In most places in the United States speeding is a criminal offense. Each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And the accused has the right to confront the witnesses against him in court.
I sort of understand the argument about cops needing to hold the radar gun, but I also don’t really get what they’re contributing to the legal validity of the case.
The biggest thing they contribute is proof of identity. When they pull you over and run your license, they can testify with pretty strong credibility that it was you driving the car.
To prove speeding you have to prove that the car was going too fast and that someone in particular was driving.
Having a cop signing the ticket also gives the government a convenient witness who can be subpoenaed to come to court and to testify with personal knowledge of the incident. That satisfies the confrontation clause. Whereas in jurisdictions that have tried pure camera enforcement, the only witness they can usually bring is a low level camera company representative who has no personal knowledge. This leads defendants to demand a lot of discovery into the automated processes of the camera system, because that is what is really accusing them.
Conclusion: US jurisdictions do a lot better with camera enforcement when they create civil infraction liability under state law. But then some forms of enforcement, like license points, may be taken off the table.








18 USC sec. 611 is a federal law that makes it a crime for a non-citizen to vote. But a federal judge in another district ruled that 611 is unconstitutional, because the constitution gives states the power to decide who can vote, subject to constraints (age 18, women, poll taxes, etc.)
Nothing in the constitution says you have to be a US citizen to vote in a federal election. That’s just a rule that every state has adopted.
So I’m interested in whether they have actually charged 611 here or not.