Requested disclosure, says paced with calibrated speedo, but no calibration report??

[toysareforboys]

Hey, I'm helping a friend with a ticket. I requested disclosure and asked for:

•*Copy of both sides of the officer's ticket.
• Copy of the officer's notes on the day of the offence.
• The Make, Model of the equipment used to clock speed by the officer.
• Copies of the testing procedures that are outlined in the equipment’s manual.
• Test results (with dates and times) for the equipment prior to and after the offence listed above.

I just got disclosure and with it was a letter attached that said:

"The rate of speed with respect to the above referenced offence was measured by the officer's speedometer. Accordingly, no testing procedures, operating procedures, or test results will be provided."

All they gave me is the hand written officers notes, no copy of the officers ticket, no nothing else I asked for.

In the cop's notes it says "Test laser serial #xxx, Test Pass.", "Doing laser enforcement 401....", "Observe vehicle approaching at a high rate of speed", "Followed car for 2km, paced at 140km/h with certified 9 calibrated speedometer.", "Test Laser Serial #xxxx, test pass."

So which was it? Laser or Speedo? If he claimed the speedo is certified and calibrated, why would they not provide me with the calibration procedure and the test report? Do they not hold it to the same standards as a radar detector?

Also, I read online that cops no longer used hand written notes, so I shortened the "transcribed copies of the cops notes" to just copy of the cops notes, but we received his hand written copy and is pretty much illegible, should I request a transcribed copy now?

Requested disclosure on Jan 13th, 2012, received disclosure on Feb 6th, court date is March 8th.

Let me know please and thanks

-Jamie M.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

You could try requesting the calibration procedure and records for the vehicle's speedometer, but I suspect they won't be forthcoming. The speed was measured by pacing, not RADAR, and pacing can be the hardest of the approved measuring methods to fight. The comments about the RADAR calibration seem to have become rote, since their lack can result in the speed measurement being tossed out.

I would certainly request the transcription, so that you can try and check for discrepancies. It would be interesting to see if there are any comments about RADAR, since the statement is that the officer was doing RADAR based enforcement.

 

[TwistedKestrel]

So which was it? Laser or Speedo? If he claimed the speedo is certified and calibrated, why would they not provide me with the calibration procedure and the test report? Do they not hold it to the same standards as a radar detector?

IIRC, they don't hold it to the same standards. The manufacturer of the cop car "certifies" it before it leaves the factory. The speedometer will say CERTIFIED on it somewhere. Then that's it. If for some reason non-standard tires are fitted to the car, the certification will be null and void.

 

[Lyndsay]

Just a guess, but maybe the LEO was trying to show he had checked his speedo against the laser, both before and after clocking you?

 

[Griffin]

The speedometers on police package vehicles are certified to be accurate by the manufacturer. To my knowledge there is no calibration required. FWIW.

 

[OpenGambit]

Rob can you clarify your post because from my knowledge the arguements based on calibration, speedo or laser, is generally ineffective.

 

[toysareforboys]

IIRC, they don't hold it to the same standards. The manufacturer of the cop car "certifies" it before it leaves the factory. The speedometer will say CERTIFIED on it somewhere. Then that's it. If for some reason non-standard tires are fitted to the car, the certification will be null and void.

That's absolute BS! So a car that's years old, is 100% expected to be the same as when it left the factory? They expect that to be more reliable than a laser unit which gets tested twice a shift from the day it leaves the factory? lol.

I like your route about the rims/tires. I'd be willing to bet money that the rims and tires currently on the car are not identical to the rims and tires used to certify the speedo.

Ohhhh this could get fun

Thanks for all the info guys!

-Jamie M.

 

[VFR.CBR]

That's absolute BS! So a car that's years old, is 100% expected to be the same as when it left the factory?

Yes, they are. The calibrated speedometers are VERY accurate.
If your cop driving a Crown Vic with a digital dash and the right size tires, his speedo is bang on what it was when it left the factory. (even the analog speedos aren't always analog based but rather digital based, and, are VERY accurate)

The pacing procedure is more accurate while driving as the laser unit can pick up targets all over the place.

