Lidar test before & after means?

As I understood, general opinion on this forum radar(as well lidar) should be tested twice-before and after. but I'm confused

1/ Is it enough before and after shift, or police officer must to do it before/after EACH catch.

2/ When PO make notes in ticket ? In time off issuing? How possible he wrote time of test 7.00 AND 19.00, if he stopped me in daytime?

Could somebody clarify?

1) before and after each shift is what the manual says.

2) tested at 7AM and 7PM. Therefore, if you were stopped between that time, it's a valid test.

It only needs to be done once at beginning of shift and once at end of shift, so 7am and 7pm is correct according to manual.

If you read the case laws though, it could be argued that they need to also note the actual outcome of the tests, not just the time they tested it. So you are looking for something like "7am TESTED OK" or "7am TESTED & PASSED" as opposed to just "7am TESTED". Now to win this argument though, takes a very skilled cross-examiner who can bring doubt to something that is not specifically in the notes.

1/ It's quote from this forum :

" And here is another lower Ontario Court of Justice case that references Vancrey and specifically says "Therefore, I find that it is necessary for a laser device to be tested by a police officer both before and after a speed enforcement stop."

R. v. Schlesinger, 2007 ONCJ 266 (CanLII)

http://canlii.ca/t/1rsg6 "

before STOP, not before SHIFT

2/ and again, if ticket time 15.00, how there could be info about test at 19.00?

Perhaps the wording could be a little more clear in the case law, but testing a device at the start and end of a shift would still meet the testing requirement as per the cited case. Keep in mind the Courts aren't stating the device needs to be tested immediately, just at some point after the stop.

As for the notes, my guess is that the officer made a later entry regarding the second test time. What type of notes are they? Typed? Handwritten? In a notebook or on the back of a ticket?

I am pretty sure that you would have a very hard time convincing a JP or Judge... "before and after stop" means anytime before stop and anytime after stop from beginning to end of shift. It does not have to be before and after every enforcement action as long as it was done at start of shift and end of shift.

You have to read more than one case law to really understand this idea.

And in the Vancrey decision the officer noted the speeding at 11:24am but the first test at 11:25am meaning it was not tested at all (according to notes) before the enforcement action.

somehow my answer disappeared.

Thank everybody. I 'll make deeper research case law.

Question not from topic: is it usual to pull over( PO was behind) in last day of month to check validity of sticker?

The courts have decided that a police officer can pull you over anytime to check your license, insurance and registration, so yes they can pull you over any day of the month.

Now if you mean that your sticker was said JAN 2016 and they pulled you over on Jan 31 to check if it was valid, then yes this is also legal. Many do not realize that their sticker expires on their birthday not on the last day of the month, so this is valid reason to pull somebody over and check it.

thank, jsherk.I understand, that legally PO has right. Question is it usual practice or somewhat usual to stop just because last day- no other reason.

I highly doubt an officer is going to come up to your car and say "The reason I'm stopping you is because it's the last day of the month." Usually if you get stopped, it's because either A) You're breaking the law or B) They suspect you're breaking the law. As Argyll posted somewhere before, police have every right to stop you once you're on a public road. You have to play by their rules, not your own.

Egor wrote:

thank, jsherk.I understand, that legally PO has right. Question is it usual practice or somewhat usual to stop just because last day- no other reason.

Plates and permits can typically be queried from in car terminals to find out if they're expired prior to stopping a vehicle. But databases have regular downtimes for maintenance and terminals don't always work. Officers also know that unless the person is driving a commercial vehicle, there's a very good chance the plate is expired if it's the last day of the month.

So with that being said, there's not really a definitive answer to your question. It's really going to come down to the officer, they're assignment, how busy they are and how much of a grace period they might give motorists regarding expired plates.

If it's the last day of the month then they could just be stopping you to wish you a Happy Birthday.........or a ticket

The old theory that police have a quota to meet and it is the end of the moth so they are targeting drivers is no longer valid/true.

Since the province downloaded POA court administrations and their cost onto municipalities, they also gave the revenue from POA offences to them as well (revenue neutral download)

Fo this reason, most municipalities have created "traffic enforcement" units, designated officers that are stationed throughout problem areas to ticket speeders, stop sign violators etc. These officers do it everyday of the month, not just last day of the month.

