What should the police do different to improve the accuracy of eyewitness testimony?
453701
I think that one thing that might help them to improve would be to have the witness view the line-up as soon as possible.  Every minute they wait makes it that much harder for a witness to make a positive identification.  They only time I have been asked to view a line-up was 1 1/2 months after the incident.(I didn't do it because I wasn't sure)
268364
present evidence to refute the charges.
804776
Hi\nAs far as I know, it is against the law without peole knowing. It also wont be used as viable evidence in any court/tribunal.\n\nYou should, by law be entitled to a witness. IS someone stating otherwise?
1081410
There is no true or correct answer to this question the only way to even begin to answer it would be to stand in the shoes of the police or anyone else there at that time
171935
In order to meet their burden of proof, the officer will need to testify regarding what steps he/she took to verify the speed the vehicle was travelling.  There is no set minimum time, but testimony would be more credible depending on the length of time involved.
699159
Believe it or not, education is the best way.  I was a part of a "neighborhood watch" program.  This is where Police come into a neighborhood and train the citizens what to watch for (in the way of crime reporting).  It's much easier for a group to stand up together against something, rather than an individual.  \n\nI would teach people safety lessons, how to contact the Police and all sorts of other things.  After the group is trained and everyone "signed up" to participate, then I would go back each month to see how things are going, keep the members updated as to crimes in their area and tell about arrests that had been made by the Police and those that were made due to the groups involvement.  We would place a Neighborhood Watch sign to let everyone know that the area works with the Police and will call.  People used to ask me "Do those signs really help."  My answer was usually, "They can't hurt."  Then I arrested a guy for burglary and was able to get a confession.  He took us around to show us places that he had burglarized.  He would show us a house and then go to the next.  He skipped around and so I asked him, "why didn't you hit the other areas."  He told me "Because I saw the Neighborhood Watch signs in the other areas.  It may not mean much, but it told me people are watching and would call the Police.  Why take the chance - the risk is too high, when I can go into another area and no one calls the Police."  Made me realize that being a part of a group that WILL call the Police and work with them can really make a difference.\n\nI was the contact Officer for the group and by knowing me personally, the group felt that they could call me about anything (which they could - even problems with another Officer) and know that I would handle the situation.  This give and take trust put power in the groups hands and word got out to the theives and thugs to STAY AWAY.  It works!
985496
ask a judge or police officer to explain it.
134937
Ummm....judges, I'm fairly certain, cannot use tea leaves, crystal balls, or a roll of the dice to determine guilt or innocence.  Not sure why someone who claims to be an officer would suggest otherwise.\n\nGood luck on getting that trial transcript.  At least in California, traffic court is not required to have a court reporter.\n\nI disagree with the notion that the discovery process needed to be done earlier.  If the officer testified that the radar unit was calibrated, then the next logical questions would be when, by who, what were the results, etc.  If the officer didn't testify to the unit being calibrated, then the discovery request probably should have been made earlier if you wanted to know those things.\n\nThe judge may not have meant he and the officer were drinking/golfing buddies.  He may have meant the officer has been testifying before him for 13 years and because of his past testimony, the judge finds the officer to be very credible.  Since the judge does not know you, and perhaps has reason to doubt your side of the event, he may feel it's appropriate to take the officer's word over yours.  Judges or juries do that all the time...one witness is credible and can be believed, the other witness is not so credible and can be disbelieved.  \n\nI would not assume the judge's decision was based solely on the length of time the judge has known the officer.  The judge was maybe a little smart-assed when he said that (as recounted by you), but I don't know that I would just assume that's all he used to make his decision.
165822
1. I think the police rarely lie in court, unless they are on trial themselves..  They are trained to spew facts.\n\n2. I think O.J.'s defense attorneys used trick tactics to make it appear that the police were lying.  Remember, this was the best defense team money could buy, and he paid them to tie up the court and confuse the jury into an acquittal.
979808
I am not a NYPD but I used to be a personal injury paralegal.  The boxes on both sides tell who ever is reading the report what occured.  I am assuming you have received the official police report, not the one they give you at the scene, so you should have a second part to the report or maybe on the back there is a list of the numbers (the boxes should be numbered) and what the meaning is.  Basically, these 'boxes' just offer more information regarding the accident.  example: what directions the cars were in, who had the right a way, stuff like that.
909081
example:  cops go to court and lie more than anyone else.
282234
In the federal sector you must have either/or evidence to support the claim, notes of what occurred with questions that have to be answered who, what, when, and how. You should also have a list of potential witnesses. First will come an informal investigation to determine if a formal investigation is warranted. After that there will be a lot of time frames that will have to be met in a timely manner. after that you basically play a waiting game.
910139
It takes months and months of hard work, and hard evidence and misery for a lot of people (ie neighbours) before an ASBO is issued against someone.  Those that say they were given one for no reason are lying.  The Police don't go easy on someone because that person is a friend of a serving officer.  We deal with cold hard evidence.  If you get one, you deserve it.  What you might think is reasonable, may not be for the rest of the community you live in.
985589
Local police have the first say in dictating everything. Rule of thumb is be subordinate to official demands by first responders.Hold these people accountable for they're actions at all costs.Track they're actions and reactions up the chain of command to hold them liable. Then you might have a legitamate claim if you've been harmed(physically or monitarally).Time and patience will reveal the truth.
743812
I bet all those people suggesting you should contest it or ignore it are the same people who complain that the police spend too much time sorting out paperwork rather than catching proper criminals.\n\nYou were caught speeding, so just take your punishment like a man, not a wimp, and let the police get on with their job.
1175007
More info needed. B/w perpetuate testimony and what?
298588
Just state the facts.  Don't elaborate, be as brief as possible. \n\nDo not mention anything such as "i saw so-and-so and he did not run the red light that he got the ticket for..." or, "the cop is wrong," or "he shouldn't have gotten a ticket."\n\nDon't give a hint to your opinion state ~only~ what you observed.  No more, no less.\n\n"Just the facts ma'am." ;)