Video: Aberdeen police didn't think this close pass footage was close enough to follow up on

riddoch wrote:

I think there are some specific crimes that will be different and I suspect speeding is one of them. 

Makes perfect sense... because exceeding an arbitrary speed limit is somehow worse than nearly hitting someone with a car?
Surely, if they are both traffic offences then the same rules apply in driver identification?!

ktache wrote:

So, say if someone was to find out where he lived and went round to his house and smashed all his car windows, as long as no one saw you, you could admit with pride it was you, say on social media, and the law cannot do anything about it?

Just wondering and not advocating this in any way.

Your social media post and any admission in court or to any other witness would be two. Also your social media post bragging about a crime would potentially be a separate crime. 

You also have fingerprints on the tool you use, security camera evidence where your age/height/sex might be corroborating (as pointed out by the procurator fiscals letter),  any witness that sees you nearby close to the time, and so on and so forth. 

xbnm wrote:

Must make it difficult to convict drivers for speeding especially in the dark

Yes, which is why speeders are very rarely taken to court in Scotland unless they have been stopped by the Police at the time, have been extreme or have some other corroboration (sole person on insurance, witness, front-facing camera etc). Most people take the points and fine as a plea bargain rather than contest them because the cost of fighting it is higher (even if you win you have lawyers fees that will exceed the original fine).

As to the suggestion that the drivers phone GPS might be considered corroborating. It would be, but he would have to give it over freely and he can just refuse access. 

kevinmorice wrote:

xbnm wrote:

Must make it difficult to convict drivers for speeding especially in the dark

 

Yes, which is why speeders are very rarely taken to court in Scotland unless they have been stopped by the Police at the time, have been extreme or have some other corroboration (sole person on insurance, witness, front-facing camera etc). Most people take the points and fine as a plea bargain rather than contest them because the cost of fighting it is higher (even if you win you have lawyers fees that will exceed the original fine).

 

As to the suggestion that the drivers phone GPS might be considered corroborating. It would be, but he would have to give it over freely and he can just refuse access. 

s

Not sure about this. The Safety Camera Partnership report drivers in large numbers and achieve many convictions for speeding.  

People are convicted simply because they plead guilty.  That is a confession.

As far as I am aware phones can be seized and the data obtained (although highly unlikely outwith a serious injury crash).

WiznaeMe wrote:

People are convicted simply because they plead guilty.  That is a confession.

As far as I am aware phones can be seized and the data obtained (although highly unlikely outwith a serious injury crash).

They achieve many plea deals from drivers willing to avoid court. Read the letter next time you get one. 

The phone can be siezed. There is no onus on the individual to consent to unlock it or hand over the data on it. Bad driving is unlikely to breach the warrrant threshold to allow a forced breach of the phone to extract the GPS data without consent. (The Police have now resorted to undercover muggings of drug dealers whilst they are making calls in order to get around phone locks, if they can grab the unlocked phone they can keep it unlocked).  

kevinmorice wrote:

 

The phone can be siezed. There is no onus on the individual to consent to unlock it or hand over the data on it. Bad driving is unlikely to breach the warrrant threshold to allow a forced breach of the phone to extract the GPS data without consent. (The Police have now resorted to undercover muggings of drug dealers whilst they are making calls in order to get around phone locks, if they can grab the unlocked phone they can keep it unlocked).  

Triangulation data is not stored on the handset, it is held by phone companies, hence no handset seizure is required.  Getting hold of it involves quite a bit of hassle with paperwork/warrants hence it isn't generally obtained for more trivial offences.

riddoch wrote:

accidental double post.

Oh, I thought it was corroboration!