OHTA.ca

So I've been looking around here for a bit, and thanks to all the info on this site I managed to have two tickets dismissed this morning, so I figured I would post up the story in case it can help others.

First off, thanks to everyone here, and a BIG thank you to ticketcombat.com, seriously, that guy needs to put a paypal donation box on his site. So, my story (I'll keep it short):

I was driving in Caledon, ON, along one of the town lines, and I had a car in front of me that was at least 10 under the limit, so after making sure I had room, I went around him. Unfortunately for me, there was a speed trap sitting right there, the cop stepped out, and waved me over. Got me for 104 in a 60 using the Decateur VP. To this day, I still have no clue how my unmodified compact car managed to achieve that acceleration, but I digress.

I went looking around on-line, and came across this site, and through it ticketcombat.com. After looking everything over, I put together a request for disclosure form for the site, and sent it off. Now, I work in the Industrial Equipment sector, and deal with regulation, upon regulation, upon regulation, so I added a few points to the request form:

- Calibration Certificate for the Radar

- Calibration Certificate for any calibration equipment (may sound stupid, but in a proper calibration, you should be able to trace the equipment back to the standard)

- Certificate of Conformance (a written record indicating that the unit was manufactured to standard, and more importantly calibrated properly, available from all ISO9000 companies)

- Industry Canada certificate certifying that the unit has been approved for use in Canada

My first appearance was adjourned quickly, the officers notes had been hand written and illegible, when I had asked for typed. The prosecutor told me the officer could sit down with me and go through the notes, which I declined stating this wouldn't give me time to prepare. They had also only sent me over a few pages of the manual, where I had asked for the entire thing. The other more interesting parts of disclosure I had asked for hadn't been given, but the first two items were enough to postpone. The JP agreed with me and set a new date.

My second appearance was the interesting one. I had been e-mailing the prosecutor asking for my disclosure, and they kept saying that the Cert. of conformance, and the Industry Canada certs were not items that they would give to me, I disagreed. So in court, I made the following arguments:

1. The certificate of conformance is available from all ISO9000 companies, of which Decateur is one. In fact it is one of the core principles of the ISO9000 doctrine that documentation be available to prove that the device had been made according to spec and that the initial testing proved that the device was within limits. Without that certificate, there was no way to prove that the unit had been manufactured and tested in the appropriate manner.

2. I had not been able to find any listings for Decateur, or their distributors on the Industry Canada site, and there is no mention in the manual that the device has been tested to Industry Canada standards, however there is a notation that the device has been tested to FCC standards (which are not accepted as IC acceptance). If the Industry Canada Certificate cannot be produced, or a test certificate (using Certification Body recognized by the Standards Council of Canada) proving that the radar falls within the levels prescribed for an acceptance, then the unit is not legal for use in Canada.

So after helpfully educating the JP, and smacking down the prosecution a couple of times ("With all do respect to the prosecution, here is a list of the reasons he is wrong" <-- along those lines), and indicated that there was a possibility that the OPP was in contravention of the Radiocommunications act, the JP agreed with me again and ordered the prosecution to provide me with the documents I was looking for. However, he also told me I needed to provide them with some guidance on where to look.

After I left the court, I fired off a quick e-mail to the head prosecutor stating who they needed to contact, and where they needed to go to look for the documents. A week later I got the certificate of conformance, but since in my initial disclosure I had asked for traceability documents, I went back and told her that the cert. of conformance was incomplete. I also reminded her that she was missing the Industry Canada docs, to which I got an e-mail stating they didn't provide such documentation. I quickly reminded her that a JP had disagreed with that, and didn't hear from her again.

Fast forward to this morning, and I am standing in line to meet with the prosecution, and I hear my name being called. I look over and it is the head prosecutor. She motions me to follow her over to another room, and we have the following discussion:

Prosecutor: So, what are we doing today?

Me: Good question, I'm still waiting on a bunch of documentation from my initial disclosure.

P: I told you we don't supply that, and you are not getting it.

Me: The JP ordered you to get me that documentation.

P: Well, you're not getting it, so go have a seat and get ready for trial.

Me: Ok, works for me.

About six cases in, my name is called, which I figured was a little early, I get up, state my name and the prosecutor (different one) states that all charges are being withdrawn. Judge tells me I am free to go. I walk out of the courtroom, see the head prosecutor, flash her a little "f*** you" smile and off I go.

