“2 Officer Speed Trap - Heading To Court”

I have a court case in a few weeks now. I received the disclosure for my offence (31 over the speed limit on the 401).

The disclosure has notes from Officer 1 (with the lidar) and no notes at all from Officer 2 (the one who wrote the ticket).

I'm going to court to try my options, but I'm wondering if anyone has any advice about working with 2 officer witnesses?

My current plan is to separate them (witness bias) and then ask them about the incident and how they communicated about the vehicle in question.

Any other advice?

Not really sure that will work, the officers will likely say that they radioed each other and that's it (which, they almost surely did).

Have you looked for any other issues, such as no indications of testing the speed measuring device, no tracking history (i.e. visual observation of the vehicle), etc?

Radar Identified wrote:Not really sure that will work, the officers will likely say that they radioed each other and that's it (which, they almost surely did).

Have you looked for any other issues, such as no indications of testing the speed measuring device, no tracking history (i.e. visual observation of the vehicle), etc?

Everything else looked good - device was tested, etc.

Not sure what you mean by the visual observation tracking history?

I just assumed the communication between the officers can be at fault.

If the first officer says "The white truck at 400m is going 122" then the second officer pulls over a white truck, do they then radio back and forth to say "was it the one with the topper on the back?". I'm just trying to figure out how they know it's the correct truck.

Visual observation tracking history: Before an officer can use lidar or radar, they're (theoretically) required to visually observe traffic to pick out someone who is speeding. Police officers are trained in determining the approximate speed of a vehicle by visual observation. Once they have an estimate that a vehicle is speeding, they can then activate the lidar or radar. Keep in mind, most devices have sight-scopes so the officer can be looking through the scope to take the observation. (What this looks like to a casual observer is that the officer is just pointing and shooting at every car that comes along.) But the essential elements are:

- Device tested before and after the stop (it doesn't have to be immediately before and after, it can be several hours before and several hours after)

- Officer visually observed vehicle speeding (tracking history)

- Officer confirmed visual observation with speed measuring device or by pacing

- Officer stopped vehicle without losing sight to the point where reasonable doubt could be introduced

- Officer identified the driver of the vehicle

You could ask about the communication, but this will not be a strong defence to pursue in terms of raising reasonable doubt. Just my $0.02.

Radar Identified wrote:Visual observation tracking history: Before an officer can use lidar or radar, they're (theoretically) required to visually observe traffic to pick out someone who is speeding. Police officers are trained in determining the approximate speed of a vehicle by visual observation. Once they have an estimate that a vehicle is speeding, they can then activate the lidar or radar. Keep in mind, most devices have sight-scopes so the officer can be looking through the scope to take the observation. (What this looks like to a casual observer is that the officer is just pointing and shooting at every car that comes along.) But the essential elements are:

- Device tested before and after the stop (it doesn't have to be immediately before and after, it can be several hours before and several hours after)

- Officer visually observed vehicle speeding (tracking history)

- Officer confirmed visual observation with speed measuring device or by pacing

- Officer stopped vehicle without losing sight to the point where reasonable doubt could be introduced

- Officer identified the driver of the vehicle

You could ask about the communication, but this will not be a strong defence to pursue in terms of raising reasonable doubt. Just my $0.02.

So then it becomes a question of whether or not that evidence can be verbal or written?

If I ask Officer 1 to explain his view of the events, does he have to specify that the vehicle was speeding before using the lidar? He was definitely using the scope on the lidar the entire time, so hard to say on that front.

As for communication, because of the location of the event Officer 2 could not see the car at any time and Officer 1 did not look back at my vehicle when I was pulled over - his eyes were glued to the lidar the entire time. Let's say his scope eliminates about 100m of distance, that means that from there until the time I was pulled over by the next officer was approximately 300-500m of "blind spot". This is what I am trying to leverage, as in that blind spot the only way they could determine which car was mine would be through verbal communication of vehicle details.

Almost certainly the communication would have included a licence plate

2 officers with lidar is straight forward.....first officer observes vehicle above speed limit, obtains speed with lidar, over radio provides speed, time description to 2nd officer, observes 2nd officer stopping the proper vehicle (whether with cruiser or pointing vehicle to shoulder), 1st officer makes notes, then resumes observing for next vehicle....officer 2 obtains pertinent info and issus offence notice