Self-testing devices

I have a lot of issues with the idea that speed measuring devices like radar and lidar guns are using computer generated simulations to test themselves that they are working properly. The manufacturer is making a claim that a device can test itself. Where's the proof that it works?

Is it in the manual or is it simply an unsubstantiated claim? Do police purchasing departments make comparison tests on radar/lidar guns before they buy them in bulk? Do they independently test the device to make sure the simulation actually works?

At trial, the cop testifies he pressed the self-test button because he was instructed to. Tuning forks provided independent verification that the device was working properly. Without them you have to rely on the device telling you it's working properly without independent scrutiny or evaluation.

If a cop pulled over a driver and asked for his license could he say, "Oh don't worry, I tested myself and I'm qualified to drive!"

Where do you want to stop with this one.......

- gas station pumps, I never ever see one drop of gas that alledgedly goes in

- weigh scales at grocery stores checkouts, they seem to hide the old fashioned scales away in the stores I have seen so I can confirm weights

- property survey, another instrument used, nothing on my survey says the device was working properly

- warning lights in cars.....are they put in to fictiously come on to gain more service?

- cellphone minutes.....how can I tell I drove one block too far and now have to pay long distance charges when someone calls me

- BIG ONE - DRAFT BEER - how do I know I got a 20 ounce beer? Maybe it is 19 or later in the night 17, there are no "fill lines" on my mug! We all know they use "thick" glassed mugs to make the drink "look" bigger. What the hell is an ounce anyway? Then some come in pints....(just looking up) English pint is 20ounces, but US pint is 16 ounces....WTF?

- gas, water and hydro meters....they are not tested either....just keep spinning! See the numbers moving, when were they even calibrated? or tested for that matter? At least radar is done by someone twice a shift and every 15minutes there after by the unit.

- vehicle speedometers.....where is the daily test for that? No car on the market fires up and checks the speedometer. No certification for them. Why are police vehicles the only ones that have "speedometer certified" written right on the speedometer? are the rest not certified in a "conspiracy" by automakers to generate income for governments to bail them out later from fines produced?

Bear you've given some great examples (but not for the reasons you might think).

Most of the devices you have mentioned (OK maybe not poured beer) are subject to independent testing, scrutiny and regulation. For example, gas station pumps are inspected by Measurment Canada.

I've had my hydro meter inspected. They take it down, the homeowner is welcome to watch the independent test; if there is a discrepancy, you get a refund.

And anyone who has owned a VW knows that the warning lights are a joke.

The point I'm making is that in these examples, there's an outlet to independently test the device to make sure it was working properly. Why should radar/lidar guns be exempt from this scrutiny in court?

I think it's a valid question!

I'd be interested to know how the computer simulates the speed without something moving in front of the radar antenna. I think it's an internal test only without verifying the antenna operation/integrity.

Every radar I've used, including weather radar equipment and radar altimeters, etc., had a test mode. The manufacturer told us to test it before use but this was only an internal check that verified the processor, computers, etc., were working properly. It checked the circuits and system integrity. It never physically put something in front of the radar. The antenna wasn't turned on by the test. To make absolutely sure the entire unit was functioning properly including the antenna, we had to point the radar at something (rainshower, building, whatever) and verify that it worked with the radar on, called a confidence check. On two separate occasions, after a satisfactory test, the radar showed something completely whacked-out when it was turned on... so we returned to the gate. Infrequent, but it happens.

The training I've received always harped on the fact that internal radar tests never checked the antenna operation, no matter how sophisticated the device was, hence the need for a confidence check. I'll send an e-mail to a manufacturer asking them what the internal test does on their devices since I've never used a police-type radar specifically... probably won't get an answer but we'll find out. I'm curious as to what their response is...

I'm sure you would have to get an actual person from the company to verify the internal stuff and how it works then.

There is one judgement somewhere about this...don't think it was in Canada....last spring or something. The person from Decatur did testify in the court.

