Charge Withdrawn - Success story

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."

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/25/2502.asp

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.

Decatur wrote:

?

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.

Did any of the radar/lidar units you've dealt with carry stickers showing the name of the calibration lab, the date and the inspector's stamp? Are these radar/lidar units carrying seal stickers with words to the effect of "calibration void if seal broken"? A certified calibration includes affixing stickers so any operator can quickly tell if an instrument can be legally used and seals to ensure the instrument has not been tampered with since last calibration.

While equipment self-tests and operator administered tests (eg via tuning fork tests) are an essential part of any QA scheme, these are no substitute for regular full independent certifiable calibrations. A distributor, particularly of mass-produced electronics, is not usually considered independent. Metrology history proves an operator or vendor can seldom be fully trusted to impartially test a measuring device without significant oversight, which is why there are QA inspectors and independent certified testing/calibration labs.

No matter what company does the testing, the documentation to verify these calibrations and the Standards they trace back to should be readily available in the police detachment offices, as well as at the testing lab.

I am coming to believe no independent certified calibrations are done on any radar/lidar units in use in Ontario, ever. Tuning forks, perhaps, but the actual units? Doubtful.

No document trail, no calibrations can be claimed. Ask any ISO or Industry Canada inspector.

The case law (Canlii search 'radar calibration certification') shows a tortured path used by enforcement and the Crown to avoid producing anything which may cast doubt on the absolute accuracy of any enforcement instrumentation. To the point where the judge in R. v. Robichaud, 2008 NSPC 51 actually ruled that because the police keep no radar repair/calibration records, the defendant cannot ask for them in discovery.

Similarly, in Toronto Police Services Board (Re), 2006 CanLII 50669, "With respect to item 3 of the request, the Police state that the Radar Coordinator provided all the available details for the Radar Unit, being the serial number, make and model and the Radar Units repair history. The Police quote an excerpt from Order MO-1873 in support of their contention that the Traffic Services Unit does not keep any formal calibration log or details on any calibration of the Radar Unit. "

Nice trick.

So given the firm grounding and cogent explanation of real-world calibration that z24guy was obviously prepared to submit, the prosecution chose to dismiss/bury the case rather than risk upsetting decades of carefully managed avoidance regarding speed measuring devices. But blood alcohol machines have no such luxury.

R. v. Schmidt, 1999 CanLII 12394 "[15] In summary, based on all of the foregoing, I conclude that; (1) there is a duty of Crown counsel to make full disclosure; (2) that disclosure is triggered by a request of the defence counsel; (3) it is subject to Crown discretion as to relevancy; (4) the test of relevancy, as set out in Stinchcombe and OConnor, explained and expounded in the unanimous decision of the late Mr. Justice Sopinka in R v. Egger, is that the Crown is justified in withholding disclosure only if it can show that the evidence sought is clearly irrelevant."

How can maintenance/calibration records, or the lack thereof, be irrelevant where the Crown's case rests upon that measuring device? Speed or blood alcohol, should make no difference.

you certain;y are well read Watcher........ keep up the references and some day you may be a moderator!

Reflections wrote:

you certain;y are well read Watcher........ keep up the references and some day you may be a moderator!

Thanks... I think. Kinda one of those "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" things.

Most of the credit goes to the Canlii search function. Once us average folk get the hang of that, it can pretty quickly locate the applicable cases/paragraphs. But any significant ticket defense has to go to trial beyond the routine "plead-down" strategy to make it onto Canlii so the public even has a hope of figuring out what's going on.

That is why I believe this calibration issue needed to be given some significant face time here given the Crown's decision to drop the charges. If not here, where would the public, or even the paralegal/law community find out what goes on behind the scenes, but is legally mandated and routine in so many other aspects of our lives.

In the long run, ISO standardized calibration/record-keeping would simplify enforcement and prosecution's internal and disclosure tasks. Why is there never time/money to do it right, but there's lots of time/money to keep doing it the wrong/hard way?

After having watched this thread unfold, I feel I should put my two cents in.

The central issue of a speed measuring device is not about calibration, certificates, laboratories, or anything like that. The central issue is: When the device was used, was it working properly? That is what the courts have tried to decide, and actually, have decided. They've had a long, long time to figure out what they consider to be reasonable proof that the device was working properly. They've decided that the police officer testing the device before and after the stop, and proper usage of the device (including a tracking history), etc., is sufficient proof.

