Originally Posted by digger

I recently took a driver to court who passed me within a foot. He was charged $285.

He mentioned in court that the video should not be used because it could have been tampered with. I guess, like the popular YouTube video of the eagle lifting a small baby of the ground. The judge ignored him.

I'm wondering if this could become a viable defence, that the video should not be admissible because it may have been tampered with.