If it were going to court, absolutely! I'm kinda curious if a defendant can establish that the internal test is not sufficient. Probably would depend on the court's willingness to hear the evidence or consider it credible. I don't expect a reply from Decatur.

Some cases from the US... doesn't really apply directly to Ontario but they set precedent there...

Minnesota v. Gerdes (1971) and Wisconsin v. Hanson (1978) both ruled that tuning fork tests were sufficient to verify the radar was working properly. Gerdes also held that the internal test was not sufficient on its own. Long time ago, though, and technology changes. The Colorado Supreme Court stated that the tuning fork test was sufficient and that there was no need to verify the calibration of the fork itself. One TV station in Florida raised considerable questions after they clocked a palm tree doing 86 miles an hour. They showed that an improperly used radar can yield wild results.

Couldn't find the Decatur case except the one with the radar versus GPS.

I may be wrong, but to what I have heard is that tuning forks in themselves are made by using radar.....they keep shaving the metal to the tune of speed "X" on radar.

Even if the above is not the case, the tuning fork potentially could get dings, knicks or even bent over time, thus giving a wrong "tune" to the radar, unit is sent for repair but in reality the fork is wrong and radar correct.

Radar Identified wrote:

I'm kinda curious if a defendant can establish that the internal test is not sufficient. Probably would depend on the court's willingness to hear the evidence or consider it credible.

Some cases from the US... ruled that tuning fork tests were sufficient to verify the radar was working properly. Gerdes also held that the internal test was not sufficient on its own. Long time ago, though, and technology changes.

When the radar gun was first invented it took awhile before it received judicial notice that it could in fact determine speed. Now it's accepted as fact.

The issue then became whether the gun was working properly. It generally became accepted that an independent tuning fork test would remove doubt about that. And to be safe, the fork's calibration was certified on a regular basis as a second level of proof.

Now the manufacturer is attempting to remove these standards with the self-test button. But there isn't any proof that the button works. I think it would be up to the Crown to remove reasonable doubt and prove the test works instead of the defendant having to prove the test doesn't work.

ticketcombat wrote:

Now the manufacturer is attempting to remove these standards with the self-test button. But there isn't any proof that the button works. I think it would be up to the Crown to remove reasonable doubt and prove the test works instead of the defendant having to prove the test doesn't work.

Could this be established as de-facto reverse onus?

hwybear wrote:

I may be wrong, but to what I have heard is that tuning forks in themselves are made by using radar.....they keep shaving the metal to the tune of speed "X" on radar.

Could be... Would think it would make sense, otherwise how would they be able to test the tuning fork before saying "yes it will show speed X."

I have a court case coming up on June10 where I will be defending myself in a speeding case. My first appearance was May25, but was adjourned due to lack of disclosure (radar manual).

I have since received disclosure and have recieved a copy of the radar manual for Decatur Genesis VP Directional. In terms of testing, the manual only mentions a "self test" which does a display test, circuitry test, and speed simulation test. The result is a simple pass or fail. There is no mention of testing with tuning forks.

As you mention above, how do we know this "simulation test" is valid??

This is what the manual says about the simulation test:

"The Genesis VPD verifies speed accuracy using synthesized doppler frequencies corrsponding to a series of four simulated speeds: 25, 50, 75 and 100 when in KM/H mode."

How are we certain this simulation of synthesized doppler frequencies is valid. What if there is a malfunction or error in the simulation? Then the radar would not be accurate. Is not an external test required to prove the unit was functioning properly??

How would I go about challenging this in court? Isn't there case law that requires testing with a tuning fork ?

