Man Busted For Speeding Via The Internet

from the photographs-and-the-internet dept

Wed, Jul 19th 2006 10:09am — Mike Masnick

People often seem to think that if they got away with doing something illegal when it happened, they can write about it and show pictures online without anyone tracking them down. In the past, for example, we had stories of a woman arrested for indecent exposure after she posted photos of herself appearing nude at a bar and of the kids who were arrested after posting a video of them firebombing a warehouse. However, it still is a bit surprising to find out that someone got arrested for speeding in the same manner. Raekwon writes "A young Croat who posted a photograph of himself speeding on a motorbike on the Web was tracked down and fined by the police. The 28-year-old, identified only as D.M., took a photo of his speedometer showing 170 km (100 mph) on a back road in northern Croatia and then put it on the Web site of his local municipality. Police found him three days later." The article also notes that the police discovered his motorcycle was illegally imported and not registered. So, as a public service reminder, if you must do something stupid and illegal, please wait until after the statute of limitations to post images of it online. However, one of these days someone is going to claim that the photos were faked. Now, that will be an interesting case...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous of Course, 19 Jul 2006 @ 10:15am

Speeding?
A speed of 100mph isn't all that fast for
a motorcycle. They should have given him
a reward instead of a fine!

How embarassing would that be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2006 @ 10:55am

Just a hint for Reuters: 170 km/h (km is a distance) - journos...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bruce, 19 Jul 2006 @ 12:23pm
  
  Re:
  km/h Kilometers per hour, you fucking idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mikester, 19 Jul 2006 @ 12:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    km/h Kilometers per hour, you fucking idiot
    
    You're the idiot. Anonymous Coward was pointing out the mistake in the article, "170 km" should have been "170 km/h"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2006 @ 6:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What you say is true, but it was pretty ambiguious the top parent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- @Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2006 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  100 mph (m=miles is also a distance)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mAm, 19 Jul 2006 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re: km vs m
  yeah, kilometers are a measure of distance and so are miles
  so kilometers/hour is still a speed
  your point?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mAm, 19 Jul 2006 @ 1:20pm
  
  check this url out
  http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/handcuff.asp
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF???, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:04am

DURRRRRRRRRR...
Stupidity (unfortunately) is not a crime.

You're free to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:07am

hmmm...wonder if that would get 5th amendment coverage in the states...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jorge, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:17am
  
  Re:
  It would make sense that it would be protected against the 5th amendment. Also, the evidence was not seized with proper warrant or probable cause. Sounds like he would have a case against the state if it were in the USA
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - dork hunter, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nothing you said makes any sense at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Topher3105, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:08am

Stupid is as stupid does
God bless them each and every one of them.

To the first post, I guess you top 200km/h on your motorbike every day. Sign you donor card recently? Although at those speeds, I doubt anything would be left of you to donate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous of Course, 19 Jul 2006 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re: Stupid is as stupid does
  Sorry to let you down but no. I have however
  gone very very fast at Louden. I love my suicycle
  and never want to smash it up.
  
  I don't have a donor card, that's for fresh meat.
  
  I hope you've filled on out though, with the superior
  intellect you posses it would be a boon to science.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Photoshop Guy, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:10am

Uh yea...
On the lies of what you mentioned at the end of the article... why doesn't anyone say the photos were altered? There's no way you could prove that they weren't and for the sake of the court case you could alter the picture and then make a psd that makes it look like you altered it to what it is now... wouldn't be too hard depending on what the picture is of and what needs to be altered. I'd even set my date back so the created on date of the psd file corresponds to the one on the original file... You'd have one hell of a time proving anything against that in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Photoshop Guy, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: Uh yea...
  sorry... not lies... lines... on the lines of... as in regarding... sorry ^.^
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:17am
  
  Re: Uh yea...
  well, depending on the crime being commited in the photo, i have a feeling it'll be most likely beyond the skills of the average "computer user" (i use the term loosely...).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:21am

Already been done.
"However, one of these days someone is going to claim that the photos were faked. Now, that will be an interesting case..."

Already been done with R. Kelly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STJ, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:21am

Well, what you do is put up a test photo with something completly stupid. I have a 95 geo metro, 3 cylinder. Put a picture of it at 150 mph(which the highest it shows is like 90). See if anyone comes knocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:25am

"hmmm...wonder if that would get 5th amendment coverage in the states..."

No, it doesn't. The fifth amendment says that you do not have to incriminate yourself. However, you wave that right when you choose to incriminate yourself by posting the pictures online.

