“Disclosure Rules”

I got a speeding ticket by moving radar Dec/12. The ticket was 95km in an 80km zone. I took it to court. It just so happened that it was the same cop I beat on two previous tickets. The day of trial the cop recognized me. During recess I stepped out. When I came back the fellow next to me said that the cop and Crown were talking about me. The cop said to the Crown that he didn't want to lose to me again. The Crown responded that she would let the Justice know and that the Justice was as on the side of the cops anyway. She brought up a motion to have the charge amended to 117km in an 80km zone. I objected on deaf ears. The Justice allowed it. I asked for an adjournment hoping I would get a different Justice. Well this Justice made sure not to miss our trial. My disclosure request was incomplete. The Crowns' office gave me a copy of the front page and section 7 of the manual. Two pages total. I took it upon myself to get the complete copy of the manufacturers' manual. The unit used was the Genesis II Select Directional Radar Unit by Decatur. I built my case around the faults of the unit. I had all the proper questions and all the perfect answers. The f#@&$! Justice shut me down. I could not refer to the manual but the cop could. I lost. He discriminated against me and violated my right to a fair trial. Trial was July/13 and Judgement was Dec/13. I filed an appeal on the grounds of an unfair trial. I won. I was granted an appeal.

Now this time I asked for a complete manual. Our first date at trial was Dec/14. I asked for an adjournment on the grounds that I did not receive the manual in my disclosure request. The Crown asked the court that if I want a copy of the manual I must get an Order. The Justice agreed and asked me to file a motion to get an order for the full manual. The cop makes numerous comments in reference to the manual during his statement. Why would I need an order for what is already being used by the Crown. My right for full disclosure should not be ordered, it should be given. My question is can the court do this?

The Crown is under no obligation to proved everything in disclosure. Some f it may not exist and some of it they may say is not necessary to your defence. Ths is where you will need to state why you believe that having the entire manual is necessary. Most jurisdictions allow the accused access to the manual at an agreed upon time at the police station or prosecutors office. Just curious, wher did you get s copy of the Canadian Manual or was it the U.S. version?

Based on what he's saying and the timelines what are his chances for an 11b? Anyone care to do the math?

To Decatur;

What difference does it make whether the manual is Canadian or Us. Electronics work the same way in both countries. As to the obligations of full disclosure by the Crown, they must provide all relevant and requested materials by the Defense. The decision of what is necessary to the Defense will be made by the Defense not the Crown. Yes I was granted viewing of the manual but not allowed to copy any of it. What good is this if I can't take it with me to examine and study. In the first trial, every time I made reference to the manual, I was told by the cop and the Crown that my manual is different than their manual. The Justice agreed. Also I was repeatedly told that I was not an expert and could not make certain statements about the controversy that actually exists with all moving radar units. Anyone beg to differ? The radar unit is the sole incriminating evidence the Crown has. So I decided to attack the unit. Common problems with the unit are Electric Magnetic Interference, Vehicle Ignition Interference, Radio Frequency Interference, Feedback Interference, Fan Interference, Shadowing, and a few others. This was my line of questioning. Without the unit the cop can't charge me for speeding. So, yes the manual is very important. This is why a Superior Court Judge shot down the decision of the Justice and I was granted a new trial. Oh, by the way, the terms I'm using come directly from the manual. Decatur can't say that their unit is 100%

accurate and that the possibility of error is 0%. Based on this, there is reasonable doubt.

Sept/14 I attended court in the afternoon session, like I was told, to pick a trial date. The Crown picked a date without me in the morning session. The date was Dec/14. My next trial date is end of Apr/15. I've made a second request to full disclosure even though the Court says I need an Order to get the manual.

You might want to consider doing some research on case law and through some older threads regarding the radar manual, it's use in court, radar interference, and accuracy of the radar. All of your points and questions have been covered before.

The main point about all of the interference that you mention is that none of it affects the accuracy of the radar. It may however affect the range of the radar.

ALL the POINTS I made affect the accuracy of the unit. Radar works on a radio frequency principal made possible by electronics. All the interferences mentioned above are created by electronics. The manufacturer themselves admit to these electronic interferences existing (section 8 of the manual for the Genesis II Select Directional Radar Unit manufactured by Decatur) and the possibility of an inaccurate reading being very possible. This matter is unprecedented. I am disputing moving Radar not stand still Radar. The two are vastly different.

A qualified operator doesn't just rely on the manual for training and use. They use a proper tracking history to eliminate or minimize all of those issues.

Regardless, any interference isn't additive to a target speed, it simply reduces range.

mimdom wrote:Decatur can't say that their unit is 100% accurate and that the possibility of error is 0%. Based on this, there is reasonable doubt.

Id disagree with that notion. Remember that beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as absolute certainty (think 90% sure versus 100%). If the Crown can show the radar was properly tested and used, the Courts will tend to accept the reading. To raise reasonable doubt, you would need to somehow show why the reading was erroneous and the result of interference etc. Merely stating that its possible to obtain an inaccurate reading is not enough without something to support the claim.

Genesis II Select Directional Canada Variant Rev 25 Aug 2010 Canadian Radar Manual

If you go to Google search and copy/paste the following into it exactly as I paste it (including quotes and the site: part), you will find the manual:

"Genesis II Select Directional Canada Variant" site:scribd.com

jsherk wrote:Genesis II Select Directional Canada Variant Rev 25 Aug 2010 Canadian Radar Manual

If you go to Google search and copy/paste the following into it exactly as I paste it (including quotes and the site: part), you will find the manual:

"Genesis II Select Directional Canada Variant" site:scribd.com

And that is the old Canadian manual that is no longer in use...

As far as I understand, that is the newest one which has the tracking history part removed.

jsherk wrote:As far as I understand, that is the newest one which has the tracking history part removed.

July 2012 manual is the newest and supersedes all other versions

Any ideas what has changed from 2010 to 2012 manual?