In D'Astous v. Baie-Comeau (Ville) 1992 CanLII 2956 (QC C.A.), (1992), 74 C.C.C. (3d) 73, the Quebec Court of Appeal again addressed the issue of the evidentiary base necessary for a conviction for speeding based on a radar reading. In that case the court held that judicial notice could be taken of the fact that radar is used to measure the speed of automobiles and that the principle upon which it is based can be found in any encyclopedia. However, in each case, the Crown must still prove that the particular radar device used was operated accurately at the time. To do that the Crown must show:

• The operator was qualified: he followed a course, he passed an exam, he has several months' experience;

• The device was tested before and after the operation;

• The device was accurate as verified by a test and that the tuning fork used was accurate.

Once evidence is led to demonstrate those facts, then the radar reading becomes prima facie evidence of the speed of the vehicle, subject to evidence to the contrary, if any.

The case of R. v. Tummillo, 1998 CanLII 6163 may also be relevent here. This was an appeal and the judge overturned the decision based on a bullshit test of the radar. (http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... i6163.html)

The device used in this case was one approved by the Minister of Justice. It was therefore unnecessary for the Crown to call expert evidence respecting "the function and operation of the speed-timing device or of its efficiency for the purpose of determining the speed at which motor vehicles are being driven." The sole remaining burden on the Crown was to prove that the device was in good working order.

5 The Crown attempted to prove the device to have been in good working order by eliciting from the officer evidence that he conducted three tests of the device to satisfy himself that it was working properly: a fixed-distance zero-velocity test, a scope alignment test and a display test. The officer said that, respectively, these tests were meant to satisfy him that the device was accurately measuring the speed of a moving object, locking on to the object at which it was aimed and communicating its measurements to him.

6 The officer was not, however, qualified as an expert and the sufficiency of the tests to establish the device as being in good working order was not otherwise supported by admissible evidence. Nor is their sufficiency self-evident, as the following description of the fixed-distance zero-velocity test shows: The operator points the laser at a wall or other stationary object from a pre-measured distance. Distance and velocity readings are then taken. The theory is that, if the distance reading equals the pre-measured distance and the velocity reading is zero, the device is in proper order to record the velocity of a moving object.

7 The theory may be correct, but perhaps I, as a scientific layman, can be forgiven for wondering how a test of the devices ability to record a stationary object as one that is not moving proves it to be functioning properly when measuring the speed of a moving object. For the theory to be accepted, there must be, in my opinion, either evidence from an expert or admissible evidence that the tests are those approved by the manufacturer of the device for checking its condition.

8 The legislature itself recognized the need for independent verification that a device relied on in a prosecution was in good working order at the relevant time. By s. 255(4) of the Act, it provided for the appointment of qualified persons as testers and for the reception of a certificate of such a tester certifying as to the accuracy of the device as prima facie evidence that that was so. Apparently no such tester has been appointed. This does not entitle the Crown to prove the accuracy of the device by evidence that the police officer who operated it tested it for accuracy without separate proof that the tests carried out are sufficient to achieve their goal.

9 There being no evidence capable of satisfying the court that the speed-timing device was in good working order, we allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and directed the entry of an acquittal.

The fact that the manufacturer recommends this "self test" does not prove the radar device was working properly. There is no judicial notice for synthisized doppler, simmulations, or internal self tests!

The question now is, how do i present this in court??

p.s. at the back of the manual, there is a section on case-law. One of the case summaries (R vs. Joudrey 1992 Nova Scotia Provincial Court) looks interesting. Here is a direct quote: "the defense lawyer cross-examined the police officer and referred to a textbook "The law on speeding and radar" and specifically to passages stating that certain atmospheric or environmental conditions could give spurious readings. The court did take judicial notice of the passages in the textbook and the accused was acquited."

I can't find the full text of this decision. Are any of you aware of this decision and how it can be used in defence?

With what you just wrote, I wouldn't want to answer the questions........ However, HwyBear has mentioned in the past that there is a fourth test. It is completed in the office by a guy on a computer. This test simulates the emitted radiation, light with LIDAR. However, at no point is the actual intensity of the LIDAR beam tested. As I understand it, while in test mode the unit will emit a sound that changes in frequency with the strength of the signal being returned. This could be used but there is no display, i.e. 60%, 75% return.

