Please share what you learned!pch2004 wrote:For anyone who was following this...
I managed to listen to a full trial of the evidence for the aerial surveillance program, so if anyone is interested, I can lend some advice as to the testimony of the officers.
Thanks to all for the help...this board is a GREAT resource, as are the regulars who post here.
- the timing device is the Robic Sport SC-888, he mentioned the time of testing (before and after shift) but not the procedure
- hash marks are placed at 500m apart, and the officer testified that he was present at the time of painting and has personally measured each "quadrant" to be exactly 500m and tested this measurement with odometer and radar
- opening testimony was standard fare -- "I observed vehicle at high rate of speed and then confirmed by... "
- testified that he always had a clear and unobstructed view of the target vehicle and never took his eyes off unitl the ground stop was made
- gave testimony about the distance between the last hash mark and the stop (presumably to say that it was a short time between the offence and the stop)
- indicated that he did not know model of car until ground officer made the stop
- flies at about 3000-4000 feet
- said weather was clear and visibility was greater than 20 nautical miles
- testified about his training history on radar (NOT used in this stop)
Hope this helps!
This evidence was required for this particular case, but not required for all cases of this naturepch2004 wrote: - testified about his training history on radar (NOT used in this stop)
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca