implementing, maintaining and upgrading in-car video is expensive, but the costs are very quickly recouped and as you have read massive savings made as a result their capabilities. Although Australian police agencies have been very slow to take on this valuable financial and manpower saving policing tool, completely missing out on the 10 to 15 years of video-tape systems, some of our agencies are currently or have recently been involved in trials of this technology. For example, Northern Territory Police evaluated some analogue systems in late 2000 and around this time Victoria and New South Wales Police began trials of digital systems that continue today. Australian Federal Police (ACT) and Victoria Police purchased a number of digital systems in recent times. In response to a request to the Police Commissioner by the wife of a Highway Patrol officer killed on the road, New South Wales Police began its push for in-car video and the NSW Government took notice. In August 2002, acting on the positive cost/benefit analysis mentioned earlier, New South Wales Police allocated $10M to implement digital in-car video, initially for their highway patrol fleet of about 344 vehicles by September 2004, and later across their general duties fleet. Tenders for 350 digital in-car video systems closed in early February 2004, to be followed by short trials of selected systems and then procurement and fitting. I expect that Victoria Police will announce a similar plan when funding becomes available. Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia are watching with great interest. The official line from QPS is “Queensland Police Service also recognises the potential of these sorts of devices and is firming up its plan to apply these types of technologies in maintaining modern policing practice consistent with other demands on the police budget.” Don’t you have to have ‘modern policing practices’ before you can maintain it? Obviously funding is a major hurdle, but the QPS Information Technology strategic plan shows in-car video appearing in the fine print well into the future at 2010, but in the meantime individual officers continue to make use of in-car video recording devices and their many benefits. For more than 10 years Australian police agencies have failed to adopt this modern policing practice let alone maintain it, but some agencies are realising their mistake and finally taking action. If nothing else, surely the bean counters would like the idea of a tool that will actually save the agency large sums of money.

ON ROAD POLICING – PART 2 – IN-CAR VIDEO {R} Sgt. Leon Staines, Queensland Police Service. My last article about on-road policing, in the Queensland Police Journal (June 2003) and the Australian Police Journal (September 2003), gave you a real life scenario of a traffic stop by a police car fitted with state of the art voice operated technology such as automatic number plate recognition, fingerprint and driver licence scanner, mobile data terminal, electronic patrol log and infringement notice printer. Another of the tools was in-car video recording and this article aims to give you the current state of play about this tool. I am qualified to write about this subject because I am one of a handful of individual cops in Australia that use in-car video (6yrs), I am the only Australian cop that has trained as a Mobile Video Instructor in the United States, I conducted the QPS Project ‘Mobile Video Trials 2001-2002’ and I have continually researched this subject since 1999. What is the financial and manpower cost each time that you, a police officer and maybe other police and civilian witnesses are required for a hearing or trial in Court? Preparing the brief of evidence, arranging witnesses, the time off the road, your replacement on the roster, the costs of the Court system and so on; they add up to significant sums. What is the financial and manpower cost for lost Court cases and costs awarded against police? A study done for the New South Wales Highway Patrol for 2000-2001 showed 9,982 contested infringements at an estimated cost of $5,739,650. While we are at it, what is the financial and manpower cost each time a member of the public makes a complaint about you? Someone has to investigate it. How many complaints go against police or remain unresolved due to lack of independent corroborating evidence? A study done for the New South Wales Highway Patrol for 1999-2000 showed some 104 traffic related complaints at an estimated cost of $87,360. There is no question that police agencies around the world are being required to do more and more without corresponding increases in budget or manpower, consequently agencies are looking to find more effective and efficient ways of using funding and manpower. A solution being adopted by increasing numbers of police agencies is in-car video recording. BRIEF HISTORY Recording video from within a police car began overseas in the early 1980s with the advent of portable videocassette recorders intended for the consumer market. A handful of police officers and companies set out to utilize this equipment in the police environment. It began with individual officers fitting consumer camcorders in their patrol car. Thirteen years ago in January 1991 one such officer Constable Darryl Lunsford, a law enforcement officer in Garrison, Texas USA who employed his own video technology in his patrol car while on routine patrol was shot to death. His in-car video system recorded his own death and provided the clue that lead to the identification and conviction of his killers. This tragic officer death began the relentless push by law enforcement agencies to utilise mobile video equipment These systems have been refined by police officer over the years and several companies seized the new market opportunity and now, most manufacturers of tape-based systems are using their experience to build digital video systems that are suitable for police work. In order to help an officer activate the video system, various triggers are common to most video systems: activation of sirens, emergency lights, officer-worn audio transmitter, or manual activation by the officer. The use of in-car video recording in police vehicles in order to document and monitor officer/citizen encounters in traffic stops and other policing duties has been widely embraced in North America, the United Kingdom and in areas of Europe and Asia by the law enforcement community, the judiciary and the public they serve. Large numbers of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom and North America including 47 of the 50 state police agencies in the United States have equipped front-line police vehicles with in-car video, and many other agencies are following or in the process of following suit. In recent years various enterprising individuals with the Queensland Police Service have joined a national trend by other Australian police agencies to conduct trials of in-car video systems. In the early 90’s Senior Constable Gabe Jose of Gold Coast Traffic Branch did a short trial with a consumer camcorder. In the mid 90’s a locally designed system for police was used for a public safety operation in the Innisfail District. In the late 90’s then Senior Constables Richard Teale and Michael Warren of State Traffic Task Force did short trials of two professional police systems and today the Traffic Response Group use handheld video to record evidence against hoons. During 2001 and 2002 the author conducted the QPS Project ‘Mobile Video Trials 2001-2002’ during which several American professional VHS tape systems and the very first digital hard drive system used by QPS were placed in traffic and general duties vehicles in the Gold Coast area. Thousands of incidents were recorded including a nine hour day/night siege with an armed offender in which the video camera was essential for closely monitoring the offender from a safe distance and at night and reporting his every move. Road crashes, drunken pedestrians, domestic violence, vehicle drug searches and seizures, O/C spray deployment and a multitude of policing contacts were recorded, but traffic offences and traffic stops formed the bulk of incidents. Information related to in-car video was sourced from any company in the world offering an in-car video recording system suitable for law enforcement use. Documents, manuals and presentations were obtained from police departments on in-car video subjects such as training, policies, procedures and evaluation reports. Many hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the English-speaking world were contacted and a large number supplied information for the project. Contact was made, and continues to this day, with in-car video project teams in other Australian police agencies, particularly Victoria Police and New South Wales Police. At the end of the project in 2002 Queensland Police was provided with the state-of-play for in-car video use, locally, nationally and internationally; as well as future trends. Since then the authors research and contacts have continued, with regular updates provided to QPS management, although the author has struck much difficulty in determining which sections of our agency, if any, is coordinating activities for in-car video and other on-road and in-car equipment. At first it was State Traffic Support Branch, then Transport Section, then Information Management Division and in January 2004 the Radio and Electronics Section has taken an active interest. One thing is clear though and that is that police departments around the world quickly realise the value of in-car video recording for: - § Evidence gathering capabilities for a wide variety of incidents § Officer safety and training § Officer and citizen behaviour § Prisoner transport § Reducing court cases and duration of court cases § Reducing citizen complaints and duration of complaint investigations EVIDENCE GATHERING Video systems have been used to record evidence for a wide variety of incidents, including domestic disputes, road crashes, traffic offences, pursuits, pedestrian stop and prop, vehicle and person searches, offender identification, dangerous or aggressive driving practices and the list goes on and on. Defendants are generally unwilling to dispute charges when faced with video evidence because it is almost irrefutable, in many cases a guilty plea is accepted or a lesser charge negotiated without the need and expense of a court case. Vermont State Police, USA has 97% of their patrol cars fitted with in-car video and Lt. Melody Perkins, the Traffic Safety and Enforcement Coordinator reports that, “The cameras immediately proved their worth with both troopers and prosecutors and demonstrated the evidentiary value of this equipment for traffic enforcement, criminal investigation, and citizen allegations of misconduct against members.” Sgt. Andre Lemaire of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Canada reports that, “cars equipped with in-car video have an 85% rate of guilty pleas for impaired driving cases versus 40% for cars not so equipped.” The reduction in financial and manpower costs for the RCMP more than covers the implementation and maintenance costs of video systems. I was not able to uncover any evidence that in-car video does not enhance evidence gathering. OFFICER SAFETY AND TRAINING Garrison, Texas USA-January 1991: in-car videotape provides the clue that leads to the identification and conviction of the killers of Constable Darryl Lunsford, a law enforcement officer who employed his own video technology in his cruiser while on routine patrol. His camera recorded his own murder. This tragic officer death began the relentless push by law enforcement agencies to utilise mobile video equipment. Training is an ongoing and vital element of the modern police agency and another arena where in-car video has been successfully used in recent years. “One of the side benefits of mobile videotaping is that it has provided a host of actual taped arrests for review both by veteran and rookie officers.” (Kuboviak, The Importance of Mobile Video as a Training Tool – The Police Chief, November 1995, 50) Corp. Jeff Green of Tuscaloosa County Sheriff’s Department, Alabama USA reports that, “As a field training officer, I also use the systems to record my trainees as they work through the various service calls that we respond to so that I can go back and evaluate any mistakes they make and correct them, as well as positively reinforce anything they do well.”