“Incomplete/improper Disclosure”

Hi All,

In preparation for my speeding case later this week, I've noticed that the lidar manual that was included in my disclosure, was for the wrong lidar unit. In the officer's notes he indicates that the unit that was used was the Laser Marksman 20/20 LTI device, while the manual that was included in my disclosure was for the Ultralyte LRB. After doing some research, I was unable to obtain the Marksman's manual as it appears that it's an older unit. Being an older unit, is it fair to assume that the handling and testing procedures may differ from that of the much more modern Ultralyte LRB? Do I have grounds for a motion for incomplete disclosure and the remedy being a stay of the charges? Also, since I'm challenging the officer's testimony/notes, and specifically in regards to the weather conditions on this particular day is a printout(s) from a website (weathernetwork, city tv and globalnews) a valid piece of evidence for me to introduce as evidence?

Any help or insight is much appreciated. Thanks in advance,

Toby

There are some differences in the testing of one lidar unit to the next, though it's not night and day. After an officer has been trained on one lidar unit, they're qualified to use all lidar units. The expectation is that they simply read the manual for a different model prior to use.

I think you'd certainly have grounds for an adjournment however based on improper disclosure. Getting a stay of charges isn't guaranteed since that would be dependent on how much time has gone by since the charge was laid.

As for internet printouts of weather pages, not sure how much luck you'd have with that. I can see all sorts of issues being raised as to whether they're genuine and accurate.

Thanks for the reply Stanton. I has a feeling the weather report printouts from websites would be questionable in regards to their admissibility. But I'm at a total loss as to where I can find more legitmate sources. I'll probably head down to the library and see if the have archived newspapers. Anyays, I guess I'll go to court and see if the officer is there and and if he is, then I'll ask for an adjournment. Oh, one more question , in the transcribed notes there is a line that reads Not R/O. Does anyone know what this means? R/O = reporting officer??

Thanks,

Toby

RO is frequently short form for registered owner. Was the vehicle you were driving registered to someone else? It's not really relevant to the speeding charge, but many officers record if the driver is also the owner as a matter of habit.

and weather has no affect on the accuracy of a lidar or radar.

Again, thanks for your responses.

@Stanton - Yes, I am/was the registered owner of the vehicle, which I was initially thought that R/O may mean something different. If, in this case, not R/O does indicate not registered owner, is the something I could bring up to question the accuracy of the officer's notes?

@hwybear - After examining the owner's manual (unfortunately Ultralyte LRB's which i was provided and not Marksman 20/20 which was used), under operating temperature, the manual reads "do not expose the instrument to temperatures out that range" (-30c - +60c). In the officer's notes he indicates that the weather "was clear and cold" but no actual temperature. At the time I received the ticket, the GTA was in the middle of a coldweather alert with temperatures dropping down to -22 (and possibly below -30 with the windchill). Unfortunately the only evidence to back this is info I can obtain is from archived websites and an archived news video from CTV. My question is IF the lidar was exposed to temps outside manufacturers specs, is it possible that lidar was/is not functioning correctly? No service records for the unit have been provided. Again, trying to challenge the officer's actions on this particular day.

I realize I'm probably grasping at straws and being a little on the silly side, but it's all I've got...

Any insight is appreciated.

Thanks,

Toby

RO could simply mean something else, but even if the officer was wrong I doubt it would throw his entire evidence into doubt.

As for the temperature range, that's to prevent damage to the instrument (mainly the battery), it should have no effect on accuracy. And if the true outdoor temperature was within range, I don't see what benefit there would be to introducing weather evidence.

Stanton wrote:As for the temperature range, that's to prevent damage to the instrument (mainly the battery), it should have no effect on accuracy. And if the true outdoor temperature was within range, I don't see what benefit there would be to introducing weather evidence.

Manufacturers state operating temperature ranges on electronic devices like this because they in turn are given operating temperature ranges on the components they use to build the device. Some analog components produce different results at different temperatures and the designer has to make sure their circuit design incorporates these changes. If the range is exceeded (either higher or lower) the component or circuit is not guaranteed to operate properly and may affect the operation of the whole device. In a device where frequency and clocking is critical and hundreds or thousands of individual components are used, this is probably an issue and the manufacturer would probably not guarantee correct operation of the device. Take a look at the data sheet for any capacitor, inductor, integrated circuit or other discrete component and you will find operating temperature ranges stated. Many devices have versions with a wider range available at a higher price for military use.

The range stated in the manual also most likely indicates that the manufacturer of the radar/laser device has not done any testing outside the range.

Also, I believe the note in the manual is for the actual measured temperature and not wind chill which is a measurement of what temperature it feels like on your skin.

Windchill has no effect on dry objects with regard to cooling below actual air temperature. -22 is within the recommended operating range.

"There are some differences in the testing of one lidar unit to the next, though it's not night and day. After an officer has been trained on one lidar unit, they're qualified to use all lidar units."

Last time I heard, training was specific for each unit...... unless this changed.

I can confirm locally (central south Ontario) that officers are trained on lidar use in general, not model specific. Pretty much the same deal with radar, only exception being moving radar requires additional training. Like everything else with the HTA though, it wouldn't surprise me if each police service and each jurisdiction treats things differently just to make things complicated.

Temperature is not the "outdoor" temperature either for using the device.

I have yet to experience cold or heat of -30 +60 inside the cruiser.

And sure am not sticking my self outside in either of those temps either.

hwybear wrote:Temperature is not the "outdoor" temperature either for using the device.

I have yet to experience cold or heat of -30 +60 inside the cruiser.

And sure am not sticking my self outside in either of those temps either.

If you're cold, wet or hungry, you're doing something wrong.