Can police detect radar detectors?

Anyone know whether police and state troopers can really detect cars using radar detectors? Thanks, Mark

Not until they see it in your windshield

A radar detector can be "detected" itself. Some very few police cars carry the equipment. I spoke recently (in the last year) with a Ham radio friend that runs his own shop and is very interesting in all such things. His research concluded that very few units had been sold to the police. The original idea was to enforce new laws making radar detectors illegal in some states. There's not a lot of revenue in "detecting detectors" and so as a business, it didn't warrant the investment to buy more hardware, train more officers and prosecute more cases. The equipment (and there is more than one type) is primarily used to scan a vehicle already stopped for alleged speeding. If you're concerned about being "found" using a detector in a US State where detectors are illegal, I would counsel against breaking the law, but if you choose not to comply, I suggest you buy a new model. Valentine 1 www.valentineone.com is meant to be shielded to prevent at least one type of "detector detector" used by police. I've driven past numerous cars and trucks with older model detectors that "leak" so much they set of my detector. Here's a quick explanation of why a "receiver" (which sounds passive and shouldn't be making any "noise" so it shouldn't be possible to "hear" it) can be found. By the way, all radar detectors (civilian and military) are just microwave receivers tuned to the frequencies used by equipment operated by police. The receiver measures a standing radar field at the head of a cone-shaped receiver dish (often squared off to reduce space, such as in consumer products) and "detects" other radar sources by measuring the changes in the standing field effected by external sources. The cone increases the exposure area of the receiver and it's tuned to the range of EM frequencies relevant to the detector. So if the head of the cone is properly shielded and baffled, no EM gets out (at least so little it's below ambient noise levels) so how could you "detect the detector (man, I'm using a lot of double quotes...) It's a bit like walking through the security scanners at the airport or at a retail store with "inventory control" tags or little metal strips on their merchandise. The metal tags, like the metal in a gun barrel or a belt buckle, will upset a standing radio field. Since the cone of the radar detector is designed to catch and concentrate radar, then passing radar across the road and measuring fields on the other side could (under ideal conditions) detect the presence of devices that effect radar emissions. This second method explains why having the detector turned off doesn't change the likelihood of being caught. Again, from speaking with others and the little research I've done myself over the years, neither approach to "detector detectors" has worked. At least it hasn't worked well enough to become more common and I can't remember anyone coming onto a forum like Rennlist and saying "gee, I just got busted for using my detector" ... but maybe I missed that thread ... That's a rather concise explanation of radar, but a little Googling research and you'll learn more.

that'll bring up my question... can police detect a redar or laser jammer? i saw the thing on back of some car mags. it says it's not legal in CA. have u guys tried the thing?

Is the Valentine 1 legal to use in California?

Nevermind, found the answer Radar jammers. Radar detectors are legal, but jammers, or any device which interferes with radar signals, are illegal (28150 VC). http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/streetlegal.html

Yes, VA State Police have (or had) at least one radar detector detector. Several years ago, my radar detector was detected from over 100' away, and my unit was not in the windshield. I had been driving in the right lane in a line of other cars driving at the limit, while cars in the left lane were passing us. I saw the SP pull out from the median after I passed him. I knew he was after someone, but had no idea it was me. The others in my line probably wondered why he pulled me out as well. He was polite, said I wasn't speeding (I don't think he even had a radar unit on because my detector didn't go off), and indicated that his detector unit had detected my detector. He took down the serial number of the unit and gave it back, along with a non-moving violation (no points) ticket for $25. The next time I got a detector ticket (just a few months ago), the fine was $40. I bit my tonge before I could complain "Hey, last time it was only $25." So I'm the radar detector detector poster boy. The irony is that I'm one of the pokes in the right lane; maybe a little over the limit sometimes, but certainly a small fish.