Now, if the lack of an Industry Canada document proves to be a sticking point, it is worthwhile exploring, but only as a novel defence and with the defendant fully aware that its use is unlikely to be successful. If anything, the courts may require that the officer simply testify that there is an IC sticker or IC number on it. However, as far as requiring calibration certificates, inspectors, etc., many devices that receive periodic calibration and have stickers etc are not tested on a daily basis to ensure that they are working correctly. For example, gas pumps are calibrated regularly, yes? But the attendant doesn't go out before and after his shift, draw a measured sample from each pump, and use a device to confirm that the pumps are, in fact, distributing the exact volume of gasoline that they should be. (They sometimes check for contamination but that's about it.) Or, weigh scales at MTO stations, while I'm sure they get calibrated, do not have calibrated weights rolled on top of them every day to ensure that their weight measurement is accurate. Or, with certain weights and measures, usually the only proof of correct operation is the time of calibration, not a daily "confidence check," if you will.

Police speed measuring devices, on the other hand, do get checked daily. This is where the "testing before and after the stop" comes in. In most cases, these require an internal circuit check to be done (press the "test" button) and an external check. For example, the Decatur Genesis II (widely used in Ontario) gets an internal circuit check, and then the officer drives down the road and verifies that the Decatur's speed readout is accurate against the patrol vehicle's calibrated speedometer. I have had an issue with any device that does not require an actual signal to be sent out and bounced back to the device to ensure correct operation, which is the case with some hand-held radar units. If the device does not actually measure some kind of external speed during its check, in my opinion, yes, it should not be used. The officer must be able to testify as to how the device was tested, when it was tested, and the results. I do not believe it is reasonable to require all kinds of other documentation of it being in proper working order, given that the tests performed by the officer were valid and reliable. I suppose you could argue that the officer could simply commit perjury, but you could also argue that the inspector's certificate, calibration certificate, etc., could have been forged, so you'd have to call the inspector to testify; but then you could argue the inspector was on the take and is also lying; and then you've turned the whole situation into a cascading Kangaroo court Gong Show. Respectfully, at some point, you have to say "this is reasonable proof." The courts have decided that standard is that the device must be tested before and after the stop, in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

One of the core values of justice in a free and democratic society is "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." As the stakes are raised, the margin for reasonable doubt expands, but speeding is an absolute liability offence, which is the lowest level. Stunt driving 50 km/h or more over the limit is a strict liability offence, so there's opportunity for the defendant to avoid escalating sanctions with the use of a due diligence defence. Dangerous driving is mens rea. To ask for about 10 different types of proof that the device was working properly, in my opinion, is not reasonable, given the fact that the implications to society are small. From everything I've read and dealt with (2 1/2 years of being on this board and having helped over 50 people outside of it), the courts seem to agree. You're not building, say, a nuclear reactor, where the implications to society are huge. The devices are calibrated and repaired according to the manufacturer's instructions, it is just that the courts have ruled that a conviction does not turn on that documentation, so it is not required for disclosure. Even if it was calibrated, I submit that is not proof that it was working correctly on the day the offence occurred, nor is it proof that it was used correctly. It's a justice issue, not an ISO issue, in my view.

Furthermore, the device is not sole proof of the speeding. In addition to the daily tests, before the speed measuring device is activated, the officer must first observe that the vehicle is travelling above the posted speed limit, and estimate its speed. They receive training on how to estimate vehicle speeds. Once they have the estimate, they activate the speed measuring device to confirm. If there is a noticeable discrepancy, they don't stop the vehicle. In the state of Ohio, the officer's estimation of vehicle speed alone is sufficient to warrant a conviction - they don't need the speed-measuring device! What seems to be misunderstood is that it is the officer's visual observation that is the critical component, not the device. Of all speeding cases I've seen dismissed during trial, it was invariably one of three things: Improper tracking history, improper testing, or lost sight of the vehicle.

watcher wrote:

That is why I believe this calibration issue needed to be given some significant face time here given the Crown's decision to drop the charges.

Respectfully disagree. This is speculation. We do not know the reason behind the withdrawal. While I support finding new ways to challenge speeding offences, as hwybear mentioned earlier, we simply do not know if the Industry Canada conformance/etc was behind it, or if there was some other issue, such as the officer going: "Um... I forgot my notebook." The fact that the Prosecutor was steaming mad prior to the trial is nothing out of the ordinary; many of them use these sort of bluster-and-intimidation tactics to try to get people to accept a plea bargain, rather than drag it out in court.

