LIDAR and general court proceedings qs

[samurai]

Considering I did not get entire manual, and I asked in the disclosure for the repair/calibration history, how do I know if this unit has been properly maintained? If i ask the officer about the maintenance history, and he says lets say 2 years since it's been sent for maintenance, what can I say?



Thx, that is a great transcript to look at and get a feel of the proceedings.

I have not been in court but I am assuming as part of the prep You would prepare yourself ahead to time and do the research about how often the calibration/maintenance is required vs just the daily self test and answer accordingly when you get and answer

 

[samurai]

One more thing, what exactly are the typed pages I received? Are those officers notes or they are the officers notes transcript? I did not get any handwritten notes.

I don't see any notes in the screenshots, nothing related to any conversation that took place etc. I guess what provided is all that he recorded about the whole interaction.

Unless this is standard and they bring additional notes to the trial but I don't think then they provided full disclosure.

 

[PrivatePilot]

If you genuinely feel you have a case based solely on a technicality (no that you weren't actually speeding, which has remained unsaid here IIRC), I'd consider hiring a paralegal company like Pointts and let them take it over. Spent some time sitting in court watching people fight speeding tickets on technicalities, the crown usually wins - watched one guy who went at the crown like an attack dog via a similar approach you seem to be taking, seemed to actually be putting forth a convincing case that might have actually worked...and then said the wrong thing in the wrong way and effectively self incriminated himself, having more or less admitted that he actually was speeding. Technicalities on the radar/lidar or not, seconds later, he was cooked, the gavel was slammed, and he lost his case.

 

[samurai]

If you genuinely feel you have a case based solely on a technicality (no that you weren't actually speeding, which has remained unsaid here IIRC), I'd consider hiring a paralegal company like Pointts and let them take it over. Spent some time sitting in court watching people fight speeding tickets on technicalities, the crown usually wins - watched one guy who went at the crown like an attack dog via a similar approach you seem to be taking, seemed to actually be putting forth a convincing case that might have actually worked...and then said the wrong thing in the wrong way and effectively self incriminated himself, having more or less admitted that he actually was speeding. Technicalities on the radar/lidar or not, seconds later, he was cooked, the gavel was slammed, and he lost his case.

Based on what I read online, LIDAR based speeding tickets are hard to win, majority of them are won on technicalities.

 

[hedo2002]

Based on what I read online, LIDAR based speeding tickets are hard to win, majority of them are won on technicalities.

As are MOST cases, not just Lidar. BUT the "average lay person" doesn't have the ability to do this. The average Joe is going at it once or twice, (unless they are not that skilled a driver)..lol The crown, Police and JP do this several thousand times per year.

OP the type written notes, would not be signed as they aren't typed by the officer. Normally you get one, (either the handwritten or typed version), not both, even so the handwritten notes also wouldn't be signed. As for the unit maintenance period the patrol officer won't have that or even access to it, It will, (or should), be held by the crown at the courthouse. Otherwise, officers would have to carry a briefcase to court for all the various units owned by the department. The manual may or may not be provided. The manual it could be argued would be of no benefit to you, as it won't give any "possible defense" items in it.

It appears that your going to apporach this case on the unit maintenance and testing procedures. Just remember that if you decide to provide evidence, (take the stand to state you are innocent of the charge). You will be under oath and as previously stated the crown has done this many many many times and are actually pretty well versed in getting people to screw up and admit to the offence. They may also just plain ask "I need to remind you, that you are under oath, What speed was your vehicle traveling at?" Even if you say I was doing 61 km/h your case is pooched and your done. If you say I was going 58, the crown will try to cast doubt upon this by saying something like "do you really expect this court to accept you werre the only person driving under the limit that day on that road?"

I am not saying you won't prevail. But I have seen many many people "think" they have it all together, only to be convicted because they didn't have a viable defence. Also remember the JP is only interested in facts and not speculation. Traffic court is also a meat grinder mill, in that the JP normally likes to give 5 - 7 minutes per case. If your going on for 30 inutes your just "pissing him/her off" and regardless if your defence is viable they will convict. So be direct and make your points ONCE and quickly.

 

[daught]

I am realistic that I probably won't win. My record is clean so a conviction will not affect me. I am doing this for the experience and to learn more about the system.

I found something that could help. It is well established by case law that speed measurement devices have to be tested at the beging and end of the day. The LTI20/20 has four tests. Display test, scope test, a test that checks it's speed measuring accuracy and an internal test.

