I lost my case in Toronto court 6 months ago. I was ticket by driving at 84km on a road with speed limit 60km. Police said he got the speed when my car was 220m away from his Marksman 2020 laser gun. I was driving west on a curved road. A railway bridge above the road is around 200 meters east of the laser gun (according to google map). The road before the bridge is downhill, after the bridge is uneven uphill. The police was on the upper hill to take my speed.

It was the first time for me to be in court, I did not do well in the cross-examination. In court, I showed to the judge Google map, photos I took for the road and bridge, and the speed gun menu that I got from disclosure. Even though I pointed out my car was not in the same level as the speed detector and the police was not perform the detection "in line the driving direction of the car" as required in the device menu, and there were railway bridge, metal fences, so the environment was not "clear of sign" as required in the menu.

But the judge did not think my arguments were valid. She had the verdict based on the following:

1. Google map cannot be used for evidence as the measurement there can not be proved to be accurate.

2. I could not prove what my driving speed was at the point when I was caught

3. Even though the road was not level, it was down and up. She believed the police was well trained, he had done the speed detection many many times correctly. Even though I provided the technical challenge, it is not enough to prove the speed detector was not accurate.

I am preparing my appeal court next month, would appreciate if anyone can share caselaw with similar road condition.

An appeal is NOT a new trial, meaning you do not get another chance to challenge the officer or the evidence against you. An appeal is saying that somebody (JP, prosecutor) did something wrong and that you want to challenge that.

You need to read thru the entire transcript, line by line, and highlight anything that you think is incorrect.

I think somewhere, i some caselaw, I have read that the courts can take judicial notice of google maps. If you can find one that says this, then you can argue that the JP made an error and should have accepted the google map and therefore the reading can't be accurate if there was a bridge between you and the officer. Maybe others know more about the google map thing.

In Ontario the caselaw basically says that a police office only has to say they were qualified and say they beleive the device to be working correctly, and the JP will pretty much side with them everytime. You would need to have had your own expert witness to testify on your behalf about the inaccuracies of the device.

Thanks ShrekTek. I have read through the transcript, I want to argue that the judge did not consider the fact that the road is curved, not level.

I have seen some posts that the police is not supposed to use speed detector on a curved road as it may not be accurate. I read the book "The law on Speeding and Speed detection Devices", it also mentioned the police is not recommended to detect speed on curved road. So I just want to see if there is any caselaw for reference.

If you are on a curved road then the radar will display a lower speed than you are travelling. It's simple physics (math ?) And will be able to be explained by any officer under cross examination.

If you're basing your appeal on the fact that the Lidar was "inaccurate" you're going to have a very difficult time. From you description it sounds like the officer was not level with the path of travel and off to the side. This would produce a cosine angle affect that would put the reading displayed as lower than how fast you were actually travelling.

Google "police lidar and cosine" for information. Radar and lidar are both subject to cosine from elevation and angle off of the path of travel.

Agreed.

Unless you stop you car on the feet of the officer in a perfectly straight line, everything is technically going to be "on an angle", "curved", etc.

The error you are trying to prove benefits the driver. The device measures Point A to Point B in a straight line.

What you are essentially saying by bringing up this argument is that you were travelling even faster than the recorded speed.