So there's my input.

Damn Radar, you made me open the full editor, .

My full 2 cents, Ahem:

1. Any measuring device for trade is calibrated regularly by an external reference be it scales or pumps etc.

2. Machines used to assemble certain products, i.e. automobiles, also get regular calibrations.

3. These items may or may not have a self-calibration/confidence check function.

4. International groups, ISO, have set minimum standards for calibration and repair and thus have standing in all industry.

5. Why not group police radar/lidar in with the above?

6. I have a certain amount of confidence in the equipement and will testify that 99/100 they are accurate, my last speeding ticket comes to mind.

7. >>However, why have the courts come to believe that a machine, a computer no less, is infallible<<. Computers are only as smart as their programmers.

8. I would expect at least a follow up check as to the proper operation of the self check, that the circuitry is not flawed. It could be a resistor here or capacitor there and unfound errors abound.

9. The software that is used for error checking is guarded by patents, so we can't see what it consists of.

10. Different jurisdictions have different limitations on the distance/circumstances in which officers may or may not use radar/lidar.

Take all of that and put it in a nut shell, I would like to see more transparency in the Crown's "evidence", each and every time a case goes before the JP. When it is possible for me to lose my license and car for a week, the gov't need to be more accountable for the inconvienience's it wishes to enact on the people it serves.

Rant off, and please enjoy the rest of your day a OHTA.COM.

This thread could have legs... any bets on whether it will go over 10 pages?

Okay back on topic...

Reflections wrote:

1. Any measuring device for trade is calibrated regularly by an external reference be it scales or pumps etc.

2. Machines used to assemble certain products, i.e. automobiles, also get regular calibrations.

3. These items may or may not have a self-calibration/confidence check function.

I agree. Howeever, the police devices are also calibrated. The difference is the documentation does not need to be given to the defendant, according to the courts. Just to use an analogy, the weather radar I use at work is also bench-tested and calibrated regularly, but I don't ask the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers to come out with the tech logs to prove that it has been done. There's no sticker or label on the flight deck to prove it has been done. If there is hazardous weather, I do an internal circuit check to verify it is working properly and then a confidence check to verify it is properly painting nearby targets... not much different than the internal/external check on the Genesis II. What I'm saying is, where do we stop asking for proof that the device was functioning properly? It would also push the 11B guidelines well above what they are presently because the Prosecutors could argue that the huge volume of material required for disclosure of simple speeding offences had over-burdened their offices.

Reflections wrote:

5. Why not group police radar/lidar in with the above?

It is. It's just production of the paperwork to the defendant that is "missing." If the device has both an internal circuit check and an external check where the device is activated and a comparable speed readout is given, particularly against another calibrated device (e.g. calibrated speedometer) I'd say that should be sufficient for a court to accept that the device was working properly. If, however, the only test is an internal circuit check, I agree that is not sufficient. Then again, how do we know the test was done properly? Do we need video evidence?

Reflections wrote:

7. >>However, why have the courts come to believe that a machine, a computer no less, is infallible<<. Computers are only as smart as their programmers.

Agreed somewhat, but you could also have a lab or a technician improperly calibrate a device. I don't think they believe it is infallible, otherwise they wouldn't require before-and-after tests. And between calibrations, the device could be put in environmental conditions where it doesn't work as well, etc.

IMO, a sole internal check is not sufficient, like I've said before. If, however, both the internal circuit check and an external speed check shows the device is working properly, I don't see why a conviction should be quashed solely because additional information that the device was working properly was not provided to the defendant. They've got the officer's visual observation of the speed, backed up by the device. Calibration records or not, we're still relying on the testimony of the officer. How do we know the calibration is not just a bench-test and a couple of whacks of a tuning fork? Does it involve pointing the device at vehicles going a known speed? At that point, we'll need calibration documentation and the testimony of the inspector or lab technician.

Reflections wrote:

When it is possible for me to lose my license and car for a week, the gov't need to be more accountable for the inconvienience's it wishes to enact on the people it serves.

