Jp Ignores Testimony And Evidence On Laser Testing

I had my court case with the JP in Guelph and she ignored my testimony of what tests have to be performed on a Ultralyte LR100 LT1 20-20.

I showed a court case and it proved that the zero velocity fixed distance test is required by the operator before it's use.

I did not have the manual because the prosecutor stated in a letter to me they are under no obligation to provide it.

The officer testified she did not take a velocity reading she only took the distance reading.

I have since found the British version of the manual online but I need the copy from the prosecutor before my appeal.

How do you sujest I get a copy from them.

Crown Prosecutors often say "we don't have to provide the manual." Nothing could be further from the truth. They DO need to provide it, if not, it's improper disclosure. Here's some case law.

That particular case also quashed the oft-cited "it's copyright material" excuse that's used.

And so on. If the device was to be used testimonially, then the manual needed to be disclosed to you. The best way of going about it is if you don't get the manual prior to your first trial, file to get the charge stayed based on improper disclosure... but the opportunity for that has gone by. For your appeal, file another disclosure request, indicating that the courts have ruled that the manual is required, particularly since the device was used testimonially. If they again fail to provide it, you can ask the Justice to order them to release the manual to you, or stay the charge, but you'll need to have an argument as to why you need specific parts of the manual. Keep pressuring them.

Radar Identified wrote:Crown Prosecutors often say "we don't have to provide the manual." Nothing could be further from the truth. They DO need to provide it, if not, it's improper disclosure. Here's some case law.

Thunder Bay v. Millar et al

That particular case also quashed the oft-cited "it's copyright material" excuse that's used.

R. v. Vanier R. v. Bourget

And so on. If the device was to be used testimonially, then the manual needed to be disclosed to you. The best way of going about it is if you don't get the manual prior to your first trial, file to get the charge stayed based on improper disclosure... but the opportunity for that has gone by. For your appeal, file another disclosure request, indicating that the courts have ruled that the manual is required, particularly since the device was used testimonially. If they again fail to provide it, you can ask the Justice to order them to release the manual to you, or stay the charge, but you'll need to have an argument as to why you need specific parts of the manual. Keep pressuring them.

Thank you for the information. So do I just send a registered letter to the prosecutor then or is there court forms. Also as you know the testing is required in order for the laser to standup in court as accurate.

Also I am asking for all the citations this officer has written using this type of instrument because she testified this is her usual practice. The testing she completed does not comply with the user manual.

Also the use is also not correct because she used it from a flat surface catching cars moving down the hill not directly towards the gun as it is meant to be used. This violates the manual as stating the cosine angle should never be more than 15 feet from the road edge. My arguement is that a vehicle more the 15 feet above the instrument is the same. Also when shooting in this method the cosine angle has never been tested by the manufacturer. This is just more information for site users to think about when they get nabbed using a laser gun.

What are you thoughts on this defence as well.

robmcla wrote:So do I just send a registered letter to the prosecutor then or is there court forms.

I'd send the registered mail. If the Prosecutor still doesn't budge, then there's the court forms (violating your rights under the Charter)...

robmcla wrote:Also as you know the testing is required in order for the laser to standup in court as accurate.

Yep. I don't claim to know anything about the device or the manual, so if the procedure she used is different, the evidence from the device should be excluded. However... if I were to take a guess... a zero-velocity fixed distance test seems to be what the officer did do... but I don't know for sure.

robmcla wrote:Also I am asking for all the citations this officer has written using this type of instrument because she testified this is her usual practice.

Unfortunately, that will go nowhere.

robmcla wrote:Also the use is also not correct because she used it from a flat surface catching cars moving down the hill not directly towards the gun as it is meant to be used.

That argument may work, but I wouldn't call it bulletproof. Most LIDAR devices have enough of a tolerance built into them that unless the car was coming down an absolutely ridiculous incline or the angle was WAY above the roadway, the reading will stand up as valid. Cosine angle works in favour of the defendant. Usually with court cases, the manual has to specifically say "it MUST be done this way" or "do NOT do this" for the usage to be considered improper enough that its evidence will be discounted. Extrapolating beyond what is specifically written in the manual is an uphill battle. That said... you might be interested in this case (some similarities to the angle argument)...

Just to clarify, is this an appeal that you've filed, or is it a re-opening?

Radar Identified wrote:

robmcla wrote:]Also I am asking for all the citations this officer has written using this type of instrument because she testified this is her usual practice.

Unfortunately, that will go nowhere.

AND...don't think the officer works in the USA!

robmcla wrote:

Also the use is also not correct because she used it from a flat surface catching cars moving down the hill not directly towards the gun as it is meant to be used. This violates the manual as stating the cosine angle should never be more than 15 feet from the road edge. My arguement is that a vehicle more the 15 feet above the instrument is the same. Also when shooting in this method the cosine angle has never been tested by the manufacturer. This is just more information for site users to think about when they get nabbed using a laser gun.

