“122 In A 90, Received Some Disclosure Need Help Deciphering”

I was stopped for allegedly doing 122 in a 90. I requested disclosure and like most received the minimum. The notes are just a photo copy with no explanations or typing. Only received parts of the manual that pertain to testing. Appears the officer was using a "Laser Atlanta Speed Laser", but no model or serial number is referenced in the notes. Testing is noted in two times written at the top of the ticket and it was only one reading at 534 meters. I was coming around a bend and have read about sweep errors etc. The office was holding the laser device in his hand, not mounted on a tripod. The trial is about 5 weeks away, but I am thinking of sending a second request for explanation of the notes and copy of the entire manual not just a few pages. I had also asked for the certificates that were requested in the "success story" posts and received nothing. I check and Davtech don't appear to be ISO certified, but that are IACP certified. Are there any certificates that I could request for this device to prove that it was manufactured/tested to standards? They likely won't get back to me for the trial so should I file a stay for non disclosure?

In the mean time can someone tell me what this means?

It's unlikely that you're going to get the full manual, but you can of course ask.

It's also unlikely that you're going to get anything with respect to the device being manufactured/tested to any specific standards. What people need to remember, and I've said this before, is that the standard of proof required for a conviction is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - this is not the same as absolute certainty. This argument about "what about the device that tested/calibrated the device that tested/calibrated the device...etc...that tested/calibrated the radar or laser used" is more applicable to a standard of absolute certainty. It is NOT, in my opinion, necessary to show this flawless history in order to meet the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that is why Crowns ignore such requests and why JP's don't usually entertain such arguments.

I'm not saying that it is not possible to advance this argument or to be successful on it, I'm just saying that I think you will need more than just the bald assertion that possibly some device, somewhere along the line, wasn't tested/calibrated properly and therefore the radar/laser readings are unreliable.

Hmm.. Would like to read about proper operation of the device..If anyone has a pdf copy of the manual please let me know.

The other angle of approach that I would question is the distance, beam is ~1.5 meters at that distance. Only one reading was taken, the notes claim I was passing another vehicle but no reading of that vehicle was taken, it could be going less than the speed limit or braking. I was coming around a bend in the road and according to google maps 534m is just at or before the bend where I would come in to sight. I think it will be worth my while to go back and measure the distance and see exactly where that would put me in relation to where the cruiser was situated and what the cruiser's view would be at that distance. Maybe snap a few pictures of someone standing at the 534 meter mark. The distance and the fact that the laser was held in hand and not on a tripod - I think woudl question as too accuracy, especially considering it was dark.

A speed reading of the other vehicle isn't really relevant. If the officer noted you were passing it, it simply eliminates the possibility that the speed reading he obtained was of the other vehicle. Even if he did get a reading of the other vehicle, since you were passing it you were going at least just as fast.

Accuracy argument is also somewhat difficult with lasers. Most have a scope or aiming sight, unlike radars which you just point in the general direction.

What about accuracy of speed if adequate testing was not performed at distance of over 500m? There seems to be plenty of case law to support that even where the driver was the sole vehicle on the road.

Have also seen in other posts where the visual ID of speeding before using the lidar is an important factor. At this distance and given the way the road is situated, I would have just come in to sight when the trigger was pulled. The notes state my speed and distance first and then go on to say the observed my pass a vehicle and slow down. Seems to me they were just sitting there with the triggered pulled and grabbed my speed first and observed me later. Can anyone shed some light on the relevance of this in a trial?

ridgid wrote: I think it will be worth my while to go back and measure the distance and see exactly where that would put me in relation to where the cruiser was situated and what the cruiser's view would be at that distance. Maybe snap a few pictures of someone standing at the 534 meter mark. The distance and the fact that the laser was held in hand and not on a tripod - I think woudl question as too accuracy, especially considering it was dark.

The lidar has a scope on it, the officer looks thru the scope which is magnified, therefore snapping a photo means nothing. Day and/or night is easy to use a lidar.

ridgid wrote:What about accuracy of speed if adequate testing was not performed at distance of over 500m? There seems to be plenty of case law to support that even where the driver was the sole vehicle on the road.

500m is a very long distance.....and it could be problematic. You will need to impress upon the JP that sweep error is possible at this distance, the nature of light....blah, blah. Probably not going to happen in court though.

What you need to dig into is the testing of the unit. Officers need to check the device with a self test and a scope alignement check as well as a fixed distance test. If the officer only did the self test, then you can call into question his reading especially at that distance. You can find some lidar manuals online if you search, most are the same...... Good luck.

I'll never forget being stopped in Quebec years ago. I was doing the limit (50 km) but the officer said I was doing 93. I was completely flabbergasted and asked her (politely) if it was possible her gun had caught traffic going in the opposite direction, as I was certain I wasn't speeding. She agreed, apologized and left. Radar, it seems, wasn't always so accurate. With Lidar, I think the chances for inaccuracy are greatly reduced.

Reflections wrote:

ridgid wrote:What about accuracy of speed if adequate testing was not performed at distance of over 500m? There seems to be plenty of case law to support that even where the driver was the sole vehicle on the road.