When you fight your ticket, there is a point in the trial where the JP will ask if there is anything else you want to add, it's usually after the officer takes the stand and you give your 2 cents. This is where you can introduce case law to shoot down the prosecution. Good luck.

Reflections wrote:

With what you just wrote, I wouldn't want to answer the questions........ However, HwyBear has mentioned in the past that there is a fourth test. It is completed in the office by a guy on a computer. This test simulates the emitted radiation, light with LIDAR. However, at no point is the actual intensity of the LIDAR beam tested. As I understand it, while in test mode the unit will emit a sound that changes in frequency with the strength of the signal being returned. This could be used but there is no display, i.e. 60%, 75% return.

When you fight your ticket, there is a point in the trial where the JP will ask if there is anything else you want to add, it's usually after the officer takes the stand and you give your 2 cents. This is where you can introduce case law to shoot down the prosecution. Good luck.

Hi Reflections,

Why wouldn't you want to answer the questions?

Also, you mention a fourth test in regards to LIDAR. In my case, only RADAR was used.

I'll try to answer this to the best of my ability. (This will be a long read.) Some things for court:

Is the officer in question an expert? We won't know until the day of trial. An "expert" only needs to know more than a "trier of fact." Hwybear, for example, would be considered an "expert." If the officer is not an expert, did he comply with the instructions of the manual for the tests by reading the manual and then doing the tests? Does the manufacturer guarantee that these tests will be accurate for a certain period of time? Why/why not? Where's the "lifetime guarantee" (if any)? Did the officer complete a "tracking history" as required by the manufacturer? (See the R. v Hawkins case: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/20 ... cj101.html)

Reflections covered when to present your information. Give it a shot and see what happens. "Your Worship, I would like to respectfully present evidence to the court that the internal test of the radar device by Constable So-and-So is not sufficient to prove that it was working properly. The Crown has an obligation, as affirmed by D'Astous v. Baie Comeau (1992), to show that the device must be accurate as verified by a test." Then go and present the rest of the evidence. Where does the manufacturer demonstrate that the internal test is valid? How have they proven it is equivalent to a tuning fork? It appears as though, as you said, there is no judicial notice. Submit that you think that this test is a "novel technology" and has to be verified with something proven. (At least, if I were going your route, that's what I'd do.) No guarantee if it will work or not, a lot of JPs are resistant to the idea!

Now... here's the bad news. It looks like the Genesis II has a built-in transmitter that synthesizes the Doppler shift of radar signals that occurs when they strike a moving object. A tuning fork does the same thing. So the Genesis effectively has an "electronic tuning fork." Some radar devices only have internal self-tests that check the circuitry and processor but not the antenna, but it looks like that's not the case here. Both the synthesizer and radar would have to be out of calibration for a false-positive "pass," which is highly unlikely, same as a tuning fork being out of calibration and the radar it is testing at the same time. But the court likely doesn't know that information, the Prosecutor won't either... maybe the officer won't. See how it goes.

Reflections wrote:

With what you just wrote, I wouldn't want to answer the questions........ However, HwyBear has mentioned in the past that there is a fourth test. It is completed in the office by a guy on a computer. This test simulates the emitted radiation, light with LIDAR. .

Sorry Reflections...I know of no such test with a computer.....maybe you misunderstood something.

LIDAR works on a totally different principle than RADAR. Therefore the fixed distance test at a stationary object is proper.

Interesting thread.

Ticket Combat if you are in the GTA area Beltronics used to be in Mississauga. They had a research lab i think.

Maybee you should call them and stop by they might be able to help you out on that.

Absolutely radar and lidar work on different principles.

Just for curious how often is that "specific vehicle/ sure it was this one" tried with radar?

hwybear wrote:

I may be wrong, but to what I have heard is that tuning forks in themselves are made by using radar.....they keep shaving the metal to the tune of speed "X" on radar.

