"He mentioned that he was not familiar enough with GPS technology to make a decision based on my evidence, but I can’t help but imagine that it was an important factor."
So the judge categorically stated that it wasn't a factor in his decision but the author imagines it was...
The difference between what you want to hear and what was actually said.
The reality is that he got lucky because he heard what the lawyer before him said and copied it and the police officer was ill prepared (possibly because he knew that the defendant was representing himself which is normally a sign that someone doesn't know what they're doing).
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.
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.
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.
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-speed...
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.
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.
So the judge categorically stated that it wasn't a factor in his decision but the author imagines it was...
The difference between what you want to hear and what was actually said.
The reality is that he got lucky because he heard what the lawyer before him said and copied it and the police officer was ill prepared (possibly because he knew that the defendant was representing himself which is normally a sign that someone doesn't know what they're doing).