 

[Smutty]

Laser (LIDAR) units will pick up ONLY the vehicle it's pointed at. RADAR units will pick up the fastest.

Yes, they are. The calibrated speedometers are VERY accurate.
If your cop driving a Crown Vic with a digital dash and the right size tires, his speedo is bang on what it was when it left the factory. (even the analog speedos aren't always analog based but rather digital based, and, are VERY accurate)

The pacing procedure is more accurate while driving as the laser unit can pick up targets all over the place.

 

[Smutty]

"The advantage of a laser speed gun (for the police anyway) is that the size of the "cone" of light that the gun emits is very small, even at a range like 1,000 feet (300 meters). The cone at this distance might be 3 feet (1 meter) in diameter. This allows the gun to target a specific vehicle. A laser speed gun is also very accurate. The disadvantage is that the officer has to aim a laser speed gun -- normal police radar with a broad radar beam can detect doppler shift without aiming." ~ http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/question396.htm

Laser (LIDAR) units will pick up ONLY the vehicle it's pointed at. RADAR units will pick up the fastest.

 

[infernobuster]

IIRC, they don't hold it to the same standards. The manufacturer of the cop car "certifies" it before it leaves the factory. The speedometer will say CERTIFIED on it somewhere. Then that's it. If for some reason non-standard tires are fitted to the car, the certification will be null and void.

You are correct sir. When i worked for Ford i used to drive the new cop cars. It says right on the dash, "certified/Calibrated" ..

The tires get swapped out for exact same size/type when need replacing.

 

[iFly55]

@OP

R. v. Violi appears to be relevant to your case here: http://canlii.ca/t/fphgw

edit: the integrity of the police speedos have been upheld since 1974, thanks to R. v. Bland

this begs the question: how are RADAR/LIDAR units tested? aren't they tested to match the so called calibrated speedo's speed?

officer A drives his cruiser at 60km/hr (maybe on cruise control?) and officer B points at officer A's cruiser with his LIDAR/RADAR unit #1234 and records a reading of 60km/hr, which verifies that LIDAR/RADAR unit #1234 is in full working/operational condition on YYYY/MM/DD @ HH:MM'
________

after perusing through R. v. Violi i decided to read R. v. Koumoudouros, which the defence counsel cited

pretty much what happened in R. v. Koumoudouros was that the officer under cross-examination simply indicated the cruiser was certified; he didn't talk about the sticker/certification found on the vehicle itself... if the officer had said the sticker read certified on 2009 like in R. v. Violi that would have been sufficient enough evidence

i can't seem to find R. v. Bland, but if you can get your hands on it ... read up the established guidelines set out by it
________

i feel as if your only chance of getting out of this, is solely playing the 11b game

unfortunately because in your first request, you didn't request for transcribed notes if notes weren't legible the crown may argue you never gave them enough time (minimum 8 weeks) on your second disclosure request

depending on when you received your notice of trial, they may argue why you didn't request your first disclosure well ahead of time

if you had requested right off the bat for transcribed notes and didn't get it, then the delay would be attributed to the crown... but having not done that, has thrown a monkey wrench in to the 11b clock

 

[TwistedKestrel]

this begs the question: how are RADAR/LIDAR units tested? aren't they tested to match the so called calibrated speedo's speed?

officer A drives his cruiser at 60km/hr (maybe on cruise control?) and officer B points at officer A's cruiser with his LIDAR/RADAR unit #1234 and records a reading of 60km/hr, which verifies that LIDAR/RADAR unit #1234 is in full working/operational condition on YYYY/MM/DD @ HH:MM'

Nope. RADAR is calibrated to a tuning fork. LIDAR is calibrated through internal self-tests, all the officer does is press a button or two.

 

[backmarkerducati]

I don't think it will help at all BUT...

Same size tires does not mean the tires are exactly the same dimension unless it is the same make and model tire (assuming the manufacturer has not changed the design over the year) that they used to calibrate the speedo. This is further complicated by the fact that some police forces have a "spec" tire (a contract with a specific manufacturer) and they may swap the tires as soon as they get the cars (I know because I used to buy police take-offs, basically brand new tires that were not the make they use but what came on the car new). The tires also wear down and inflation also plays a roll in rolling tire dimensions....

