Lidar - Multiple User Testing

No going to side track the other thread.

Were there multiple officers using the same lidar device or just one? This makes a difference (care and control of the device). If several officers were using the same device, did they each test it before and after each person was stopped? Did anything happen to the device during the time it was used by the other officers? If there were multiple officers, ask for their notes as well in your disclosure request. ?

I have never used multiple users, so has yet to affect me.

If the unit properly tests before the offence and after the offence, regardless of however many qualified operators used it during a program, what is the difference?

What would another officers notes have to do with someone that they are not involved with?

Curious in making my notes that more "indestructible" by defence!

I think that what Radar Identified was getting at was that if Officer "A" tags a car then Officer "B" tags a car, was there time to run the test(s) in between and does the test by one officer count as the testing by the second officer, i.e. If Officer "A" tests after he stops a car can Officer "B" use that test, in his notes, as his before the stop test?

Would that matter if the unit passed tests before and after running the radar/lidar trap? A unit going haywire for a brief moment yet passing tests before and after the offence has the same possibility of happening to one operator as it does to several different operators.

Is it just that Officer A can't write in his notes that Officer B tested the unit without Officer B showing up to trial to confirm?

it would be impracticable to do the test right there and then. Well guess it could be done, but we have 2 known fixed distances at our office that we use for testing, we measured out and put in the posts to an exact measurement. Would find that part nearly impossible at roadside, unless you measure out to a post with a measuring tape.

We are talking about the internal test. There is no need for multiple alignment or fixed distance testing. However, if the unit is dropped, bumped or the lens takes some sort of damage, scratches or someone places it facing the sun, then it should have the full gauntlet of testing. And, of course, all the testing shall be in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

Reflections wrote:

I think that what Radar Identified was getting at was that if Officer "A" tags a car then Officer "B" tags a car, was there time to run the test(s) in between and does the test by one officer count as the testing by the second officer, i.e. If Officer "A" tests after he stops a car can Officer "B" use that test, in his notes, as his before the stop test?

Exactly what I was getting at!

hwybear wrote:

What would another officers notes have to do with someone that they are not involved with?

Well... if multiple operators... did they each test the device? Or did they each observe the test(s) that were performed? How do they know the device was tested and the test showed that it was working okay if they didn't all test it themselves or see it done? Raises possible question of whether the device was accurate or not. Would think that you'd need the officer who tested it plus the officer who stopped the driver to testify to its accuracy. If a different officer tested the device, it would (hopefully) be in their notes, hence the reason for asking for the notes of all officers involved: Get a good picture of the test, setup, etc. The whole "care and control" issue is because of who tested the device and when.

For the roadside before and after test, the defence might say "it was hot outside, 35C, really humid, you were in the sun, device was in use for 2 hours. How do you know that after continuous use it wasn't starting to overheat and give improper readings?" Testing before & after the stop almost eliminates the possibility that there was an intermittent malfunction that Squishy brought up. They might also bring forward other theories, such as proximity to power lines.

Reflections also brings up another point... what if something happened during the program, and then after the program, the device failed the test? How many tickets would get quashed as a result...?

Hey, it could happen!

Radar Identified wrote:

hey might also bring forward other theories, such as proximity to power lines. Shocked

Usually, lidar guns are not affected by power lines, but I don't have one and can not testify in a scientific manner. Radar guns will be affected by the electromagnetic fields around larger, read 27kilovolts and up. The interference will be completely unpredictable and thus any number of issue could be plauseable. Not trying to shoot you down, just keepin' it real yo.

Reflections wrote:

Usually, lidar guns are not affected by power lines, but I don't have one and can not testify in a scientific manner.

No disagreement here, I was thinking of ideas that defendants may try in court. I agree that lidar shouldn't be affected by power lines. Radar, depending on how much insulation/shielding the wires have, strength of the line, proximity, etc... yeah. However... what if a defendant brings the idea up in court? So, assuming that the JP is willing to listen to the defendant's theory that power lines might affect a lidar device, how would one easily prove that the lidar wasn't (or shouldn't be) affected by them?

Reflections wrote:

, just keepin' it real yo.

you have been watching tooooooo much American Idol and listening to

Randy Jackson haven't you?

hwybear wrote:

Reflections wrote:

, just keepin' it real yo.

you have been watching tooooooo much American Idol and listening to

Randy Jackson haven't you?

Yeah, so what dawg..... why you forshizzlin??? sup,sup,werd.

Squishy wrote:

hahahahahahahahaha

You guys are taking me back to when I was living in Detroit.

Radar Identified wrote:

You guys are taking me back to when I was living in Detroit.

Aren't you glad you moved outta there in time?

racer wrote:

Aren't you glad you moved outta there in time?

That would be an understatement. Don't get me wrong, there are some things to like about Detroit, and I actually got out and visited many of them when I lived there, but it is such a violent city that it boggles the mind. Granted, they are more civilized when driving - but that's it. They usually average more than one murder every day. Sad, really; Detroit was once "the Paris of the Midwest." I'm not kidding, either.

They might drive nice but the roads are just *EDIT*. Steel plates, frost cracks the list goes on. I was following a friend, he's in a Ram truck me in a 90 Jetta. Every bump felt like the front struts were going to pop throught he hood.

Their roads are *EDIT*, and in the two years I lived in Detroit I blew three tires, wrecked my suspension and even cracked an axle. Granted, it was an older car, but driving on some roads (Michigan Avenue, I-696, the Lodge Freeway until they re-paved it, etc) was like getting thrown in a paint shaker. People have literally blown airbags going over some of the craters, cracks and potholes. A couple of intersections were so badly damaged that the potholes had gone right down to the dirt. Generally cost of living was only a tiny bit lower than over in Windsor, but factoring in the car repairs, cost of living in Michigan was a LOT higher.

Radar Identified wrote:

Their roads are *EDIT*, and in the two years I lived in Detroit I blew three tires, wrecked my suspension and even cracked an axle. Granted, it was an older car, but driving on some roads (Michigan Avenue, I-696, the Lodge Freeway until they re-paved it, etc) was like getting thrown in a paint shaker. People have literally blown airbags going over some of the craters, cracks and potholes. A couple of intersections were so badly damaged that the potholes had gone right down to the dirt. Generally cost of living was only a tiny bit lower than over in Windsor, but factoring in the car repairs, cost of living in Michigan was a LOT higher.

The condition of the roads is why they call Detroit a part of the "Rust Belt". We all complain here that there are so many potholes in Toronto, but I guess that is still much better shape than Detroit or some other US cities.

That's true. It's all a matter of perspective, I guess.