I think you know where I stand on the stunt driving law. However, we're still back to the issue of "what if" the officer misuses the calibrated device and a vehicle that was going 48 over registers at 51 over, or if the officer happens to be someone like Dennis Mahoney-Bruer and gets a reading of 135, but says the driver was going 155. Any sort of up-front penalty except, maybe, a 24-hour roadside licence suspension to get a drunk off the road, or impounding of an uninsured vehicle, or a vehicle being driven by an unlicensed/suspended driver, is something I do not support. It's too open to abuse. Calibration of the device, to me, doesn't solve that problem.

Well, Bear said it over there in another thread, the FCC/IC is in the manual............ why would the Crown not simply produce the manual, hell have the officer bring them into the courtroom. From what I see in the devices I use, the calibration sets forth a "few" calculations on which the entire measurement process is based. We have yet to see a straight forward case where posturing and courtroom BS is not invovled. Just one case where you can sit down with all the parties, police, gun manufacturer's, JP, a couple of independant engineer's and show the entire paper trail. What throws the monkey wrench into the calibration issue is that there is not 1 single case, start to finish, that explores all the aspects of radar/lidar and the possible error's that can be attributed to calibration. Plus the calibrated speedometer should be requalified if there is a change to the vehicle, i.e. snow tires installed.

There is a term in the engineering world called "Stacked Tolerances". If all the parts in a process are to the high side of their limits, or low side, then there could be issues trying to assemble them. Now, what the world depends upon is the law of averages and it "usually" works out in the long run. Let's say that there is a gun that always reads "a little" high, most of the time...... law of averages. There is always that 1 time out of 100 that there could be an error that goes beyond "manufacturers spec" and should be examined. The simple fact that the court system treats speed measuring devices with the unquestionable standards it does opens the door for errors to precipitate. Isn't it the courts main function to remove doubt? It seems it does nothing more then add to it in this case....

Waiting for rebutle,

Reflections.

The point of ensuring proper INDEPENDENT calibrations are done and documentation is maintained to police speed measurement devices is to remove any question on that issue. If these were always done and readily available upon request, the courts would soon blanket stipulate that unless there was concrete evidence to the contrary, the speed measuring devices would be taken as accurate. No more fishing expedition disclosure requests for manuals/calibration/measurement documentation, the officer would simply note the last calibration date shown on the unit sticker, and their own daily testing. Get it all out in the open, including the "patented" software algorithms and it's DONE.

Just because the courts have been "making do" with the haphazard and piecemeal information they have been given so far doesn't make those rulings correct.

Glad someone else floated Mahoney-Breur, as it seems this is not the only case where officers are being found to have badly abused the HTA172 roadside powers. I am personally aware of a pending case where the officer laid stunt charges that were totally 100% bogus, and there is independent video and other physical evidence to prove it. To read the officer's notes, you'd think the driver was a total scoff-law. The officer accused the driver of doing what the officer himself did.

Calibrations/documentation can't fix outright fraud, but the regimen that an ISO-type system imposes reduces the ability for operators to fake results or the tendency fall prey to observational bias. Good cops should want as many safeguards as possible in place to prevent the "bad apples" from despoiling a noble calling.

Stacked tolerances seldom enter into calibration, particularly where only a single measurement is involved. The measured speed doesn't have to physically "fit" to another quantity or item. Whenever possible, calibration is done under the Rule of Ten. For example, for radar/lidar with a read out accurate/precise to +/- 1.0 kph, the instrument used to calibrate it should be proven accurate/precise to +/- 0.1 kph.

and i want to ensure that any draft that i purchase is exactly 20oz too....and i have a pack of portebella mushrooms in the fridge and says 680gms, which was the same as the pack beside, i want to know who ensures those are accurate also, like who puts in the small mushroom or the larger one to make it that amount and when what their qualifications are....this will never end

Ah yes, the "ad absurdium" tactic. OK, I'll play...

When you the mushroom consumer stands a chance of paying a hefty fine or even going to jail because the person weighing your fungi has his/her finger on the scale and enjoys defacto legal immunity, maybe you'll be singing another tune.

My 2 cents:

Radar cops in Toronto have their gun pointed before the car comes.

I guess they visualize it through the lens.

I listen to and watch a lot of baseball games.

The announcers will say "the radar gun here is juiced"

With this they mean a pitchers throw speed is higher (or lower) in this park then what is shown on the radar gun.

I don't know if they use the same gun but they know how to change the result.