After all this, I've come to the following conclusions:

1. There is still no firm evidence that the Decateur Radars have ever been tested against IC standards, and if applicable, certified. If this is correct, they should't be being used in Canada, plain and simple.

2. While there is (surprisingly) a massive amount of case law that goes against proper calibration procedures, the Certificate of Conformance is an item that validates the radar unit, and even if it is available, it appears to be an absolute pain in the ass to get.

3. Somehow the police manage to get away with no calibrations, in any industrial sector they would be fined out of existence. How they get away with that I do not know.

4. Do not be intimidated by the prosecution, they seem to be full of nothing but bluster and b.s. The ones I dealt with didn't seem to be able to follow up on any of their threats. In fact most of what they said seemed to be nothing but a bluff.

5. Read this forum, and ticketcombat.com, both are absolute essentials.

Anyways that's my story, sorry its a little long, but hopefully someone will be able to be able to pick something up that will help them.

I enjoyed that.

You won based on two things, being persistant and playing "their" game. Good job.

This information is very very readily available,

- Industry Canada standard is printed in the radar manual

- All calibration certificates are kept on file for each individual radar unit

So there is more to the offence being withdrawn than this request in the disclosure

hwybear wrote:This information is very very readily available,

- Industry Canada standard is printed in the radar manual

- All calibration certificates are kept on file for each individual radar unit

So there is more to the offence being withdrawn than this request in the disclosure

Are you saying the ducks are not in a row?

Reflections wrote:

hwybear wrote:This information is very very readily available,

- Industry Canada standard is printed in the radar manual

- All calibration certificates are kept on file for each individual radar unit

So there is more to the offence being withdrawn than this request in the disclosure

Are you saying the ducks are not in a row?

what i am saying that claiming that the alledged request for the IC Standard/calibration is why the charge was tossed is most likely not accurate as both are readily available. Quite possibly there was a problem with the officer's evidence itself once the crown reviewed it and decided to withdrawn the offence, could simply be the officer got busy at end of shift with an incident and the 2nd test was not completed.

I also have been reading here for a while, learned much but never felt I could contribute more than what was being posted by others. But measurement and calibration is a subject I do have some background in.

Conceptually, for any measurement to be useful and valid, it must be traceable and documented as regularly calibrated and maintained to remain in conformance to a known and widely agreed-upon Standard. In modern industrial practice, this generally translates to ISO, both for the physical Standards and the methodology to ensure continuing conformance. Legally required by Industry Canada or not, any manufacturer that does not strictly conform to recognized standards will not be in business long.

See the little calibration stickers on weigh scales in grocery stores and gas pumps? Even such pedestrian devices legally must be documented as regularly maintained and calibrated to meet known standards.

How Ontario/Canadian law enforcement agencies have been allowed to operate instrumentation without standardized, documented calibration methodologies and record-keeping is incredible to those of us who understand anything about measurement and calibration. At a minimum, each disclosure request reply should include a short reference to the applicable conformance, calibration and maintenance documentation and procedures. The officer merely noting to have pressed the "self-test" button at the beginning and the end of shift should not be acceptable "calibration" of a very complex speed sensing device.

So it may well be that there was "more to this case" than the Crown not being able or prepared to produce the requested documentation in this particular instance. By withdrawing the charges, the Crown avoids having to explain to the court (and the public) why law enforcement instrumentation is not subjected to even the most basic industrial/commercial requirements. No new precedent, no judicial record. Business as usual for law enforcement, Crown court costs kept to a minimum, revenues from one speeding offense lost, but the rest keep pouring in unhindered.

But imagine if z24guy's case had proceeded? At a minimum, the Crown would have had to provide whatever conformance, calibration and maintenance records it had. The Crown would run the risk the court ruling these (and the related procedures/policies) were insufficient to sustain the charge, given the rigour z24guy would easily demonstrate is Industry Canada mandated industrial/commercial practice. The court might have found it reasonable to expect law enforcement instrumentation and documentation be held to ISO standards.

And even if z24guy lost the case, Ontario law enforcement measurement equipment calibration/maintenance records and other related policies/procedures could be come routine items in disclosure requests. A good thing in my view, but doubtful law enforcement and prosecution would see it that way.