The manufacturer recommends the "speed measurement test" is done at the start of the day. It's an interesting test because the unit has to be tested at about 60 meters, but it has to be whole meters. You can't be at 55.5m. Either 55 54 56 etc. where do the officers perform this test? It is a range that has the distances marked? Also case law states tests have to be done at the end of the day. In the disclosure there is just a pass for the end of day test, unlike the start of day test that shows all tests passed.


Sent from my clear iPhone 31SS

 

[samurai]

I am realistic that I probably won't win. My record is clean so a conviction will not affect me. I am doing this for the experience and to learn more about the system.

I found something that could help. It is well established by case law that speed measurement devices have to be tested at the beging and end of the day. The LTI20/20 has four tests. Display test, scope test, a test that checks it's speed measuring accuracy and an internal test.

The manufacturer recommends the "speed measurement test" is done at the start of the day. It's an interesting test because the unit has to be tested at about 60 meters, but it has to be whole meters. You can't be at 55.5m. Either 55 54 56 etc. where do the officers perform this test? It is a range that has the distances marked? Also case law states tests have to be done at the end of the day. In the disclosure there is just a pass for the end of day test, unlike the start of day test that shows all tests passed.


Sent from my clear iPhone 31SS

Speed measuring Test = 60m Zero Velocity Test?

I thought speed measuring test would be something like asking someone to drive at 60km/h and confirming that speed using the LIDAR unit but I guess I could be wrong.

 

[daught]

The unit is tested by taking a measurement of a target that is ideally 60M away. It does not have to be exactly 60M bug it HAS to be whole meters away. The unit has to display 0KM/h +-2KM/h and the distance +-0.2M.


Sent from my clear iPhone 31SS

 

[samurai]

The unit is tested by taking a measurement of a target that is ideally 60M away. It does not have to be exactly 60M bug it HAS to be whole meters away. The unit has to display 0KM/h +-2KM/h and the distance +-0.2M.


Sent from my clear iPhone 31SS

That proves that the unit can measure distance between stationary objects and can tell if the target is moving or not.

Doesn't there need to be some sort of regular test to confirm that the unit can accurately measure speed of a moving object?

 

[hedo2002]

That proves that the unit can measure distance between stationary objects and can tell if the target is moving or not.

Doesn't there need to be some sort of regular test to confirm that the unit can accurately measure speed of a moving object?

No the speed measuring is part of the testing calibration.

Daught: Good for you trying to learn the system and it seems your being realistic. As for the tests described in the manual keep in mind those are the manufacturer's "recommended" tests. The level of testing required at "street level" will have been determined by the local courts. IE a court "may" have already set the benchmark at a lower threshold, or they may have decided the exact tests described in the manual are required. "Ticket fighting firms" would know what the local court accepts and don't

 

[MarcosSantiago]

Wasn't there some precedent or legislation in the last five years that basically said the speed measuring device is assumed to be accurate unless proven otherwise?

It is like encryption for wireless networks. It is pretty secure in theory.
But in practice, users misconfigure it in 50% of the networks.

Does the officer actually know how to use the device?

 

[iFly55]

I just want to throw my two cents into this issue. A friend of mine was charged with 149 in a 100 zone on the 407 this summer. We chose the trial option and had a meaningful chat with the prosecutor.

Unfortunately, the before and after test is only required for RADAR devices. That's because in their manual specifically states, that the officer needs to test before and after.

If you read any LIDAR manual in North America it does not say to test the device after. Some police departments have guidelines (~YRP), where they test before and after; others (OPP) follow the manual to the letter.

There is a case R. v. Chair that is before the courts; and the hope is that we'll definitively get a ruling on whether before and most specifically AFTER tests are required for LIDAR/RADAR. The prosecutor who we had a chat with, was actually on the defense on that case.

It seemed like news to me, but after talking to the officer; he says he's never tested his LIDAR device at the end of the shift, also the prosecutor has said he's never lost a trial for failing to show an after test.

Prosecutor was somewhat impressed, that we went through great lengths to find out more information about this and provided cases. All of the before & after cases we brought, were all for RADAR and not LIDAR. The one we did have "Sepiashvili", discussed a specific test that was performed after. But we weren't prepared to put all our eggs into that one basket.

He said if my friend was speeding even 30 over, he would have withdrawn the charge. But +49 was too high, and offered us S182 (2) Disobey Sign... we took it knowing that the consequences of losing, and even an appeal would just to be too much time and money.

