Lidar can be used in court? judicial notice

[AgentSmithers]

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

I'm getting alot of Mixed Signal about Lidar not having any judicial notice. My Attorney also sent me a Motion to Dis-include Lidar in the Court room. Would this work, Dose this type of information need to be mailed ahead at time or displayed at Trial?

Part Of Motion

The method by which vehicular speed was supposedly determined is that of ‘LIDAR.’ As is true of all new technology, and even of older technology used in a new and scientifically unestablished manner, the proponent of the evidence must establish the method’s general acceptance in the scientific community under the established Kelly/Frye standard. In this matter there has been no offer of such required acceptance in the scientific community and, as such, the Defendant objects to the admission of ‘LIDAR’ evidence on the ground that it fails under Kelly/Frye.

Src: [url]http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:eu-WhivWDboJ:www.radardetector.net/forums/how-beat-your-ticket/28035-appeal.html+%22MOTION+TO+EXCLUDE+%E2%80%98LIDAR%E2%80%99%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us[/url]

Random Story that's close to Topic

Well i am well within the 30 day period this happened last week. Also i did motion to exclude lidar evidence since the state of CA has not taken judicial notice in the state of CA the judge overode that and said i take judicial notice in the use of laser/lidar. He didnt even know what lidar was he had to ask the cop how it worked and what it was. Also once he said i take judicial notice i said your honor with all due respect i object as you are not an expert in the feild of laser and have no technical experience in the use of this device. He said i deny your motion and grant the lidar evidence. He also said i could not use vc40802 d as that is for speed traps and i was charged with a vc22349 maximum speed limit. i did a tbd and this was my trial de novo now i am going for the appeal. I dont have an attorney and i dont feel i need one i had my case prepared and did my cross but the judge was incorrect in his verdict also i motioned to strike lidar evedince as documnets obtained via discovery revealed that the lidar unit had only been calibrated by the manufactuer and not by an independent lidar or radar repair or calibration facility. the judge said that i culd pay and have it calibrated if i wanted to???? That is the peoples obligation not mine?? so what do you guys think?????

You are absolutely correct, that judge needs to be thrown off the bench, even if you paid to have the laser calibrated, which is not your responsibility, that could not guarantee that the laser was functioning properly on the day of your arrest, the gun could have been tampered with to show good results after the arrest. Like I said, this judge erred for a number of reasons, an appeal should prove his a$$ wrong

[Zigner]

Good luck

Next time, slow down.

[AgentSmithers]

Would this work, Dose this type of information need to be mailed ahead at time or displayed at Trial?

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by AgentSmithers

Would this work, Dose this type of information need to be mailed ahead at time or displayed at Trial?

Seems to me that it already "didn't work" for you...

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by AgentSmithers

My Attorney also sent me a Motion to Dis-include Lidar in the Court room.

I would ask you: if you have "an attorney" then why are you here looking for advice?

But then again, if he referred to what he sent you as a "Motion to Dis-include...", I kinda can see why!

Originally Posted by AgentSmithers

Would this work, Dose this type of information need to be mailed ahead at time or displayed at Trial?

Here's another zero help post from me....

You're wondering if you can base your motion to exclude evidence or your motion to dismiss on an exchange of opinions on a Radar detector forum?

The answer is "no"!It wouldn't work regardless of whether you mail it ahead of time or present it in court during your trial.

[Jim_bo]

I don't know why you are so quick to dismiss this argument. If CA has yet to take judicial notice (I don't know if they have or not), then this judge would be way out of line by taking judicial notice himself with no basis to do it on.

There is a terrible habit in CA for cops and judges to ignore the law so much that it simply becomes perceived as being the law. That is wrong. I guess by your standards, a cop could say he has a new method for determining speed of a vehicle and it is based on the colors of jellybeans in a jar... and the judge could simply say, "I take judicial notice of that method".

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Next time, slow down.

This is supposed to be a legal advice forum.... you must have mistaken it for the "driving advice forum". Next time, check which site you are on.

[I_Got_Banned]

I'm not dismissing the argument. My comment was an offer to the OP that a few posts on a Radar detector forum will not provide him with the proof he is looking for that no California court has taken judicial notice of Lidar.