Even if the above is not the case, the tuning fork potentially could get dings, knicks or even bent over time, thus giving a wrong "tune" to the radar, unit is sent for repair but in reality the fork is wrong and radar correct.

Thats very true.

But isnt this why officers typically give 5-10 over the PSL for small errors like this?

Bear just i have heard that alot of officers will say okay give you ten over for errors maybee with the radar or lidar and their speedometer.

But lets say you clocked someone for 152 km/hr.

Would you put this down to say 49 over (leaving some room for error). Or take it as it is at 152?

tdrive2 wrote:

hwybear wrote:

I may be wrong, but to what I have heard is that tuning forks in themselves are made by using radar.....they keep shaving the metal to the tune of speed "X" on radar.

Even if the above is not the case, the tuning fork potentially could get dings, knicks or even bent over time, thus giving a wrong "tune" to the radar, unit is sent for repair but in reality the fork is wrong and radar correct.

Thats very true.

But isnt this why officers typically give 5-10 over the PSL for small errors like this?

No, we do not use tuning forks for a good 4 years now.

Bear just i have heard that alot of officers will say okay give you ten over for errors maybee with the radar or lidar and their speedometer.

Negative, no error with radar or lidar. Probably to allow the target vehicle speedometer to be out 10km/hr.

But lets say you clocked someone for 152 km/hr.

Would you put this down to say 49 over (leaving some room for error). Or take it as it is at 152?

There is no error in the reading.

hwybear wrote:

There is no error in the reading.

Every radar and lidar device has a working tolerance of plus or minus 2 KMH.....It's on the specification page....Let's see here......http://www.pbelectronics.com/police_lidar_laser.htm

At the bottom of the page The Marksman ..............

Dimensions:3.5 in x 5 in x 8 in

Weight: 4.5 lbs

Speed Measurement

Distance: 30 ft to 3500 ft

Speed Maximum: +200 mph to -200 mph (accurate zero reading)

]Accuracy: +/- 1 mph

Acquisition Time: 0.3 seconds

Range Measurement

Distance: 30 ft to 3500 ft

Accuracy: +/- 6 inches

Acquisition Time: 0.3 seconds

Targeting

Pin-point beam (3 milliradian divergence, 3 ft wide at 1000 ft)

Adjustable illuminated red dot slight

AutoCapture triggering

Optional SpeedScope with in-scope data display

Power Requirements: 10.6v - 16v (12v nominal) 750 mA

Eye Safety: FDA Certified Class 1 (CFR 1040.10 and 1040.11)

Communication: 1/2 in adjustable illuminated display, RS232 Serial

Environment: -22 to +144 deg F

There is a margin of error........

What all those specs don't tell you is that the unit rounds DOWN and COSINE that is where the plus /minus comes in.

When using properly, if a reading was 77.9km/hr it will round down to 77km/hr.....this is the PLUS reading.

When getting a reading, one can not be directly in front of the vehicle at the same height, therefore a cosine affect comes into play hence the reading is LOWERED from the true speed.

How accurate are most speedo's in cars?

I heard alot of car speedo's are usually 3 km/hr faster then what your really going.

The cosine error comes into play at 10 degrees and up. If you shoot a beam, radar or lidar down the road 400 meters, you'd have to be 35 meters off the road inorder for there to be cosine effect and a lowered reading. If you are an officer sitting in the median taking readings, there is no cosine error. If you read through the users manual for any of the speed measuring devices it will state that the reading could be off by plus or minus 2, even in testing.

Neo asked me to comment on his post/provide some advice which I will do here.

A couple of points on the Decatur Genesis VPD. You have to carefully read what is written AND what is not written in the manual!

neo333 wrote:

The fact that the manufacturer recommends this "self test" does not prove the radar device was working properly.

