OHTA.ca

Hi Everyone,

I received a speeding ticket in Nova Scotia and am planning to go to court.

I sent a disclosure request asking for:

- a complete copy of the police officers notes;

- a copy of both sides of the officers copy of the ticket including the affidavit of service;

- the make, model, and serial number of the radar unit, and its owner's manual;

- the officer's training record specific to the said radar unit;

- the calibration record, service record and repair history of the said radar unit;

- the records of any calibration equipment such as tuning forks; and

- any document the Crown may rely on at trial.

They replied with copies of the ticket, as well as handwritten notes on the back (which are illegible), a calibration certificate from 2005 from Lasertech (UltraLyte LR B), and a certificate with the officer's name showing he passed a "LIDAR" course administered by the Police Department (Halifax Regional Police).

In my situation, we were transitioning from an 80Km zone to a 50km zone and he clocked me at 70. I don't know where he got me and whether I was even in the 50 zone. Without being able to read the notes (its chicken scratch), I do not know if he has a distance reading from the device.

Also I emailed the manufacturer of the LIDAR and they replied that the unit does not need regular service and calibration but rather it relies on the internal self tests and testing by the offers before or after each shift (a scope alignment test, and a fixed distance test.

I wondering what I should do next. They did not reply with EVERYTHING i asked for (such as the manual, but I did find it online).

What I notice is:

1. The training certificate does not tie back to this specific manufacturer or device.

2. The calibration is quite old, but the mfr says it doesn't require regular calibration.

3. I don't know if the officer's notes reflect that he did the tests that are recommended. If I can cast doubt that he did, then perhaps I have a case.

Should I request a typed copy of his notes? Should I insist on the manual and evidence that he was trained on this device, or leave those for questions during the trial?

Thanks!

It seems that you are well prepared to challenge the charge.

There is case law indicating that, if requested the prosecutor must produce the speed detection device manual.

You should receive the officer's original notes, and if not legible (can not read them) the prosecutor should provide you with a witness and a 'will say' statements.

The LIDAR, as you now know, measures different distances in several periods of time (very very short) and calculates the speed. The manufacturer will tell you that calibration and specific testing is not necessary because otherwise the would not be able to sell it. Why would they provide you with the tools to prove the device useless?

The calibration mentioned in the disclosure makes that point clear. If it is not necessary to calibrate the device, why was it then calibrated in the first place?

The normal tests are the direction test, which is performed by aiming to a vertical object, a light pole for instance, and moving the aim from side to side at which time the device should report the distance differences.

The second test is to aim the device to an object at a known distance and verify that the device reports that distance accurately.

What they do not do and is essential to the proper functioning of the device is the computation of the velocity based in the distance and time variances. I would suggest that failing to do so through proper and timely calibrations impeaches the credibility of the device it self.

There are other attacks to the device available to you. Read the manual carefully and review common law.

Cheers.

Biron wrote:The calibration mentioned in the disclosure makes that point clear. If it is not necessary to calibrate the device, why was it then calibrated in the first place?

To ensure the unit is functioning properly after being made or after a repair. The officers then follow testing procedures to ensure the unit is functioning properly, if it should fail, the unit will be sent for repair

The normal tests are the direction test, which is performed by aiming to a vertical object, a light pole for instance, and moving the aim from side to side at which time the device should report the distance differences.

The second test is to aim the device to an object at a known distance and verify that the device reports that distance accurately.

incorrect testing

What they do not do and is essential to the proper functioning of the device is the computation of the velocity based in the distance and time variances. I would suggest that failing to do so through proper and timely calibrations impeaches the credibility of the device it self.

The computation is done during testing procedure.

Hi Bear:

hwybear wrote:

Biron wrote:The normal tests are the direction test, which is performed by aiming to a vertical object, a light pole for instance, and moving the aim from side to side at which time the device should report the distance differences.

The second test is to aim the device to an object at a known distance and verify that the device reports that distance accurately.

incorrect testing.

Now I am curious. What is the proper testing procedure for the "LIDAR"?

Cheers.

Biron wrote:.

Now I am curious. What is the proper testing procedure for the "LIDAR"?

Cheers..

If I remember correctly (have not used the above device in 9yrs, currently only use Laser Atlanta), the testing for that unit mentioned above is:

- display integrity test (ensures all LED digits are functioning)

- scope alignment test (horizontal and vertical tests to ensure aiming device is accurate)

- fixed distance test

there also might be a test in relation to 2 seperate fixed points

Guess it was similiar to what you had put, but specific words

hwybear wrote:If I remember correctly (have not used the above device in 9yrs, currently only use Laser Atlanta), the testing for that unit mentioned above is:

- display integrity test (ensures all LED digits are functioning)

- scope alignment test (horizontal and vertical tests to ensure aiming device is accurate)

- fixed distance test

there also might be a test in relation to 2 seperate fixed points

Guess it was similiar to what you had put, but specific words

I like your version better.

Yeah, I was trying to describe scope and fix distance.

Since then, I googled it and found the certification tests used by your colleges in the USA:

Cheers.