I talked to my friend who is a traffic officer about radar detection. I asked him if they were illegal in California and he told me they were not but he did say jammers were, if they can find it. He also told me that they can not detect radar detectors or jammers. I asked him what happens to a radar gun when someone has a jammer and he told me that the gun doesn't register anything it just kind of glitches with no reading. This is a common thing according to him, every now and then the gun will glitch even if someone isn't using a jammer. This doesn't mean that you will get away though because a lot of traffic cops are sent through training to determine how fast someone is going by eye. He was sent to a training course where they made him guess the speed of a vehicle by eye while someone clocked it with a radar gun. They were tested thouroughly until they could guess the speed of cars within 5 mph. He also said that an officers testimony will hold up in court as well as a radar reading because of this training, he explained that a radar reading is just a way for an officer to justify what speed he thinks you are going by giving them a definite reading. The officer may already think your speeding but might not be sure and a radar reading just makes them sure your speeding. I believe if your going to use a radar detector so you can speed you should make sure it is one that can detect cops at least a couple blocks ahead of you even if they are not using a radar gun, so that you can slow down ahead of time. The k40 is supposed to detect a cop up to a mile ahead or behind you by picking up police radio signals and through my experience it works very well. Rodney

thanks for the info Rodney. i was gonna try the jammer

Thanks for the info gents. Mark

Forget about jammers. They're junk. You should read this article. It's from Escort's website. http://www.radartest.com/article.asp?articleid=6000

If you got pulled over and an officer was looking for a radar detector with some sort of "scanner", couldn't you just turn the unit off so it wouldn't give off any sort of "signal" therefor rendering the officers device useless?

LanceK, that is what I thought too. I have a Bell that detects a "detector" and shuts itself off for some period of time after it notifies you what it saw. I bought it 3 years ago so it is prolly obsolete technology now, but on the occasion that I have it turned on, sometimes I get this event.......

Those are passive jammers which are a complete fraud, not active laser jammers like Lidateck's, Blinder's, K40's diffuser & Bel's Laser Pro 904, which do work quite well

I remember reading an article a year back about radar detector detectors in the US and result was that currect good radar detectors (like V1, Bel, Escort) are failry invisible to cop radar detector detectors, but now the cops have a new one that will detect all radar detectors, I can't remember the article with the tests of detection or the name of the new device

My brother in law got pulled over once by a cop with a radar detector detector. The cop was travelling towards him in the opposite direction. Cop turned around and pulled him over. Of course my bro in law played stupid but the cop told him that he has a radar detector detector and he knows there is one in the car somewhere and that he should hand it over unless he wants his car ripped apart. But yes they do exist.

I have a Beltronics made so called undetectable detector (it said so on the box and in the instructions - and I understood this to be because it is "shielded") and, so far, have not been detected. They are illegal to use here (but apparently not illegal to own - on the assumption you may turn it on in a legal jurisdiction). The previous post about a detector being able to be detected when itr's off has me baffled. How can this happen? If it is off, is it not totally dormant and therefore REALLY undetectable?

My point exactly....

i think it would be tough for a cop in california to make an argument regarding a speeding ticket based on his judgment. speeding tickets get thrown out here if you can cast any shadow of doubt as to the radar gun's accuracy, so i'd really be surprised if they even try to fine you without proof. usually, they either pace you by following for a while, or get a radar gun reading. i was speeding out of an entrance ramp not too long ago, and got into the fast lane, just to realize there was a CHP right behind me! the guy put his lights on for an instant, so i stopped. he came over, asked me why i stopped, then told me that i was speeding but that "he couldn't get an accurate read" of my speed, which he (very conservatively) estimated at 80 mph. he let me go with a smile

It seems to me that we are missing the bigger issue. Why does a government get to control part of nature? That just seems odd to me. I mean if the government can control what microwaves you are allowed to receive, what is to stop the government from forcing you to receive them? Since the govt. can control radio waves too, how long will it be until the govt. decides it wants to regulate the visible spectrum as well? Only certain areas allowed to get sunlight for their crops? One could argue that if the govt. has an interest in "protecting" people from harmful microwave radiation, etc. that with today's ozone problems that the govt. could just restrict sunlight as well. I can understand why when radios were being used to transmit propaganda during WW1 and WW2 that the FCC needed to exist to make sure that these new inventions weren't used for evil purposes, etc. but come on, our cell phones and cellular service would be a lot less expensive if carriers didn't have to pay billions for the "right" to broadcast in a certain portion of the spectrum. Digital transmissions are capable of preventing interference, so it seems almost as ludicrous as trying to control the Internet. I may be way off target here, but the whole concept of controling wavelengths of energy really bugs me...

