Originally Posted by
Rut Dog
I'm no lawyer, but skimming this case it is clear that the hearsay argument is based on the police officer having no direct involvement with the camera.
Officer Butkus was not employed by Redflex nor was he its custodian of records; he did not perform the maintenance or calibration of the machines himself; he was not present when the calibration was performed; he did not inspect the photo enforcement unit in this case; he was not present when the inspection was supposed to have taken place; it was not part of his job duties to inspect or to calibrate the photo enforcement unit; he did not take the photos or video in the case and was not present when they were taken;
My conversation with the officer in my case made clear quite the opposite. He was happy to describe, at length, how he set up the portable unit, posted a sign, calibrated the camera, etc, etc. It was all rather interesting.
Are you sure you are "no lawyer?" You laid out that cogent argument very competently and succinctly! I have heard "yes lawyers" do it much less competently and succinctly!