Cheers

Viper1

baseball - they can't change the result. Sure speed of pitches have lots of factors also, humidity, the 1st pitch and not warmed up, 110th pitch where running out of steam, 57th pitch where just didnt grip the ball just right or put the exact spin on the ball etc.. 80th pitch with all perfect technique etc

hwybear wrote:

baseball - they can't change the result. Sure speed of pitches have lots of factors also, humidity, the 1st pitch and not warmed up, 110th pitch where running out of steam, 57th pitch where just didnt grip the ball just right or put the exact spin on the ball etc.. 80th pitch with all perfect technique etc

It is not the result I mean it is the gun reading I am talking about.

X player throws at EG: 160 kph with gun from toronto

Same player throws in another park and can only get 155 or gets 165 with same motion.

I am going to call and double check this after tonight's game.

Cheers

Viper1

viper: the gun is effected by cosine law, same as traffic radar..... same goes for hardest shot in hockey, shoot at the gun directly = more accurate reading

Anywho, the transparentcy of the "entire" testing and calibration process could be improved and thus the "fishing" expeditions would end.

K Reflections, here's the rebuttal...

Reflections wrote:

Well, Bear said it over there in another thread, the FCC/IC is in the manual

If the courts find it fit to require disclosure of the entire manual, so be it. However, posturing and courtroom BS is entirely what the courtroom consists of. We have an adversarial-style justice system rather than an inquisitional one... not ideal, but anyway...

The courts looked at what they take as the baseline requirements for conviction. The testing of the device before and after the stop is what the courts consider to be reasonable, going back over 50 years. This includes cases like R. v. Grainger (1958), D'Astous v. Baie-Comeau, R. v. Vancrey, etc. Even if the courts were to agree, the device is still subject to the human error/biases/whatever of the operator. Furthermore, it may actually work against defendants. Sounds strange, but just bear with me for a second.

Right now, they require the officers to test the device before and after the stop. If they require the disclosure of the certificates (which are already available), it could make it harder for a defendant to advance a defence that the device was not properly working at the time. JP: "The device was calibrated, you've got the record, the officer says it was working correctly... what is YOUR problem?" Defendant: "But your Worship, the officer did not test it in accordance with the procedures established by the manufacturer, and did not use it in accordance with the procedures..." JP, dismissively: "It was calibrated, the record is out there, so its reading was reliable. I don't need to hear anything more. Finding of guilty." Actually, come to think of it, some states require the calibration records but don't require the "before and after" testing, which is a road I do NOT want to see Canada go down.

Reflections wrote:

What throws the monkey wrench into the calibration issue is that there is not 1 single case, start to finish, that explores all the aspects of radar/lidar and the possible error's that can be attributed to calibration.

That may be true, however, if the device has had both an internal and (particularly) external test that shows a valid reading, that's more important than calibration, in my opinion. And we're looking at cases all the way back to R. v. Grainger (1958). To me, the external check is the most critical component. If two devices, both measuring speed, do not show the same result, one of them is malfunctioning. Both of them are calibrated (speedometer and radar/lidar). So if the reading is out, the device is not usable. And yes, I agree that when a cruiser gets new tires or whatever, the speedometer should be re-calibrated. I believe that they are, but cannot say with certainty.

Reflections wrote:

There is a term in the engineering world called "Stacked Tolerances". If all the parts in a process are to the high side of their limits, or low side, then there could be issues trying to assemble them. Now, what the world depends upon is the law of averages and it "usually" works out in the long run. Let's say that there is a gun that always reads "a little" high, most of the time...... law of averages. There is always that 1 time out of 100 that there could be an error that goes beyond "manufacturers spec" and should be examined. The simple fact that the court system treats speed measuring devices with the unquestionable standards it does opens the door for errors to precipitate. Isn't it the courts main function to remove doubt? It seems it does nothing more then add to it in this case....

Remove reasonable doubt, yes. But the devices are calibrated. They have the records at the detachments. The production of that paperwork in court, to me, is a minor detail, if anything. As far as honesty goes, the inclusion of the certificate of calibration in a disclosure package does not answer any of my questions in a speeding case. We're getting into "beyond a shadow of a doubt" territory there. I'm still far more concerned about the device's performance "the day of." For that, the officer has to have an appropriate level of knowledge and be able to properly use the device. In my opinion, the calibration record doesn't touch the core of the case: Did the device work on the day in question, did the officer take the visual observation first, and did the officer use the device properly and stop the correct vehicle?