What are you thoughts on this defence as well.

What manual are you reading?

Canada has not used imperial for speed since 1977. The manuals we have are not in MPH or even feet.

I also found a British/UK version of the manual for the mentioned unit.....and it reads...

"A good rule of thumb is not to exceed 1 metre off the road for every 10 metres shooting down range to the targets. If you want to target vehicles 150 metres down the road, for example, setup no more than 15 metres off the road. Remember that the cosine effect is always in the drivers favour."

The manual does have the cosine testing in it, with the actual affects on speeds at various angles....

at 3 metres away from road, 300m is .9999, 600m is 1.000

at 10metres away from road, 300m is .9997, 600m is .9999

at 15metres away from road, 300m is .9987, 600m is .9997

so how does this affect things....a vehicle travelling 80km/hr (if one could stand directly in front of car, and ensure lidar is level with licence plate)

....even if the lidar operator is 15m (49.21ft) away from road the speed at:

300m would be 79.896km/hr and shown on lidar at 79km/hr

600m would be 79.976km/hr and shown on lidar at 79km/hr.

The driver therefore gets 2 reductions in speed, one by the cosine itself and the second in the unit rounding down.

hwybear wrote:

robmcla wrote:

Also the use is also not correct because she used it from a flat surface catching cars moving down the hill not directly towards the gun as it is meant to be used. This violates the manual as stating the cosine angle should never be more than 15 feet from the road edge. My arguement is that a vehicle more the 15 feet above the instrument is the same. Also when shooting in this method the cosine angle has never been tested by the manufacturer. This is just more information for site users to think about when they get nabbed using a laser gun.

What are you thoughts on this defence as well.

What manual are you reading?

Canada has not used imperial for speed since 1977. The manuals we have are not in MPH or even feet.

I also found a British/UK version of the manual for the mentioned unit.....and it reads...

"A good rule of thumb is not to exceed 1 metre off the road for every 10 metres shooting down range to the targets. If you want to target vehicles 150 metres down the road, for example, setup no more than 15 metres off the road. Remember that the cosine effect is always in the drivers favour."

The manual does have the cosine testing in it, with the actual affects on speeds at various angles....

at 3 metres away from road, 300m is .9999, 600m is 1.000

at 10metres away from road, 300m is .9997, 600m is .9999

at 15metres away from road, 300m is .9987, 600m is .9997

so how does this affect things....a vehicle travelling 80km/hr (if one could stand directly in front of car, and ensure lidar is level with licence plate)

....even if the lidar operator is 15m (49.21ft) away from road the speed at:

300m would be 79.896km/hr and shown on lidar at 79km/hr

600m would be 79.976km/hr and shown on lidar at 79km/hr.

The driver therefore gets 2 reductions in speed, one by the cosine itself and the second in the unit rounding down.

I am trying to get the manual from the prosecutor as I am allowed to do by the cahrter. R. v. Laarakker, 2008 BCPC 146 is the case I am using for the angle. The problem an officer has with this is the cosine is not talked about in the verticle as being tested by the manufacturer. I am only including this as a secondary arguement. This is an appeal of the testimony of an officer doing testing that does not comply with the manufacturer test as laid out and excepted by the courts. I found the British version also and the test as I stipulated it was correct not the officer. I am only mentioning the verticle hill argue ment as well because I mentioned it in my case at the JP trial. Thank you for the information and I hope this case helps others in the future. I am trying to get all tickets the officer using this instrument just to set presidence. Yes I like to raise the bar when I have a point. LOL

Yep. I don't claim to know anything about the device or the manual, so if the procedure she used is different, the evidence from the device should be excluded. However... if I were to take a guess... a zero-velocity fixed distance test seems to be what the officer did do... but I don't know for sure.

No the officer testified she did only the fixed distance test. I asked her several times what the velocity reading was on the fixed didtance test. She stated she only read the distance. I asked her several time to the point the JP was getting mad at me. But I knew I needed this part to nail her in appeal. The transcript even shows this testimony.

robmcla wrote:Yep. I don't claim to know anything about the device or the manual, so if the procedure she used is different, the evidence from the device should be excluded. However... if I were to take a guess... a zero-velocity fixed distance test seems to be what the officer did do... but I don't know for sure.

No the officer testified she did only the fixed distance test. I asked her several times what the velocity reading was on the fixed didtance test. She stated she only read the distance. I asked her several time to the point the JP was getting mad at me. But I knew I needed this part to nail her in appeal. The transcript even shows this testimony.

Reflections wrote: 2 words: Alignment Check.

??

And, update??

Again, you can find this in the manual as well.

And bump for an update.