Keep in mind FWIW: State laws forbidding the use of a radar detector are illegal. Receiving any radio frequency you wish is a right guaranteed by federal law.

This post has been deleted due to it's blatent disregard of the self promotion rules associated with this community. You can access the rules here: http://www.rennlist.org/charter.htm and https://rennlist.com/nospam.htm .

Pete I realize this, what I am saying is why do we need a law to guarantee us the right to receive them in the first place? That ought to be a certain inalienable right such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for without the ability to receive electromagnetic radiation, we would all die. I also question state laws that take away federal grants, for example if some state passed a law taking away the right to be free from racial discrimination in a job app, wouldn't someone be a tad upset over that? Of course even freedom of speech isn't absolute...

Ghost Rider, What about Satellite TV? I know a bunch of people who got in trouble for purchasing equipment that "might" be used for decoding DSS.

I'm not suggesting that satellite tv or cable tv should be 'free', what I am saying is that if you, me or the guy down the street wants to put up his own satellite and transmit down to earth, we ought to be free to do so as long as certain minimum safety requirements are met. The govt. shouldn't be in the act of 'selling' spectrum or bandwidth or controlling our ability to transmit data. As for decoding DSS specifically, here's my thought on that. The developers of DSS spent $$$ creating equipment and the software encryption to carry their signal which they are attempting to sell. If you think about it, they've created a lock on their front door so you can't just go into their home and steal from them. So now if you ask me is it ok for someone to make a key to their home? I'd say sure, if someone spends the time to research how keys are made, buys key making machines and then turns out some sort of master key that could unlock your home, there isn't anything illegal in doing that, the same way that there isn't anything illegal in writing virus software code. It is the act of breaking and entering, or the act of stealing or the act of releasing that virus code with harmful intent that makes it illegal. So back to DSS, if someone makes equipment that can receive the signal just for experimental purposes or to test that the sytem works, maybe they are going to design a competing system or offer an improvement to the existing system, then that should be perfectly legal. However, if they have created that equipment for the sole purpose of stealing DSS signals then they are breaking the law. I suspect in the case you reference above there was enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that the 'bunch of people' had criminal intent, perhaps they advertised somewhere or actually did steal signals at some point. As you can see, an entirely different subject from the govt. controlling the access or right to broadcast signals in the first place. Now we all know that total freedom is an illusion and you have to have certain safeguards, and I mentioned that above. For example, you can't let someone put up a satellite that broadcasts so much microwave radiation from space that it fries every living thing in a 4 state area, although Dr. Evil might disagree. Your transmissions should also not interfere with others transmissions, meaning you need some sort of encoding in a particular area of the spectrum. A good example of this is how Bluetooth and 802.11 used to interfere with each other but governments and standards bodies stepped in and worked out a solution that allowed both to be broadcast in the same portion of the spectrum but not interfere with each other. These safety costs and non-interference costs, etc. should be minimal costs of doing business, not multi-billion dollar licenses to spectrum space. The state of Virginia should not be allowed to pass a law that restricts its citizens from having radar detectors without a popular vote. If a majority of the people in Virginia don't want radar detectors for some reason, then that's fine and that becomes the law until rescinded, but when some lobby group manages to get the legislature to sneak that in and make it a law without anyone noticing and then enforce it as a way to bring in revenue, yes, I have a problem with that. But, I don't live in Virginia so my vote doesn't count there, but if the citizens of Virginia really cared about the issue then I suspect they would get the law repealed. My guess is that the general population still views radar detectors as something that only speeders carry and speeders break the law so only unlawful types have radar detectors, or some such logic. Which brings us to anothe question. Should there even be a speed limit at all? I guess I should say an artificially enforced speed limit because the only true speed limit is the limit of the capabilities of the car and the driver under the given conditions that exist.