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.