Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

So in 2010 Decatur released new Canadian versions of their radar manuals that removed the requirement to test with tuning forks and the requirement for officer to do tracking history.

Does anybody have any information on how this came about?

I have a suspicion that it was probably a "change your manual or we won't buy your units anymore" type of deal, as the USA manuals have never had the same changes made to them.

Could the OPP have been involved as they would probably be the largest users in Ontario? Or maybe it RCMP or some other Canadian police force that was involved in getting the change made?

Anyways I may make some freedom of information requests to see if it's possible to track down the source of the change.

Thanks

Don't they now calibrate them using pacing on the speedometer? I think I read somewhere that not calibrating it using tuning forks was not a problem anymore if they wrote in the notes it was calibrated at the beginning and end of shift on the speedo. I also recall getting that from officers notes in the past.

They just have to follow the test procedure listed in the manual before shift and after shift, which usually just involves pressing a TEST button and making a note that it passed.

However my point is that the USA manuals still have the requirement to use Tuning Forks and the requirement to do a Visual Tracking History, however in the 2010 these requirements suddenly got taken out of the Canadian manual.

So my question is why? Would Decatur just randomly decide to remove something from Canada's manual but leave it USA manual? I doubt it! So I would like to investigate and try to find out who got them to modify their Canadian manuals!

I recommend reading this decision in full; it may answer a lot of your questions.

R. v. Howse, 2012 ONCJ 517 (CanLII)

iFly55 wrote:

I recommend reading this decision in full; it may answer a lot of your questions. R. v. Howse, 2012 ONCJ 517 (CanLII)

So I understand that the courts have decided that an officer merely has to follow the test procedure in the manual, which no longer involves tuning forks, and I am not disputing that.

But this still does not answer the "who" asked for it to be changed in Canada and "why" did they ask for it to be changed.

The Judge says this in paragraph 25-27 with regards to tuning forks:

" Third, the radar tests. The Appellant alleges that only in Ontario is the Genesis II Select radar not tested with a tuning fork. At the trial the Appellants counsel stopped just short of alleging a fraud perpetrated by the government against the people of Ontario. The Appellant submits that the mere fact that the manual does not call for the use of a tuning fork test in Ontario requires that the prosecution explain this omission or else the charge cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellant brings no expert evidence as to any effect of such an omission on the accuracy of the radar device, only making broad sweeping submissions that if the manual is different in Ontario this must be explained by the prosecution. With respect the learned justice of the peace below properly stated and applied the applicable test here: did the officer properly test and operate the device according to the manufacturers specifications. Quite properly she answered this question in the affirmative on the evidence before her.

It seems to me that the Appellants submission errs in not understanding where the onus lies here. If the evidence establishes, as here, that the officer operated the device properly and according to the manufacturers specifications, then the court is entitled to rely on this evidence unless it is rebutted by some evidence bringing that reliance into question. It is not for the crown to negative every possible factor that could bring the evidence into question. The evidentiary onus shifts to the Appellant who is alleging a basis for an error that lies outside the manufacturers manual. This does not affect the overall onus in every such case that requires the crown to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Plainly put, the fact that a tuning fork is used in other jurisdictions to test this device is irrelevant provided that the device is, as here, operated in accordance with the manual."

In fact notice the Judge says "The Appellant brings no expert evidence as to any effect of such an omission on the accuracy of the radar device" ...

Had this person had some kind of evidence as to WHY the tuning fork test had been removed from the manual, then this argument might be given some weight.

So that is what I am after ... any information that led up to the manual being changed.

I just read thru The Law Of Speeding And Speed Detection Devices (Third Edition) by A. Shakoor Manraj & Paul D. Haines.

Notice what they say under Improper Calibration in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of Chapter 10 (Major Factors That Create Faulty Radar Use):

Basically they say that external testing by a tuning fork IS absolutely necessary.

If the Howse case could have brought Manraj and Haines in as expert witnesses, they may have been able to win that case!

That was published eight and a half years ago. Perhaps their opinion has changed as technology has changed.

I can assure you, that book is correct and nothing has changed.

I am a calibration manager by profession and I do work on electronic equipment on a daily basis, all electronic measuring equipment are subject to drift and require regular calibration and adjustments to meet published specs.

The reason that part of the manual was removed is because Ontario requested a "customized" version that meets "their requirements"

If you manage to get anything to prove that Ontario requested this change to the manual, you have climbed the mount Everest, good luck, I would love to see that.

Good luck

@observer135 - Do you have any information on Ontario's request, as in who it was (like OPP or some other government division) that asked for the customized version? News articles? Forum posts?

I understand that I am indeed trying to climb Mount Everest, but I cannot find any information as to anybody else having tried to go this route before. Making a Freedom Of Information request to the wrong organization will indeed lead to getting nothing in return, so would be nice if I had an idea on where to start!

I am sending an FOIR (Freedom of Information Request) to see if I can find out any more details. It's a long shot but worth a try.

Anybody else want to send one as well? It only costs $5 and if they receive more than one at a time it might make them go searching a little quicker for the info.

I have attached a copy of my FOIR.

Just remember. $5 is the application fee. That doesn't include what they charge for the actual copies of documents.

Well I guess I only need to worry about that if they actually find something!

Does anyone have a copy of the manuals used for the guns in ontario(or canada) before the 2010 change?

I think (but am not 100% sure) that it was just the same manual in the US and Canada and that there was not a specific seperate one for Canada.

When they put the Canada version out, they just added "not intended for use in Canada" to the US version.

Type the following into Google exactly as I have it:

"genesis ii select radar" site:scribd.com

Thanks jsherk. I found it. So this is the version for Canada as of 25/Aug/2010. Do you have a copy of the version before the revision in 2010?

No, but with that same search above, one of the other results is the US version.

Okay, too bad. would be great to see the before and after

BTW...have you heard back on your FOIP request at all?

All I got back was letter saying "we got your request". I would not anticipate a very fast response, but will post when I hear something.

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

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.

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.

The road test is in the manual.

Not for the Genesis Handheld Directional (GHD/Scout). There is only requirement to press test button and nothing else.

But I do see that the road test requirement is in the Genesis II Select manual.

Well so far in this thread it was only discussing the Genesis II, of course you don't do a road test on a stationary radar.

I guess I got my manuals and threads confused... sorry!

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)

A road test, for moving radar, is 100% required. It always has been required and always will be required.

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

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.

1- That's a Saskatewan case and isn't binding in Ontario at all.

2- It appears that whatever radar they were using, still required the use of tuning forks for testing. (Some brands still do)