There is a section of the road in Markham, I see radar trap all the time, most often very early in the morning (6-8 am) because this is when due to light traffic most people misjudge their own speed and do not look at the dash and get stopped.

As for lidar/radar testing, I say this based on over 20 years of experience in electronics repair, calibration and design, you will have a very hard time (and by that I mean next to impossible) convincing me that the device was tested at 7 am and it worked fine, then tested at 7 pm and it worked fine, but it is doubtful it was working fine at 3 pm because it was not tested at 3:05 pm to verify it was still working fine.

Electronics are subject to drift, not question about that, they required regular checks and calibrations, there are difference specs for different time spans, 24hrs, 30 days and 1 year are most common, some also will provide 2 year specs.

Note these are uncertainty specs, each and every piece of equipments has an uncertainty, the uncertainty gets worst as the time is extended from the time the unit was calibrated.

In case you are scratching your head asking what is uncertainty, the old term "accuracy" was replaced by uncertainty many years ago, uncertainty is the doubt you are left with in the measurement after you have applied all corrections associated with the calibration of the device.

Now, if you can get an JP to understand that and not blindly accept manufacturers specifications, then you have won your case because simply put, police never apply any corrections to the measurement.

Note, truncated readings are not considered "correction"

"but it is doubtful it was working fine at 3 pm because it was not tested at 3:05 pm to verify it was still working fine." So, the radar was working ok at 7am, was not working at 3pm and it was working again at 7pm? Is that what you are saying?

Even though the officer may not have tested the radar at 3pm, the radar does an internal circuitry test, without operator input, about every 10 minutes anyway. If there were a problem, an error message would be displayed.

I helped a friend with a +49 where the officer did not do a lidar test after his shift. OPP 407 detachment do not do lidar tests after, and the newmarket prosecutor had no problems with this. We ultimately took a plea-deal for S182(2) disobey sign in order to avoid trial.

The prosecution argues that there is a difference between lidar and radar; radar manual states you need to test before and after. If you take a look at any lidar manual in north america, not a single one suggests any other tests other than the "before" test.

If the officer only does a before test on the lidar, he's still testing the device and making sure it's operating correctly "according to the manufacturer's specification/recommendation"; most JPs in Ontario would be more than satisfied with this.

More info: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/post36385.html

Having said that, an argument "can" be made that an after test is required. But this would require bags of money, because the only people who would hear that argument would be at the appellate courts.

You might be lucky and have JP Cuthbertson who requires both before/after for lidar. Also do not be fooled with R. v. Schlesinger, i've yet to see a single JP in the GTA who didn't toss his decision into the bin. Don't even bother reading anything from that aloud in the court room, it's not binding or persuasive.

When you do case-law research, make sure that you pay attention as to whether the decision is being made for radar or lidar. There is a distinction.

I would only advise going through that route with proper representation.

It does not cost bags of money to appeal... you need to pay for the transcripts and take another day off work.

But if the manual says they have to do it both before and after, then you should definitely present this to the JP. And if the JP does not accept it, it should be fairly easy to win at an appeal in front of a Judge.

I agree with jsherk, if the lidar manual says to test before and after then that should be presented to the JP. If the JP does not accept that, on appeal that would be a win.

The problem is that lidar manuals in north america do not say to test before and after. They only indicate a "before" test.

I have never had to deal with LIDAR myself and have therefore not read any manuals. The courts have ruled that a proper test for RADAR is to follow the manufacturers recommended instructions. It should therefore be easy to argue the same applies to LIDAR. Now if indeed the lidar manuals only recommend the before test, then it is going to be very hard to convince a JP it should also be after. A few JP's may agree but probably most will not. This is where an appeal would become more costly because you would need a very good lawyer to argue the case in front of a Judge and then you may or may not win.

When I said appeal does not have to be costly above, I was assuming that LIDAR manual had the same test requirements as RADAR of before and after. So if indeed LIDAR manuals only recommend the before test, then it will be significantly harder and costlier to win.

I am not saying I agree with courts decisions to simply defer to whatever the manufacturers say, but I understand that until the currently rulings are challenged, it is an uphill battle.

iFly55, what is it " a plea-deal for S182(2) disobey sign " ?