And before the "lack of cash/manpower to implement" argument is trotted out, ISO conformance is held by industry to be a cost-saving measure in the long run. Since law enforcement shows no signs of going out of business any time soon, maybe time to ISO-up and save the taxpayer some cash down the road, so to speak.

hwybear wrote:This information is very very readily available,

- Industry Canada standard is printed in the radar manual

It may be on some manuals but definitely not on all... I have a Decatur Genesis-VP manual in front of me and while it has a nice FCC certification note in it, but there is nothing referring to Industry Canada certification.

fredfred wrote:

hwybear wrote:This information is very very readily available,

- Industry Canada standard is printed in the radar manual

It may be on some manuals but definitely not on all... I have a Decatur Genesis-VP manual in front of me and while it has a nice FCC certification note in it, but there is nothing referring to Industry Canada certification.

A general certification similar to those found with most consumer electronics may be acceptable to allow the use of the instrument regarding radio emission and general use safety standards. Calibration and traceability of specific units are another matter entirely.

What does the FCC certification deal with? The tested accuracy/precision of the detector to measure vehicle speed? Does it specify when, where, by whom and to what Standard a specific serial number detector was originally calibrated, to what tolerances?

If not, do radar/lidar units intended for enforcement use come with serial-number matched Certificates of Calibration and Compliance? If I was a buyer for a Police Services Board, you can bet I'd be requiring that as a Purchase Order condition, just as I did for measurement equipment purchased for a public education institution. Otherwise, the vendor can ship whatever quality unit they please, and it's up to the purchaser to ensure calibrations etc.

Merely claiming "it is solid state electronics and should never require testing or re-calibration" doesn't cut it in industry. If it measures, it must be regularly inspected and records of the test results kept on file. Seals are often applied to the electronic case seams stating "calibration void if broken".

Would we be surprised to find no such calibration/traceability due diligence in force on enforcement radar/lidar units. How about cruiser speedometers, used for "pacing"?

fredfred wrote:

hwybear wrote:This information is very very readily available,

- Industry Canada standard is printed in the radar manual

It may be on some manuals but definitely not on all... I have a Decatur Genesis-VP manual in front of me and while it has a nice FCC certification note in it, but there is nothing referring to Industry Canada certification.

The court is usually satisfied with FCC...look up the lidar testing standards... they refer to the american tests

It is nice that the courts recognize the legal requirement for speed radar electronic to meet basic FCC and/or Industry Canada certifications for operation in Canada. I leave it to others to figure out whether some form of reciprocity exists in Ontario courts for FCC/IC certifications for radar/lidar.

But, unless specifically stated otherwise, the FCC/IC certifications only deal with the fact that radar and lidar emit signals that must remain within specific electromagnetic emission spectra and not interfere with other bands.

A US supplier of radar speed equipment was cited by a competitor for not having obtained FCC certification for its products.

The article linked below states:

"Industrial and consumer electronic equipment that transmits or receives radio waves must meet federal technical standards designed to ensure that devices do not interfere with television and radio reception or with critical public safety systems such as air traffic control and police radios. The FCC maintains a lab in Maryland equipped with an anechoic chamber so that such devices can undergo scientific testing. Those that pass the test are granted an FCC ID number and can display an FCC certification logo. The FCC also allows testing in approved, private labs, including one located in New South Wales, Australia."

It would appear as I suggested, the FCC and probably Industry Canada certifications have nothing to to with the accuracy/precision with which any specific radar/lidar device takes speed readings, or whether these units are tested/maintained in conformance with and traceable to any MEASUREMENT Standards.

All industries in Canada must regularly test and certify that any measuring devices used conform to established Standards, and maintain records to that effect.

Again the question z24guy asked.

Why are law enforcement agencies in Canada, an "industry" generating huge revenues in speed-related fines each year, not bound by the same traceability/conformance/documentation regimen as other industries?

Reflections wrote:

fredfred wrote:

hwybear wrote:This information is very very readily available,

- Industry Canada standard is printed in the radar manual

It may be on some manuals but definitely not on all... I have a Decatur Genesis-VP manual in front of me and while it has a nice FCC certification note in it, but there is nothing referring to Industry Canada certification.

The court is usually satisfied with FCC...look up the lidar testing standards... they refer to the american tests

As mentioned in previous posts there are two completely different tests involved here. The calibration tests determine whether the device is accurately measuring speed of a moving object. The FCC/Industry Canada tests determine whether the device has been legally approved to be used in USA/Canada and focus on what signals the device emits when operated. I don't believe the lidar calibration testing standards you refer to have anything to do with the FCC and if a JP is using a FCC certification as confirmation of proper calibration of a lidar device shows a need to explain what an FCC certification is.

