speeding/lidar

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ma

I got a ticket today 84 in a 65 using LIDAR, can anyone tell me anything about LIDAR, what can I do? Also where can I find the law on the right to a timely trial, in ma???

LIDAR is a speed measuring device. Its theory is quite simple. It sends out 2 pulses of light which strike your vehicle & reflect back to the instrument. From the time of travel for each light pulse to return to the instrument, your distance is calculated (the instrument manufacturer's assume, wrongfully, that the speed of light is a constant 186,000 miles per second -- so the time can be converted to distance). So the machine has 2 distances (1 from each pulse). And the machine keeps track of the time between the two pulses. So they have distance 1 and distance 2 and the time between distance 1 and distance 2's measurements. From this they calculate your speed (change in distance/change in time). In a controlled environment, I would have no doubt that such an instrument can be made to achieve accurate results. However, as they are used by police officers they provide erroneous results with ease. You can go to youtube and see "panning" errors of LIDAR aka Laser instruments. Attacking the LIDAR evidence is not difficult but requires a little but of knowledge of your state's rules of evidence. I am not that familiar with MA evidence rules or adjudication of speeding tickets. But I have had LIDAR evidence tossed out of trials ..see below, court transcript after I objected to the introduction of the LIDAR's certificate of calibration at trial"

(WHEREUPON A BRIEF PAUSE WAS TAKEN IN THE PROCEEDINGS)
THE COURT: Okay, Ms. Hoffman do you wish to be heard any further on the admissibility?
ATTY. HOFFMAN: No, Your Honor, I don’t.
THE COURT: Okay. Court is –- the Court review its notes and also listened to the transcript -– I’ve listened to the re-play of the officer’s testimony. The Court is not satisfied based on the review of that also Connecticut General Statute 52-180. Based on the testimony that I have heard the Court is not satisfied that a sufficient foundation has been laid for the admissibility of this document as a business record. I am also concerned, although quite frankly, Mr. REDACTED, I have not been able to find this case that you refer to.
The Court is based on the claim you make regarding a Sixth Amendment violation the Court is aware that in certain circumstances business records can be violative of State verses Crawford. Referring specifically to State verses Carpenter 275 Connecticut 785 where that very issue is discussed. Based on the nature of offer by the State of this record and based on the claims that are being made for those two reasons I am sustaining the objection. Go ahead.

Well, the theory of operation described above is a little simplistic. Actually the unit sends out a pulse train and looks for the same train coming back. A simple pulse would be lost in the noise. The time difference between the relative sent and received pulse trains are used. I doubt any unit uses the value of the speed of light you quoted. But the speed of light in air is variable with temperature and pressure which is what I think you are getting at.

The "errors" in the guns have little to do the errors in the timing itself, but the fact that coming up with two ranges and assuming that they represent the same point on the target is really bad on some of the units mostly due to the fact that they just don't make enough measurements while "locking" up to be assured of an accurate solution.

FlyingRon said:

Well, the theory of operation described above is a little simplistic. Actually the unit sends out a pulse train and looks for the same train coming back. A simple pulse would be lost in the noise. The time difference between the relative sent and received pulse trains are used. I doubt any unit uses the value of the speed of light you quoted. But the speed of light in air is variable with temperature and pressure which is what I think you are getting at.

The "errors" in the guns have little to do the errors in the timing itself, but the fact that coming up with two ranges and assuming that they represent the same point on the target is really bad on some of the units mostly due to the fact that they just don't make enough measurements while "locking" up to be assured of an accurate solution.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was very simple. If interested US Patents (United States Patent and Trademark Office) include: 5521696 , 5617199 , 5359404 , 5715045 . A person may be able to google the actual hearing transcripts of several common LIDAR units (LaserTech LTI 20-20) on the Fry hearing(s) of these instruments. With many of the Fry hearing, the defendant offered no counter-expert testimony so many of the defects of LIDAR measurement methods & instrument issues were never vetted properly; but once the hearing(s) are done they done and judicial notice attaches.

Moving violations are civil matters not criminal in Massachusetts. There is no right to a speedy trial.

lindz0630 said:

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ma

I got a ticket today 84 in a 65 using LIDAR, can anyone tell me anything about LIDAR, what can I do? Also where can I find the law on the right to a timely trial, in ma???

Click to expand...

Normally you can simply call the police dept. and ask what model LIDAR units they use. I would recommend a FOIA request asking for any LIDAR units' invoices for those units they have. Why? I have seen where judges try to say the LIDAR unit passed a Fry examination but the Fry examination took place before the existence of the model in question. Kinda shoots the Fry examination down. And if shot down, you can try to exclude any speed measurement from the device maybe - check MA law on this matter. I have not chked it but it may be this way- most states require a Fry examination prior to the court giving judicial notice to specific instrument used.