LIDAR not calibrated since 2000, still valid?

[greenless]

ARIZONA


I was cited for speeding on June 3rd of this year and just had my hearing on August 28th (yay for my right to a 'speedy' trial!).

I was cited for doing 48 in a 35 zone, which is bogus (I'm often referred to as a 'grandma' driver by my friends/family). The officer told me that he used a radar device, so I did all of my pre-trial research based on radar. Turns out he used Lidar, so the judge wouldn't accept any of my radar case law.

Through my questioning I learned that the officer's Lidar device has not been calibrated or certified since 2000. When I asked him if he could provide documentation that the device is currently certified/calibrated, he said "I don't have to." I moved to dismiss based on the device not being mantained in a reasonable manner and the judge denied it, asking me if I had any case law with me that would support throwing out Lidar based on lack of maintenence (which I didn't since all of my research was specific to Lidar).

Here's my question - how do I find out what the make/model of the officer's Lidar device is? The only thing I was provided by the Tucson Police Department was their internal inventory number for the device (PL10877). I'd love to be able to look up the manual for the device to see if the manufacturer recommends having it serviced/calibrated once every TEN years!

 

[justalayman]

Here's my question - how do I find out what the make/model of the officer's Lidar device is?

a discovery request

 

[greenless]

a discovery request

Who do I submit that through?

I've contacted TPD's departments for Traffic, Traffic Investigations, Public Information, and Records and none of them know who I'm supposed to contact.

 

[HighwayMan]

The court may not care. Lidar is very straightforward and measures distance and time, not speed directly. High school physics teaches us that speed equals distance over time, so speed is a calculated quantity.

As long as the Lidar tests correctly according to manufacturers specifications (display test, distance test, internal calibration test, and scope alignment test) then it is functioning properly.

Probably depends on the state, but that might be the case here.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Who do I submit that through?

The district attorney's office or the city attorney...

However, knowing who the device is manufactured by might not get you a whole load of beans unless you can find a statute that requires Lidar to be periodically calibrated or a case law citation that sets the precedent for such a requirement. The manufacturer's recomendation, and while it may be the guideline used to set the legal requirement, could mean nothing when it comes to what you can use in court.

Are you appealing your case or are you just curious?

 

[Jim_bo]

The trial is over. There is no standing to ask for discovery. However, if it was established at trial that the lidar had not been calibrated in 10 years, that's enough. I think the OP should contact Lidar manufacturers and ask about calibration units. A statement from a manufacturer could do well in an appeal. However, there is likely a time limit on filing an appeal. I'd suggest filing intent to appeal immediately.

 

[justalayman]

=Jim_bo;2346007]The trial is over. There is no standing to ask for discovery.

You are probably correct but he said he had a hearing and never stated there was an adjudication.

However, if it was established at trial that the lidar had not been calibrated in 10 years, that's enough.

Enough for what? It is what the states requirements are that makes a difference, not what the manufacturer suggests.

A statement from a manufacturer could do well in an appeal. However, there is likely a time limit on filing an appeal. I'd suggest filing intent to appeal immediately.

he failed to raise this in his defense originally. They are not going to allow an appeal because he failed to provide a proper defense. That is his fault and his problem.

He should have requested a continuance once he discovered that LIDAR was used and not RADAR but that simply shows that he was ill prepared to defend himself. He needed to know before he went to court what he needed to defend against but most likely would have been denied still.

Then he might be able to argue for an appeal but he didn;t do that

the fact that he came into court with whatever to defend against a radar unit which he had no idea as to the manufacturer or model means he simply failed to do what he needed to do to defend himself.

 

[Maestro64]

The judge railroaded you he simple used the fact you did not know the rules and case laws against you.

Some state have specific rules about equipment being calibrated other simply follow the guidelines set down by the manufacturer some LIDAR units state it must be cal yearly and some say two to three years. Doing a self test is not enough since that just tells you the electronics are working it has no way to know whether the speed it just calculated was accurate. LIDAR is not that straight forward, there is so many things that could go wrong which the operator is not aware of. Also, do not expect the manufactures to tell you what is required for their equipment no manufacture will help a citizen win a case, it is not in their best interest to help you.

Even though the case is over, you could still appeal on the ground that the Judge allow evidence to be used from equipment which was not calibrated. There is a Michigan case, which I do not remember the name which is consider the hallmark case for using electronic equipment to measures speed such as Radar which referenced by many other cases and manufactures that say the equipment must be calibrated and field test each day in order for the data to be entered into evidence.

