“136km/h In A 100km/hr, Possible Win?”

On June 10, 2017, I was pulled over by an OPP on the 403 heading WB and told I registered 136km/hr. I kept chit chat to a minimum and took my ticket and went on with my day. I later requested my disclosure and did not receive it until a week before my Oct. 27 court date, and so I had my date adjourned to Nov. 16. Now after going through my disclosure I immediately thought everything was done by the books and was quite let down until I stumbled upon something. In my disclosure I asked for the make, model, serial number and manual of the radar device used, as well as the officers training record to said specific unit.

What sparked my interest is the following. In the officer's notes, he states "0620: Lidar Instruction by PC _______ - Lazer Atlanta - Speed Lazer". HOWEVER, in his following notes he states "0650: Genesis II Mobile Radar"

Now, I'm unsure of what this means, but regardless he specified two completely different makes. Does this mean he was taught on the Lazer Atlanta but used the Genesis?? I don't want to contact the officer and ask to specify because I want to use the element of surprise during the trial.

Thanks in advance!!

P.S. I'm attaching pics of this page in his notes.

It appears that he simply tested two different speed measuring devices. One a laser and the other a moving radar.

The officer may have had both devices in the car with him. He's likely been trained on both, but his training and certification can be raised during cross examination. You can certainly ask during the trial, if there is one, why he carried both devices

His notes may indicate which device he used. If not, he'll mention it at trial. Again, you may want to ask why he used that device and not the other one. Is he sure he used that one? How is he sure? What notation did he make? Did he use that one exclusively that day even though he had both with him?

Finally, later in his notes, does he show that he completed a test at the end of his shift? If not, you can ask him whether his notes show an end-of-shift test. If not, you'll win. If so, you can raise the issue that the page was not disclosed and, therefore, the officer cannot use any information on it as evidence. I could be wrong on this one (and people are free to chime in), but lack of disclosure of the end-of-shift test, even if the officer claims to have done it, could also result in a win.

Decatur wrote:It appears that he simply tested two different speed measuring devices. One a laser and the other a moving radar.

Sorry I didn't specify that the blacked out name isn't his name. So it wouldn't be him testing this device.

It's not uncommon to carry both devices. One is vehicle mounted and used while driving. The other is handheld and therefore used when parked.

The blacked out name may be the radar/Lidar instructors name who qualified him. Thes are the officers notes rpthat are made to refresh his/her memory. Its not an all inclusive diary. Youll probably have to get the officer on the stand to clarify these points. If theres no indication of an end of shift test, you may be in a better position for a win. Certainly not guaranteed though. Ive seen case law where the lack of an end test in the officers notes didn't matter.

argyll wrote:It's not uncommon to carry both devices. One is vehicle mounted and used while driving. The other is handheld and therefore used when parked.

Very common actually to carry both lidar/radar especially if your job is traffic enforcement.

If you have the disclosure perhaps post it on here we may be able to assist you in deciphering it .