If that were the case, could you imagine how many defendants would walk out of court as "winners" with printouts they made of threads they started on this forum?

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

I guess by your standards, a cop could say he has a new method for determining speed of a vehicle and it is based on the colors of jellybeans in a jar... and the judge could simply say, "I take judicial notice of that method".

Not sure what part of my post gave you that impression so again, you are way off. I didn't even mention jelly beans!

[Jim_bo]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

I'm not dismissing the argument. My comment was an offer to the OP that a few posts on a Radar detector forum will not provide him with the proof he is looking for that no California court has taken judicial notice of Lidar.

If that were the case, could you imagine how many defendants would walk out of court as "winners" with printouts they made of threads they started on this forum?

It is the obligation of the State, particularlly the prosecution, to show that CA has taken judicial notice of lidar. It is NOT the obligation of the defendant. If the courts are acting inappropriately and rendering illegal convictions (which they do every day), then it is simply illegal. A large volume of cases does NOT make it legal!!

Not sure what part of my post gave you that impression so again, you are way off. I didn't even mention jelly beans!

I'm sorry, I thought you were intellegent enough to recognize hypothetical analogy without taking it literally. Next time, I'll be more clear in my posts.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

It is the obligation of the State, particularlly the prosecution, to show that CA has taken judicial notice of lidar..

Tell that to the OP; its his question, his thread and his losing argument!

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

If the courts are acting inappropriately and rendering illegal convictions (which they do every day)....

Cite? Stats?

Never mind...

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

... then it is simply illegal. A large volume of cases does NOT make it legal!!.

Neither does a small volume! So what's your point?

Originally Posted by Jim_bo

I'm sorry, I thought you were intellegent enough to recognize hypothetical analogy without taking it literally. Next time, I'll be more clear in my posts.

Jim you put forth so much effort to try to make yourself seem superior every time you address me, sad thing is your actions only make you seem inferior!

How intelligent is that?

[Maestro64]

AgentSmithers,

It is true in CA LIDAR has no judicial notice, and Lucky225 in that link has very good understand of CA traffic laws, he has fought and won a number a traffic ticket in CA and a few other states so he speaks form experience. He has helped a number of others win their tickets as well.

To your question, yes you can raise this issue at your hearing that LIDAR evidence in CA has no judicial notice and that the officer is not a expert on the technology therefore he can not testify to is scientific accuracy or reliability.

Every example I have seen and read about where someone did this, the judge just said in court that he was familiar with LIDAR and he was taking Judicial notice at that moment. At this point unless you are a lawyer there is not a whole lot you can do since you do not have the legal background to challenge this claim at this point. I am not saying what the judge did was correct, but if happens you'll need a lot more legal background than the standard DIY strategies that work most of the time.

If you're going down this path, then you'll need to first establish the officer is not an expert on LIDAR and how it works. Once you do that then you can bring up the fact LIDAR evidence should be thrown out since there is no evidence presented that LIDAR has meet the burden set down in a Frye hearing, since this has not happen then the court can not take judicial notice of the evidence.

However the judge can still over rule and accept it, you just have grounds for an appeal.

[JIMinCA]

I agree with Maestro. Establishing that the cop is not an expert should be pretty easy. However, it is likely that the judge will simply say "I accept judicial notice of lidar in my court". Traffic court judges don't have time to fool with something as cumbersome as the law... they have guilty verdicts to hand out!!! Therefore, when you get your conviction, as IGB is convinced you will, you simply need to file an appeal. That's where you'll actually get someone to give your argument the consideration it deserves.

[AgentSmithers]

That is Awesome! Thanks alot Again Jimbo & JIMinCA your my hero =D, Same with you Maestro64!

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by AgentSmithers

That is Awesome! Thanks alot Again Jimbo & JIMinCA your my hero =D, Same with you Maestro64!

Do I not get a thank you! My feelings are really hurt now!!!

NOT!

.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by I_Got_Banned

Do I not get a thank you! My feelings are really hurt now!!!

NOT!

.

Dude... you are really getting childish.