Radar Manual- No tuning forks and No tracking history

Moderators: Radar Identified, Reflections, admin, hwybear, Decatur, bend







jsherk
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

by: jsherk on
Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:12 pm

So here is a case in Saskatchewan appeals court that is a step in the right direction for tuning forks.

R v Abrametz, 2013 SKQB 105 (original appeal)
http://canlii.ca/t/fwsg0

Abrametz v Canada, 2014 SKCA 84 (appeal of the appeal)
http://canlii.ca/t/g8n7b
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++


screeech
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:20 am

by: screeech on
Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:51 pm

Not all U.S. States required the tuning fork test, even when we did. It was either Michigan or Florida that did not require the test to be done. I am sure Ontario stopped using the tuning forks back in '07. Calibration is done on a technician's bench somewhere, police officers test the device according to the manufacturers instructions, they don't calibrate it. Just turning on the device is not the only test to be done during the testing phase. They shouldn't make it seem like the police are only turning it on and hitting the test button as the whole test, it's not. The road test phase is very important. If the road test is not done, as well, then the device was not tested properly.


jsherk
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

by: jsherk on
Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:58 pm

As far as being tested on a technicians bench, if you try a Freedom of Information Request to any police force in Ontario to get copies of "repair, maintenace, testing, or calibration records" for any radar device, you will be told that they do not have any and therefore do not have to give to you what they do not have.

I agree that a road test would be an extra test that would help prove reliability, but manuals do not require it. However if the manual only says they have to press the test button (and nothing about a road test), then that is all the officers are doing... turn it on, press test, DONE!

And since that is all the manual says, that is all the JP's and Judge's require them to prove they did.
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++










screeech
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 10:20 am

by: screeech on
Fri Oct 23, 2015 11:41 pm

Tuning forks have not been used here since '07. Even when they were required here, they were not required in all U.S. states, either Florida or Michigan never required the tuning fork test (I forget which one). Tracking history is still required, they just took it out of the manual (I am a little stumped on that one, it's not in the manual yet it is still required)




jsherk
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

by: jsherk on
Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:12 am

I am aware of the issue with tuning forks. The purpose of this thread was to try and track down who decided to get the tuning fork test removed from the canadian manual even though it is still in the usa manual.

Do you have case law stating that tracking history is still required even though it is not in the manual?

And by tracking history do you mean "I observed vehicle going faster than posted speed" as opposed to a visual estimate of the speed?

Thanks
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++


jsherk
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 1722
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:18 pm

by: jsherk on
Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:51 pm

So here is an interesting approach for stationary/handheld radar:

In cross-examination of the officer you can ask if they used tuning forks to test the device to which they will say no.
You can then ask if they tested it against a vehicle of known speed to which they will also say no (since it is not required by the manual for stationary radar).
In closing arguments, you can then use the case law I posted above (Abrametz v Canada, 2014 SKCA 84) and reference paragraph 25 where it talks about using tuning forks as a substitute for checking against a vehicle of known speed. Since neither test was performed, there is no proof that device was accurate.
+++ This is not legal advice, only my opinion +++




Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests