Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

I did some investigating on this unit and found some info regarding the MPH Bee III unit.

"Mph doesn't recommend using the POP Mode exclusively because it excludes getting a proper "tracking history" taken in this mode"

So if I get pulled over by an officer who used POP mode to tag me, can the crown/officer cannot use the radar evidence against me? His disclosure notes do not say anything about whether he used POP mode or not. Does the officer have to provide evidence of a proper tracking history?

I'm still trying to get the manual from the crown to confirm this. Any input?

KiX wrote:

I did some investigating on this unit and found some info regarding the MPH Bee III unit.

"Mph doesn't recommend using the POP Mode exclusively because it excludes getting a proper "tracking history" taken in this mode"

So if I get pulled over by an officer who used POP mode to tag me, can the crown/officer cannot use the radar evidence against me? His disclosure notes do not say anything about whether he used POP mode or not. Does the officer have to provide evidence of a proper tracking history?

I'm still trying to get the manual from the crown to confirm this. Any input?

Get the officer to admit it on the stand. His answer will be " I was using the unit as directed in the users manual". I watched a local LEO with a hand held radar unit the other day. He was perpendicular to traffic and turning just it one way then the other. Funny, but that would throw tracking history right out the window.

I think the officer will know full well that the POP mode does not provide a tracking history.. it's stated in the manual (which they have responded to my request for one in my disclosure)

This may sound a bit daft, but what is a tracking history? I'd like to gain a better understanding of this if I'm going to use this in my defence.

Also.. I noticed in the officer's notes that he had (2) BEE III camera's, one facing forward and one facing the rear of the car. Would this bring into question the accuracy of the units? possible interference between the units?

Thanks for the feedback I appreciate it

never heard of MPH in use in Ontario, who uses it?

You must understand POP/instant on to even know what it is about, yes you can have a tracking history.

KiX wrote:

This may sound a bit daft, but what is a tracking history? I'd like to gain a better understanding of this if I'm going to use this in my defence.

Tracking History: (AHEM) is the simple act of the officer visually monitoring a vehicle and determining that it is travelling above the Posted Speed Limit, before he uses a Speed Measuring Device, i.e. RADAR or LIDAR.

This is the problem I'm having.. trying to decipher the officer's hand written notes which aren't helping me at all. But from the officer's writing, looks like Bee III radar that was used.. I'll double check tonight

I bugged my cop buddy about this once:

He said it's simple to testify on speeding tickets, "The Radar gun indicated a speed higher than the limit allowed so I pulled him over and gave him a ticket".

I asked him if he was supposed to get a visual opinion FIRST.

He quickly repeated his statement, amended slightly

"The vehicle visually appeared to be speeding and the Radar gun confirmed my suspicion so I pulled him over and gave him a ticket".

Just checked the disclosure notes and it says "BEE III Radar System".

So yes it is used, by Toronto Police atleast. The test times for the unit that the officer included in the notes are about an hour before and an hour after what's written on the ticket. No note about whether POP mode was used. Not sure if this would help..

Please bare with me, but I still don't quite understand what tracking history is because the manual states:

"Mph doesn't recommend using the POP Mode exclusively because it excludes getting a proper "tracking history" taken in this mode"

what it has to do with the act of visually monitoring a vehicle before using the radar? There's really no way to prove in the officer's favor or in my defense that the officer did in fact follow that procedure by the book.

KiX wrote:

There's really no way to prove in the officer's favor or in my defense that the officer did in fact follow that procedure by the book.

His word trumps yours...............

KiX wrote:

Please bare with me, but I still don't quite understand what tracking history is...

Visual observations conducted before and during the radar readings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A591897

Bookm wrote:

KiX wrote:

Please bare with me, but I still don't quite understand what tracking history is...

Visual observations conducted before and during the radar readings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A591897

Great website, thanks! I'll look into this.

