Received Disclosure, couple questions.

In my disclosure the officer states he is using a radar and stalker DSR 2X in moving opposite direction mode. He states he was moving at 92km/h the opposite direction of me and clocked me at 125km/h* in a 80km/h zone. He states I was approx. 250m away when he spotted me and within this time he confirmed his patrol speed vs his cruiser speedometer and he also checked Doppler audio and visual observations. He then locked the radar at approx. 200m away. He states that is he is a "Martin qualified operator and instructor" and his last training was May 2011. He states that he tested the radar at 1206pm (12min before my ticket was printed, I was pulled over for at least 10 min so presumably he tested the radar AFTER he pulled me over) and he states it was tested again at 422pm.

My questions:

#1 If he was travelling 92km/hr did he honestly have time to verify all the things he states he verified in such a short time?

#2 Shouldn't the radar have been tested at the beginning of his shift? I really doubt he tested the radar just minutes before he pulled me over while he was driving down the road. I strongly thing that he tested it after he pulled me over.

#3 What is a martin qualified operator and instructor? And how often should an officer be trained considering his last training was in 2011.

#4 This officer was from Napanee and I was in Trenton(Quinte West) approx. 30min away from Napanee and they have their own OPP detachment. I believe he was a supervisor as he was driving the large Tahoe style truck rather than a cruiser. I now need to travel to Napanee for my court date. This officer was obviously not on patrol outside of his area he just happened to be there for some reason. This again leads me to believe that he may not have properly tested his radar as he wasn't planning on issuing speeding tickets.

#5 In the disclosure he does not state how he tested the radar, only that it was tested at specific times. Should I request further disclosure regarding this or use this as ammo for my trial?

#6 The radar manual they sent me only talks about doing a simple self test where you push a button and the radar shows some lights and beeps if everything is ok. Are they not supposed to do any more in depth testing? Tuning forks? speedometer calibration? Maintenance logs?

There is mention of a directional moving vehicle test but no mention of whether it was completed by the officer.

EDIT: After downloading and reading the full DSR 2X manual it states that in moving mode it is capable of monitor 2 of the 4 zones(Front same, Front opposite, Rear same, Rear opposite). Would the officer have had to have this set manually to monitor Front opposite lane? OR would that be a default setting they operate in?

Thanks for any input.

After download a full copy of the radar manual it seems that tuning fork calibration is a required for testing. However, the manual I am reading appears to be an American version. I am going request that I receive a full copy of the manual due to discrepancies but it states in the American manual that the directional moving test is not a substitute for the tuning fork test, it is a "good overall indication of proper operation of the unit".

The American manual also has a page in the testing section that talks about proper calibration by a technician that was not included in my disclosure along with the pages about tuning fork testing.

1. 92km/h is 25.5 m/s and 125km/h is 34.7 m/s so in 1 second you would be 60m closer together (so in 1 second you went from 250m apart to 190m apart). So according to officer, he did all that stuff in 1 second. Is it possible? Maybe. Would I try to bring doubt in this area in cross-examination? Absolutely.

2. As long as the radar is tested at some point before they pulled you over and at some point after they pulled you over, then this is all their notes need to show. Assuming the officer tested it after he pulled you over, there is no way for you to prove that outside of the officer admitting to doing it. The officer could very well have tested it just prior to pulling you over, as you do not know where he was or what he was doing before hand.

3.

- I have no idea what a martin qualified instructor is.

- If the officer has not be re-trained since 2011, this is good area to attack. I believe there is case law stating that an officer needs to re-train every two years. Hopefully somebody else on forum can verify this.

4. Again, outside of the officer admitting to lying about the radar test, this is not going to help you.

5. The notes should at least state the time tested and that it PASSED or was OK. Personally I use the testing procedure in the manual and grill the officer on each specific test listed. For example, if a road test is listed in the manual and they say they did it, then I would ask "where were you when you did the road test?", "exactly what speed did your speedometer and the radar read?", and "how long did you run this test for?"

6.

- The courts have decided that as long as the officer does the test listed in the manual, then that is sufficient. If tuning forks are listed as part of the test then it is required, but if they are not listed then they are not required. Personally if a road test is required, then I attack the speedometer accuracy and calibration because how can you say the radar is accurate when it matched the speedometer, but we don't know if the speedometer if accurate, so both could be reading off by the same error.

- When the officer testifies, they will usually say they tested radar per the manual and it was okay. In cross-examination, you would ask them to go thru each step of the testing procedure that they performed. If they did the road test portion, then they will usually say they did it and I would then ask the questions I mentioned in 5. above. If they do not mention it, then I would ask them to read the testing procedure from the pages in the manual that they provided and then use the fact that it says they should have done the road test but they did not say they did it to prove radar test was completed properly.

FYI Most manufacturers have removed the tuning fork test from the Canadian version of the manual so it is no longer required. Many of us disagree with that decision, however until somebody can afford to get an expert witness on the stand to contradict the manufacturers removal, you are wasting your time worrying about this issue.

Thanks for answering!

So yea, the officer marked in his typed notes that he is a Martin qualified operator and instructor and his last training was 2011 but still not sure exactly what that means. Hopefully someone knows because google doesn't come up with anything.

Can you scan and post the disclosure you got, including all pages of the manual?

Here you go.

Another thing I didn't mention is that my original trial was 18 May and then about 2 weeks before the trial I received a notice saying it had been moved to 12 May and I then contacted the court to get it changed because I was away for work on that date and had arranged the day off for 18 May. It took an entire week of communication with the court clerk to get it changed and in the end she said I took too long and they wouldn't grant a change. I complained and they changed it to August.

I'm in the military and may be deployed to Kuwait for 6mths before August. Any change the Justice of the Peace will throw this ticket out if I explain that?

EDIT: can't upload .pdf files apparently

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mc0eu2t5fyw3 ... 7y2Fa?dl=0

This might work

Added them to my Dropbox but I think you need to be signed up to it. It's free online storage site.

I doubt the JP will throw it out because you are in the military or being deployed. The only thing you can do is to ask for trial to moved again because you are being deployed. If they move it out further though, it will not count against right to speedy trial because it is your request and your issue that is causing it to be moved.

The manual they provided does appear to have the tuning forks portion removed, however gettting at least the Table Of Contents would be important in my opinion in order to verify there are no other sections with regards to testing.

Since the officer did not provide any hand written notes, make sure that when officer is on the stand and wants to read from notes, that they are only using exactly what was provided to you in disclosure and nothing else. If they try to read from other notes, then object that it was not provided in disclosure.

What sticks out to me in the disclosure is that the officer noted the test times only, but did not note whether the radar actually passed or failed the tests. You then have the ability to challenge the testing based on "usual practice". Even if they actually say they did it, you can question them on the fact that it is specifically omitted from their notes. You will need to look up some case laws on "usual practice". These basically say that just because the officer said the radar passed the tests and they say that is their usual practice to note if it did not pass the test, then there is still reasonable doubt as to whether it was done or not, if it is not in their notes.

Thanks for the advice!

"Martin" may be an aurocorrect issue. It may actually be Master operator and instructor.

Regardless, instructor/operators requalify every five years.

Of note, whether the officer says "passed" wouldn't be something to hang your hat on. Who's going to use a radar that failed? It wouldn't operate anyway if it failed.

I think you have a good argument if there is nothing about testing and the officer says they always do it. But if they have noted they did it then I think the argument is weak at best to say that it might have failed. If it failed then that would have been noted.

Martin is the officers last name. You can see it at the top of your ticket, J. Martin and again on the Trial Notice, handwritten above the prosecutor check box.