Basically, the fifth amendment says that if you had the photos but kept them secret, you would never have to give them to the police if you didn't want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rob, 19 Jul 2006 @ 12:36pm
  
  I doubt they would bother.
  They already have him with an unregistered, uninsured, and untitled vehicle which he hasn't paid any taxes on. If it doesn't meet state safety and emissions requirements, it gets even better.
  
  They have pretty strong circumstantial evidence for the speeding, but if it went to court, the prosecutor would still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the photo wasn't faked. They almost certainly can, but what's the point? They probably have enough on him to take his bike, take his license, fine him, and make him pay sales tax, excise tax, import tax, interest, and penalties.
  
  If he's a first offender and has a good lawyer, he may be allowed to plead to the speeding ticket and keep his license.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2006 @ 9:48pm
    
    Re: I doubt they would bother.
    emissions...in croatia?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TurboEnzo, 19 Jul 2006 @ 11:44am

I heard awhile back about a police officer making a video of a street race he did against some kids, then posted it on the internet and got busted.

Police arnt innocent either!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan, 19 Jul 2006 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re: Police races kids
  But.....did he win the race?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
croati, 19 Jul 2006 @ 12:00pm

now that everything is fixed in croatia...
dont the cops there have anything better to do? find some war criminals or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 19 Jul 2006 @ 12:25pm

Pictures...
that's lame... Is his face the picture? Is the outstide street and environment also photographed speeding by at the same time? There's no way that will hold up in court. How petty are cops that they have to go after someone like that??? I can understand the firebombing arrest.....It shows them committing the crime....the picture described in the article shows a speedometer.... PETTY CRAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Count Porkula, 19 Jul 2006 @ 12:47pm

Topher3105, You obviously have no experience with motorcycles. My '05 R1 will get up to 200 km/h before you finish reading this sentence (7-8 seconds). In less than 1/8th mile - shorter than many freeway entrance ramps - these bikes can easily reach those speeds and be back down to 60 mph - safely. It is not unusual to hit these speeds - briefly - on a bike. These bikes are not as dangerous as you think. Other drivers are the problem 99.999% of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2006 @ 1:26pm

Count Porkula...
"These bikes are not as dangerous as you think. Other drivers are the problem 99.999% of the time."

Right. So the dead guy wiped across 400 yards of asphalt among scattered shards of steel and rubber can rest easy with the thought that it wasn't his bike, but the 2002 GMC Envoy that pulled out in front of him, that was dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2006 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re: Count Porkula...
  No.. He won't rest easy..
  
  He'll Rest In Peace.
  
  Big difference....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - howard, 20 Jul 2006 @ 12:36am
    
    Re: Re: Count Porkula...
    He'll Rest In Peace.
    
    Pieces.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin, 19 Jul 2006 @ 1:47pm

Other Drivers
Yes, 99% of the time with any type of car it is someone elses mistake for the person on the bike/car to have a accident... I know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2006 @ 3:13pm
  
  Re: Other Drivers
  "Yes, 99% of the time with any type of car it is someone elses mistake for the person on the bike/car to have a accident... I know"
  
  You're deluded. Unless it's a no-fault state, precisely 50% of the time it is someone else's mistake.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody, 19 Jul 2006 @ 2:29pm

If the guy is in a USA jurisdiction, then the 5th Amendment won't apply for reasons stated by others above.

What will apply is the Corpus Delicti rule ("body of the crime" rule) of criminal prosecution in the USA. The CD rule simply says that an unsworn confession outside of court cannot be the sole basis of prosecution for a crime without any other extrinsic evidence that a crime was ever committed.

If you tell police "I robbed the Main St. Bank yesterday", you can't be prosecuted for bank robbery unless some other evidence exists that the Main St. Bank was actually robbed yesterday.

In this case the only evidence that speed law was even violated is the confession. Therefore no prosecution, at least in the USA.

If someone else observed the incident and came forward, then a prosecution could occur, and the confession would be good evidence against the speeder guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Charles Griswold, 20 Jul 2006 @ 11:18am
  
  Re:
  In this case the only evidence that speed law was even violated is the confession. Therefore no prosecution, at least in the USA.
  
  To quote the article:
  
  The 28-year-old, identified only as D.M., took a photo of his speedometer showing 170 km (100 mph) on a back road in northern Croatia and then put it on the Web site of his local municipality.
  
  Sorry, but taking a picture of yourself comitting a crime and posting it on the internet goes a bit beyond mere "unsworn confession." He made an (implicit) public confession and then provided photographic evidence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tony, 19 Jul 2006 @ 5:15pm

" Its not the speed that will kill ya, it's the stoppin' "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eniram, 31 Oct 2006 @ 7:51am

Stop Speeding
There is a website in the US gathering data on speeders, which is freely available to police, or insurance companies. stopspeeding.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]