The reason why a POP obtained reading is not good evidence of speeding is because it is prone to inaccuracy.

POP is mode that emits a very brief (67 millisecond) pulse of radar to determine the speed. Its meant to defeat radar detectors. It works because the local oscillator sweep (the "tuner") in most detectors, (especially cheap ones) is too slow to notice this brief pulse. Newer and more expensive detectors have solved this by making a little detour during the sweep to check for POP. It's like flipping through the channels on your TV, but going back to check if your favourite show has started on channel 2 every so often. Except in a radar detector this is happening hundreds of times per second.

POP can be inaccurate because the electronics in the police radar don't have time enough to stabilize. It's like suddenly jumping on your bathroom scale. The pointer with fluctuate violently until it settles down on the the true reading. With POP it can sometimes indicate an inaccurate speed due to this instability.

- PbFoot

Thanks for the explanation

I'd like to use this argument in court, however since I don't have any official documentation stating that this particular radar.. when in POP mode, the constable cannot issue a speeding ticket to anyone.

How should I go about that? I've even gone as far as requesting a copy of the operating manual from the Manufacture of the Radar Gun, but they simply told me the price that I'd have to pay to obtain a copy of it, about $300.

KiX wrote:

Thanks for the explanation

I'd like to use this argument in court, however since I don't have any official documentation stating that this particular radar.. when in POP mode, the constable cannot issue a speeding ticket to anyone.

How should I go about that? I've even gone as far as requesting a copy of the operating manual from the Manufacture of the Radar Gun, but they simply told me the price that I'd have to pay to obtain a copy of it, about $300.

You can read the operators manual that either the police have or is at the court house. You may make notes....

I've made several attempts to obtain this information but received no response, nothing that tells me that I can view this document at the court house. No explanation, nothing.

KiX wrote:

I've made several attempts to obtain this information but received no response, nothing that tells me that I can view this document at the court house. No explanation, nothing.

Improper disclosure, dismiss the charge.............They have to allow you access to the manual........

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... 56313.html

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight. ... i1829.html

Just to find 2..

Agreed. Hound them for that manual unit they show it to you, or ask for a stay.

-PbFoot

Thanks! That was what I was thinking.. I have a right to atleast see these documents, even if it's at the courthouse.

However when my court date comes, I'll make my argument that the crown has not notified me or given any notice regarding these documents which I requested in my disclosure letter (inadequate disclosure). Shall I print out copies of these (2) case law examples and refer the JP to them?

KiX wrote:

Thanks! That was what I was thinking.. I have a right to atleast see these documents, even if it's at the courthouse.

However when my court date comes, I'll make my argument that the crown has not notified me or given any notice regarding these documents which I requested in my disclosure letter (inadequate disclosure). Shall I print out copies of these (2) case law examples and refer the JP to them?

If the JP has any clue, then they will know that your request is within reason, so print them out anyway, maybe 3 copies.....

Not to resurrect a thread, but my case was adjourned once already, now if I bring this issue up regarding the Crown not providing me with

1) a manual of the radar

2) proper eligible notes that make sense.. the officer seemed to use some sort of short form notes for everything he wrote down..

3) calibration records for the radar to confirm it was certified for use at the time the charge was given.

I also have in my defense that from the time my first disclosure package was ready, I did not receive any notification to pick it up, and that it was during the labour strike in Toronto which meant it was impossible to contact anyone at the provincial offenses office, and also to obtain disclosure would've meant I needed to take a whole day off work just to line up to get in.. not guaranteeing that I would even see a prosecutor.

Opinions on this? thanks

Don't worry about the labour strike.

If they still have not provided you with the manual after an adjournment and 3 requests, that tells me that the prosecutor is, ahem, incompetent. You have tried 3 times, and he still did not do it. Apply for a stay based on Section 7 of the Charter.

This is your thread about the same case, and if you were to make a new thread about it, mods would have moved it to this one, so you made us less work!