Nowhere in the manual does the manufacturer state that this self test proves the device is working properly. Read the manual carefully. You will notice they go to great lengths to AVOID making this claim. What they do is provide a description of what happens when you press the button. But they carefully avoid connecting the test to any assurance that it constitutes sufficient proof that the device is functioning properly. (See Radar Identified's comments as well...)

This is the heart of the issue. Was the device working properly? I haven't seen any case law to suggest the self test button replaces the tuning forks or that independent testing is no longer required. Just because no one is doing it or the manufacturer removed it doesn't mean it works. Where's the proof?

***********************

The Antennae

Radar Identified wrote:

Now... here's the bad news. It looks like the Genesis II has a built-in transmitter that synthesizes the Doppler shift of radar signals that occurs when they strike a moving object. A tuning fork does the same thing. So the Genesis effectively has an "electronic tuning fork." Some radar devices only have internal self-tests that check the circuitry and processor but not the antenna, but it looks like that's not the case here. Both the synthesizer and radar would have to be out of calibration for a false-positive "pass," which is highly unlikely, same as a tuning fork being out of calibration and the radar it is testing at the same time. But the court likely doesn't know that information, the Prosecutor won't either... maybe the officer won't. See how it goes.

I'm not sure I read 6.1 "Operator Requested Self Test" the same way. If there is a transmitter which tests a powered up antennae than yes, it's an electronic tuning fork. But if it only tests the signal processing component without transmitting to the antennae than no it's not replacing the tuning fork. I don't see wording to suggest the transmitter is being operated or signaling the antennae.

Even if it was the "new tuning fork", (let's call it the e-fork) don't forget, tuning fork calibration had to be independently tested from time to time. Which means the transmitter would have to be tested from time to time. But I'm not sure if there is a transmitter specifically testing the antennae. RI can you confirm this?

I've read the VPD Manual and I don't see any repair or maintenance guidelines at all. A device can't simply self test itself forever. What are the operating parameters and life expectancy? We can't simply put our faith into the device. The police services would have repair/maintenance/testing logs for this model. One device may work wonderfully, but the model rolled out to a police force will have a range of performance that allows them to predict faults and issue operating guidelines beyond what the manufacturer claims.

Before they buy a radar gun they would test it to see whether the manufacturer's claims are valid and whether the device truly is an improvement over other radar guns or the older tuning fork variety.

They should be doing the same kind of evaluation for anything they use. Like when they decided to buy a Charger as their new fleet vehicle instead of a Yaris. Imagine if the Yaris had a 425hp self test button that simulated the pistons moving up and down and the spark plug igniting. Would you believe it?

Oh wait a minute... TC with this little thing you might've opened the door to stand speeding ticket prosecution here on its head:

ticketcombat wrote:

Nowhere in the manual does the manufacturer state that this self test proves the device is working properly. Read the manual carefully. You will notice they go to great lengths to AVOID making this claim.

Might be a game-changer. If the manufacturer does not specifically state that the test proves the device is working and accurate, then I think neo333 just got his defence right there. Now talking about the radar antenna. The way I read this...

Genesis VPD manual wrote:

"The Genesis VPD verifies speed accuracy using synthesized doppler frequencies corrsponding to a series of four simulated speeds: 25, 50, 75 and 100 when in KM/H mode."

...was that there was a built-in device that transmitted signals ("synthesized doppler frequencies") that acted as an electronic tuning fork, so to speak. But if it merely checks the processor and internal components, then yes I fully agree with you. My practical experience has been with weather radar and radar altitude-measuring ("radalt") equipment so there's a bit of a difference, although the principles are the same.

I had to do some thinking about this, and I really would have to look at the manual (are there diagrams available?). Thinking about radar theory and operation... I've come to the conclusion... that the regular old tuning fork test would actually be more reliable than the e-fork. Bear with me, this is going to be painful.