500m is a very long distance.....and it could be problematic.

routinely target vehicles around 1km with ease....RI can confirm that too!

You will need to impress upon the JP that sweep error is possible at this distance, the nature of light....blah, blah. Probably not going to happen in court though.

majority of units are not able to obtain the so called "sweep" error as programming prevents this. I have deliberately tried to replicate/perform the sweep error intentionally on every unit I have used with negative results

What you need to dig into is the testing of the unit. Officers need to check the device with a self test and a scope alignement check as well as a fixed distance test. If the officer only did the self test, then you can call into question his reading especially at that distance.

every lidar I have seen requires the scope alignment check, fixed distance...

You can find some lidar manuals online if you search, most are the same...... Good luck.

many manuals alter year to year

Wow, no point of challenging the evidence I guess or even going to court.. I will suggest that the officer's install a visa/interac terminal so I can pay on the spot next time and they don't have to wait so long for their money.. Maybe even include the 15% tip option like restaurants.

Back to business.. To recap, to date they have provided photo copy of notes and 4 page poor photo copies of the testing section of the manual. After receiving my initial disclosure I sent a second request, again requesting for short hand explanations and the full manual as well as model and serial number of device, and Laser Atlanta Annual Calibration Certificate. Received a letter from the prosecutor stating:

1. It is their position they have provided me with everything they are obligated to provide, if I indicate relevance of material and how I am impaired to make full answer they may reconsider.

2. With regards to short hand explanations they will be provided to me by the officer prior to the trial, again if not satisfied need to tell them how this impairs my ability to make full answer.

3. If I am not satisfied with their position I should bring an application to the court prior to the trial date so court can consider.

It is now 3 weeks prior to the trial, should I respond to this letter? File an application for inadequate disclosure or just speak to the JP at trial?

Actually I think their response is pretty good. They've given you the opportunity to explain why you need the material. I think they're doing their due diligence.

As for the requested material, here's my opinion:

- Calibration Certificate: Not required. Lots of case law and precedent has settled this. Calibration certificate does not prove the device was working properly or operated correctly on the date of the alleged offence.

- Model/serial number: Not required. If the manual is the same as the device that was used, disclosure has been adequate.

- Full Manual: Not required; relevant parts only (testing/use).

If you feel that you will not be able to make a full answer and defence without an explanation of the short hand in the notes, you should ask for an adjournment after the officer has provided it to you. However, you should also present the fact that you did ask, in advance, for the explanation and that the delay is the fault of the Prosecutor. It may work, it may not.

Speeding is an absolute liability offence, so yes it is difficult to challenge. As bad as it may seem in Ontario, it's even harder to challenge it in some US states, or even in the United Kingdom. Here, if disclosure is fully satisfied, there are no errors on the ticket or notes, and it hasn't taken too long to go to trial, you can go to court and see if the officer trips up on testimony or get a plea deal.

hwybear wrote:routinely target vehicles around 1km with ease....RI can confirm that too!

Yes I can confirm that. The sight range is well over 1 km and peering through the scope, it's easy to see if someone is zipping along and passing other vehicles... and I don't have any formal training on the devices.

Had my day.. Here's what happened..

Went up to the Prosecutor at the beginning, he had it marked that I was doing a charter application. Had me sit down.

He pleaded all the others down.. The ones like mine were getting disobey sign $110 and 2 points.

At the recess the prosecutor came up to me and offered me 15 over, said it was a one time deal. I told him I would think about it.

Time came to make a decision and although I knew I should have gone for the 15, part of me wondered why he offered that so easily, I decided to talk to the JP about my application instead and make a learning experience. Crazy? I guess.. He was actually a very nice guy and listended to everything I had to say and was very fair. I had sent in my original disclosure request about 3 months before trial and the prosecutor was arguing it was my fault that it had gotten to the trial date where we were arguing a Sec 7 at trial. I had said that I did not recieve his final denial until 2 weeks prior to trial which was barely enough time for me to file the section 7. I argued that if had he given me everything I wanted on my first disclosure request I would have had time to prepare and everything would have been fine.

Going through my list, the crown denied the existence of a calibration certificate which I know is bs because I know they exist. He was ordered to let me make an appt to see the whole manual and the officer was ordered to go through the notes with me in person.

Here is the interesting part, the prosecutor asked for an adjournment and then I witnessed one of the dirtiest tricks ever. The prosecutor proposed a date about a week out, to which ofcourse I had to say there was no way I could prepare myself in a week. The JP then said I know why you are proposing that date because you want his 11b to be stopped. After that they proceeded to give me a day 3 months from now but said the delay was on my end. Is 1 week a reasonable amount of time to prepare this seems VERY unfair?? I think if I came in to 11b territory I would have to argue this tactic vigorously!

Anyways, now instead of putting this to rest at 15 over like I should have I will be preparing my questioning and evidence for trial.. Will be a good experience anyways, my record is clean so I figured I would roll the dice this one time and see how I end up. Stay tuned..