 

[daught]

I just want to throw my two cents into this issue. A friend of mine was charged with 149 in a 100 zone on the 407 this summer. We chose the trial option and had a meaningful chat with the prosecutor.

Unfortunately, the before and after test is only required for RADAR devices. That's because in their manual specifically states, that the officer needs to test before and after.

If you read any LIDAR manual in North America it does not say to test the device after. Some police departments have guidelines (~YRP), where they test before and after; others (OPP) follow the manual to the letter.

There is a case R. v. Chair that is before the courts; and the hope is that we'll definitively get a ruling on whether before and most specifically AFTER tests are required for LIDAR/RADAR. The prosecutor who we had a chat with, was actually on the defense on that case.

It seemed like news to me, but after talking to the officer; he says he's never tested his LIDAR device at the end of the shift, also the prosecutor has said he's never lost a trial for failing to show an after test.

Prosecutor was somewhat impressed, that we went through great lengths to find out more information about this and provided cases. All of the before & after cases we brought, were all for RADAR and not LIDAR. The one we did have "Sepiashvili", discussed a specific test that was performed after. But we weren't prepared to put all our eggs into that one basket.

He said if my friend was speeding even 30 over, he would have withdrawn the charge. But +49 was too high, and offered us S182 (2) Disobey Sign... we took it knowing that the consequences of losing, and even an appeal would just to be too much time and money.

See me second post link. It wad ruled that lidar has to be tested before and after. Question is which test is required after? The zero speed test is only recommended before speed enforcement by the manufacturer. For the end of enforcement test the internal self test could be argued that if satisfies the requirement of post enforcement test.


Sent from my clear iPhone 31SS

 

[hedo2002]

See me second post link. It wad ruled that lidar has to be tested before and after. Question is which test is required after? The zero speed test is only recommended before speed enforcement by the manufacturer. For the end of enforcement test the internal self test could be argued that if satisfies the requirement of post enforcement test.


Sent from my clear iPhone 31SS

Actually, the case you quoted, the court accepted that the unit was tested before and after. It was a RADAR case that the court ruled the unit had to be tested before and after. Also that case was simply a lower court ruling. In order to be held as a precedent setting case, cases "normally" would have had to be ruled upon by an appelant, or court of higher standing court. That isn't to say you shouldn't present the case to your prosecutor. It also didn't state "what" tests must be completed on a LIDAR unit. Given that alone the crown will likely rely upon the notes that state the unit "passed" the test at the end of shift. It also doesn't state what is an acceptable "start and end test times" IE does the officer have to test the unit each time they set up speed enforcement location or is it "acceptable" to merely test the unit at the beginning and end of shift.

 

[iFly55]

See me second post link. It wad ruled that lidar has to be tested before and after. Question is which test is required after? The zero speed test is only recommended before speed enforcement by the manufacturer. For the end of enforcement test the internal self test could be argued that if satisfies the requirement of post enforcement test.

Sent from my clear iPhone 31SS

Unfortunately, R. v. Schlesinger means nothing at trial court. JP can just wear ear plugs while you're reading from that decision.

It's only "persuasive", but your trial justice is under no obligation to listen to Cuthbertson's ruling on the matter; it's not a binding decision.

The problem is that all the higher court decisions on before and after tests were done for RADAR. Vancrey, Niewiadomski, Roshani-Kalhoran, Hayes, Williams, etc

I've only ever found one LIDAR case that discussed an after test. But the courts did not rule that an "after" test was required, this case revolved around RADAR verification.

R. v. Sepiashvili [2003] O.J. No. 3996<br>
<div style="margin-left:40px">38 In this case there was evidence at trial that P.C. Stone was a qualified laser operator, (Trial Transcript April 30/02 at p. 4) and that she had tested the "Laser L.T.1 20-20 Marksman" on the day in question according to manufacturer's instructions and found it to be in working order. (Trial Transcript April 30/02 at p. 3) At the roadside she conducted a further "scope alignment test" according to manufacturer's instructions and found the device to be working properly. Later that day, after her dealings with the Appellant, she again tested the device using the "scope alignment test" and found it to be working properly. (Trial Transcript April 30/02 at pp. 3-4). There was no suggestion in cross-examination that the device was not functioning properly on the day in question, nor was there any suggestion that the investigating officer did not operate the device properly. The defence elected to call no evidence.</div>