Good luck arguing tire changes it in court though... Mathematically if the tire size changed by 0.5" (and the tire was around 26" tall) you are looking at only a 2% delta in the speedo reading.

Tire inflation may be the better tactic in court, ask how many PSI the tires were running that day, bet he does not know... Still a very long shot IMO.

 

[Platinum Cycle]

Get a copy of the case Regina Vs. Bland. It's a case on pacing.

The officer must show his speedometer was accurate. He should have run his car through a radar or laser operated by another officer to ensure his speedometer matched the laser/radar speed, or at a minimum got another officer to pace his car and see if their speedometers matched.

But, since you were going 140 this may be a hard case to beat, if say you were going 110 or 115 it might be easier.

You can however ask the officer what size tires he has on the car and are they OEM sizes - the tire size can throw out the speedometer.

Good luck, I applaude anyone who clogs up our court system on speeding tickets, let's face it, most speed limits are artificially low anyway. I'd do the same!

 

[toysareforboys]

Get a copy of the case Regina Vs. Bland. It's a case on pacing.

Wow, very interesting. If anyone has a (free) link to his appeal it would be greatly appreciated if you could provide it.

I was reading http://www.xpolice.ca/pdfs/Koumoudourostranscripts.pdf also a case about pacing, and when the cop didn't know who, when or how the cop car speedo was certified, and that there was no certificate or calibration paperwork proving it was/is certified, the judge found in the defendants favour. That statement seems pretty powerful:

Defense: You said that the speedometer was certified and calibrated. Do you know who did that?
Answer: It's done at the factory. I don't know.
Question: Do you know how old this vehicle was at the time?
Answer: No, I do not.
Question: You're saying this is done at the factory, as in when it's built, do you mean?
Answer: I believe so.
Question: But you don't know?
Answer: I don't know.
Question: So if you don't know who does it or when it was done or where it was done, why do you say you had no reason to doubt it? Why do you tell the court that it's a certified calibrated speedometer when you really don't know?
Answer: We're told it's a certified calibrated speedometer. I have no reason to doubt that information.

It looks like the testimony is from the cross examination of the cop in the ORIGINAL case, in which the judge didn't rule in the defendants favour, hence why he's filing an appeal.

Off to do more reading.

-Jamie M.

 

[toysareforboys]

But, since you were going 140 this may be a hard case to beat, if say you were going 110 or 115 it might be easier.

I see what you mean. I was under the impression that how far over was not the question, only whether they were doing 140 or not.

"The trial judge in Thibodeau expressed himself as satisfied that any error would not be to the extent of 20%. He made an allowance of 15 miles per hour possible error on the officer's allegations of a speed of 95 miles per hour/ thereby reducing it to 80 miles per hour."

So it seems that at 140kph if they allow a percentage of say 5% than they can settle on a charge of 133kph? I didn't think that was how it worked, either you're guilty of 140 or not guilty. This isn't a plea, it's a trial!

Tricky.

-Jamie M.

 

[turbodish]

So it seems that at 140kph if they allow a percentage of say 5% than they can settle on a charge of 133kph? I didn't think that was how it worked, either you're guilty of 140 or not guilty. This isn't a plea, it's a trial!

Look up the section in the HTA. The charge on the ticket is speeding, just speeding. The specific amount of speeding arrived at during trial defines only the penalty, not the offence of speeding itself.

 

[toysareforboys]

Look up the section in the HTA. The charge on the ticket is speeding, just speeding. The specific amount of speeding arrived at during trial defines only the penalty, not the offence of speeding itself.

Oh damn. I looked it up, I see. 140 will be quite a stretch to "wasn't speeding".

-Jamie M.

 

[coyo]

Nope. RADAR is calibrated to a tuning fork. LIDAR is calibrated through internal self-tests, all the officer does is press a button or two.

Most current RADAR units are tested internally, electronically, with a couple of button pushes. Tuning forks are, for the most part, gone.