If you can find this case you might be able to reference this on appeal as the legal grounds that the judge fail to follow with allowing uncalibrated data.

This judge taught you an important lesson, come prepare and do not expect the judge to protect your rights. He basically told you he was not going to do your job for you, unless you had case law or state laws to reference he was not going to let you win on something he knew to be true.

 

[greenless]

Well, I ordered the audio recording of the hearing and I believe that the officer referenced the make/model, so I should be able to look up information on it based on that. I emailed the records office of TPD and asked for the information and ended up receiving an email directly from the officer saying that because this was for a civil case he was unable to disclose that information.

I've learned a lot from this. If for some reason I have to deal with something like this again, I'll be better prepared.

 

[Maestro64]

Well there are a couple people here form AZ who know their laws well, and I forget that certain traffic ticket are civil, if what the office said is true your ticket was civil infraction, you're pretty much hosed. You're not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but on preponderance of the evidence, and the officer word is more than enough to say you are guilt.

I am not sure how much recourse you will have, and I am not sure any case law will help.

Also there is very little case law on LIDAR at this time which make fighting a LIDAR ticket using case law a bit hard. Once thing you can do it say the court can not take judicial notice on LIDAR since not Frye heard has been done to show it is reliable, but your judge probably would not have listen to that either since it was civil case.

if you go here there are a couple of LIDAR experts there and I believe someone post the current case law on LIDAR including the NJ case that say LIDAR is should not be used beyone 1000ft for a number of technical reason

Radar Detector Jammer Forum

 

[justalayman]

Well there are a couple people here form AZ who know their laws well, and I forget that certain traffic ticket are civil, if what the office said is true your ticket was civil infraction, you're pretty much hosed. You're not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but on preponderance of the evidence, and the officer word is more than enough to say you are guilt.

I am not sure how much recourse you will have, and I am not sure any case law will help.

Also there is very little case law on LIDAR at this time which make fighting a LIDAR ticket using case law a bit hard. Once thing you can do it say the court can not take judicial notice on LIDAR since not Frye heard has been done to show it is reliable, but your judge probably would not have listen to that either since it was civil case.

if you go here there are a couple of LIDAR experts there and I believe someone post the current case law on LIDAR including the NJ case that say LIDAR is should not be used beyone 1000ft for a number of technical reason

Radar Detector Jammer Forum

You do realize that no other states case law will mean a whit in an Arizona court, don't you?

 

[Maestro64]

Actually many states reference or accept other states' case laws especially if they have similar laws. If you read various states laws a number of them even point to other states case laws in their annotation of the law to either provide guidance on how to interrupt the law or how the law was enact to address a particular case law. Also if you read many states case laws they many time reference other cases from all over the country to back up their own conclusion, so yes AZ courts would consider other states' case laws, if the person presenting them can show relevance, but most laymen lack this skill.

I do agree in a AZ civil mater the court does not have to take into consideration other states criminal case laws which most traffic case laws are criminal matters.

 

[justalayman]

then why don't you take a second and show a couple examples of an arizona statute that cites another states laws and a couple examples of an Arizona criminal court decision that cites another states laws

 

[HighwayMan]

Doing a self test is not enough since that just tells you the electronics are working it has no way to know whether the speed it just calculated was accurate. LIDAR is not that straight forward, there is so many things that could go wrong which the operator is not aware of.

Really? Did you ever use traffic Lidar? Are you a certified Radar/Lidar operator?

If the electronics are working correctly then the calculation will be correct.

What can go wrong with Lidar that the operator will not be aware of?

 

[Maestro64]

then why don't you take a second and show a couple examples of an arizona statute that cites another states laws and a couple examples of an Arizona criminal court decision that cites another states laws

Go do your own search

FindACase™ Network Ariz.

and look up State v. Box July 31, 2003 and it cites case laws from PA, OH, FL, MD and others states. That is one example of 100's of AZ cases where they reference other states interruption of laws to uphold or over turns AZ understanding of a law. This is normal all courts do this and allow it if it is relevant and as I said proving relevance is the hard part.

I do not have access to AZ annotated Statutes, but if you had access to them you would probably find it is no different than any other state where it provides additional information about the law and references case laws from AZ as well as other states. AZ is not a special state in this regard

Now if we were talking about Louisiana that would be a different story, since law there is different than the rest of the US.