FCC certification does not make a device legal for use in Canada and there are penalties for not getting proper approvals.

Canada's Radiocommunication Act and Radiocommunication Regulations state that manufacturers, importers, distributors and sellers of radio apparatus, interference-causing equipment or radio-sensitive equipment have three responsibilities:

They must make sure that the equipment they provide meets all the technical standards that are required in Canada for that type of equipment.

They must obtain a Technical Acceptance Certificate (TAC) if it is required for that type of equipment.

They must ensure that all equipment is labelled to show that it meets the applicable standards.

Individuals and corporations that do not comply with the Regulations may face charges under the Radiocommunication Act. An individual may be fined up to $5,000 and/or face one year in prison. Corporations can be fined up to $25,000.

The Act also states that any officer, director or agent of a corporation who participated in an offence committed by that corporation is liable to the same punishment (fine and/or jail term) as an individual who is found guilty under the Act.

Can the use of a device that is in violation of federal law and which cannot be confirmed to be legally operated in this country be used as evidence?

Hi Guys,

Wow, bit of a discussion since I was here last. Let me see if I can help out on some points.

FCC/IC Certification: I work in the Industrial sector, and have been told quite bluntly by IC that FCC acceptance does not automatically mean IC acceptance. The unit must either obtain a TAC, or be proven to fall into an acceptance category. IC has a tool that allows you to search by company and product for TACs. I ran Decateur, and as many of their distributors through it, and none of them had obtained this, or at least none that I could find. The manual I had showed the FCC certification, but did not have any mention of IC Certification. The certification deals with Spectrum Management, which ensures that the device isn't transmitting in a frequency that it shouldn't be. Fredfred nailed it, his last question was the exact same thing I was wondering.

Calibration: I asked for calibration certificates, (most electronics get this done on a yearly basis) and was told that they did not exist. The certificate of conformance did have initial calibration values on it (no yearly ones though), but the prosecution was not willing to provide traceability (a good calibration should be able to be traced back to the standard).

Cause for Withdrawal: In the end, I really can't say for sure why they withdrew. It could have been that the documentation didn't exist (evidence does point to this being the case), or it could have been that they just didn't want to bother going out to get everything. I still think that the units should be held to the same standard that industry is held to. Personally, my opinion is that these devices should be governed by the Weights and Measurements Act. Why they're not is beyond me.

Thanks everyone for the support, and I'll try to do a better job of keeping an eye on the thread.

"I still think that the units should be held to the same standard that industry is held to. Personally, my opinion is that these devices should be governed by the Weights and Measurements Act. Why they're not is beyond me."

That would cost money........

Just some food for thought. Industry Canada issues licences for mobile and base station police radio, MDT's and .....mobile and stationary police radar units. Would the fact that they are issuing the licences not mean that Industry Canada is following a standard?

Most radar units i've dealt with are sent back to the distributor and calibrated on an annual basis or when any repairs are done.

Decatur wrote:Just some food for thought. Industry Canada issues licences for mobile and base station police radio, MDT's and .....mobile and stationary police radar units. Would the fact that they are issuing the licences not mean that Industry Canada is following a standard?

Most radar units i've dealt with are sent back to the distributor and calibrated on an annual basis or when any repairs are done.

Licenses are a different matter. Some reserved parts of the frequency spectrum require specific approval for the user to operate a broadcasting device. These are frequencies like those reserved for emergency services, air traffic communication, cellular phone networks, TV/Radio Broadcasters, etc. The frequencies like those used for things like your WiFi Router are "open" and don't require licenses for each user.

Approvals are a series of tests in certification labs that prove that the device operates within the frequency spectrum allocated for it and doesn't generate signals at other frequencies that would interfere with devices using other parts of the frequency spectrum. Failure in these tests often means the manufacturer has to redesign the device to meet Canadian requirements. A radar device can be calibrated and operating perfectly but still unable to pass the Industry Canada testing. Calibration and Approval are two different things.

Generally labs will do both FCC and Industry Canada testing as well as those needed for European countries but will charge more depending upon the number of approvals required. A manufacturer with a new model of their equipment may opt to save money and just do FCC testing if the model is designed for the US market only. FCC testing is based on frequency spectrum usage in the USA and while it is similar to Canada, it is not identical and so FCC approval only says that it is legal to use in the US. Many US manufacturers find this out when they are ordered by inspectors to remove equipment without Industry Canada approval numbers from their booths at Canadian Trade Shows.