We know that radar works by sending a signal out from the antenna, signal bounces back, hits antenna, the time of the return = distance (due to known radar signal speed). Then frequency shift (Doppler effect) of return, through calculation = speed. But, the synthesizer would, if it does what I think it does, fire a pre-determined frequency at the antenna which is then picked up and analyzed. The frequency would be set to simulate the same frequency that a vehicle would generate if it were travelling at that speed. Here's the problem: At no point does the radar test an actual signal that was sent outbound from the antenna and then returned to the antenna. So we know the receiver is probably working, but how do we know the transmitter of the radar antenna (not the synthesizer) isn't improperly calibrated and generating an improper frequency that, upon reflection off a car, is giving a higher speed than the vehicle is actually travelling at? We don't! The only thing that would work is the tuning fork, which takes the outgoing signal, bounces it back, and this tests both the receiver and transmitter. The synthesizer is only testing one function of the radar antenna: the receiver.

Sometimes old technology is the most reliable.

(Sorry about the convoluted explanation. Just got home after a late Newark turn.)

Not bashing anything that was previously written but lidar devices do have a form of "antenna" testing. In order for the unit to properly gauge when the light pulse leaves the gun, a small portion of the beam is redirected into it's "timing" circuit. The radar gun may also do the same thing as a reference to the frequency shift it is looking for. We have to remember that there are a rather large number of sources of "noise" in the environment, so a reference is always needed. The gun would have to "know" what is being transmitted, otherwise every reading would be worthless......

The LIDAR test I'm not familiar with so I really can't say. What we really need are some internal diagrams of the device (and more info about the synthesizer). As for the synthesizer changing the frequency of the outbound signal and returning it to the receiver, it is possible, although the way the Genesis manual is written, it doesn't appear that way to me. The reason being, it said "uses synthesized doppler frequencies." But I could be wrong.

Here we go:http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5525996/fulltext.html

I will definitely bring this up in court (if I have to proceed with trial that is).

However, I did find some case law with respect to external testing that does not support this argument.

See R. v. Laarakker 2008

Here is a quote:

" In the case before me today, Cst. Lamirante claims he tested the radar gun in accordance with the operators manual, which involved ensuring the radar was internally lighting up properly. Cst. Lamirante acknowledges this testing did not involve externally testing the radar with any object moving at a known speed. The instrument in question is an approved radar gun. Cst. Lamirante has been qualified to operate the instrument. If the operator is a qualified operator, and if the operation is in accordance with the operators manual, then this court is not prepared to make any presumption of impropriety with the testing of the radar in the absence of some expert evidence upon which to base a reasonable doubt as to the unreliability of that radar testing. To the degree that this ruling may be found to be inconsistent with the Broadway decision, I reject the Broadway ratio."

So does this mean I will bring in some kind of expert evidence? How do I do this? Or can I simply introduce a reasonable doubt by stating the concepts and issues Radar Identified and Ticket Combat have raised?

Thoughts?

neo333 wrote:

I did find some case law with respect to external testing that does not support this argument.

See R. v. Laarakker 2008

The heart of the issue is the defendant Laarakker did not challenge the officer's assertion that he tested the device in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. We ARE CHALLENGING that assertion! The officer is not testing the device according to the manufacturer's instructions because the manufacturer is silent on what constitutes proper testing. Laarakker did not say this. But you will, right?

ticketcombat wrote:

neo333 wrote:

I did find some case law with respect to external testing that does not support this argument.

See R. v. Laarakker 2008

The heart of the issue is the defendant Laarakker did not challenge the officer's assertion that he tested the device in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. We ARE CHALLENGING that assertion! The officer is not testing the device according to the manufacturer's instructions because the manufacturer is silent on what constitutes proper testing. Laarakker did not say this. But you will, right?

If Neo's other post is any indication, he'll say it and much, much more.

My case is closed without proceeding to trial, so never got a chance to bring this up. Maybe we can all help the next guy who is charged with a self-tested device and set a precedence.