Yep. I don't claim to know anything about the device or the manual, so if the procedure she used is different, the evidence from the device should be excluded. However... if I were to take a guess... a zero-velocity fixed distance test seems to be what the officer did do... but I don't know for sure...

Also the use is also not correct because she used it from a flat surface catching cars moving down the hill not directly towards the gun as it is meant to be used. This violates the manual as stating the cosine angle should never be more than 15 feet from the road edge. My arguement is that a vehic...

Crown Prosecutors often say "we don't have to provide the manual." Nothing could be further from the truth. They DO need to provide it, if not, it's improper disclosure. Here's some case law. Thunder Bay v. Millar et al That particular case also quashed the oft-cited "it's copyright ...

Tonight, I was pulled over for apparently doing 132km in an 80km zone. Although I'd only caught myself doing 120km(yes, still over, I'm aware). After about 30 min of sitting on the side of the road, the officer came over and kindly decided not to take away my license or impound the car on the spot....

I had my court case with the JP in Guelph and she ignored my testimony of what tests have to be performed on a Ultralyte LR100 LT1 20-20. I showed a court case and it proved that the zero velocity fixed distance test is required by the operator before it's use. I did not have the manual because the ...