Ultralyte 100LR laser by LTI

[Leviticus]

What is the name of your state?FL

Does anyone here have the user's manual for the Ultralyte 100LR laser by LTI in .pdf form?
If not, would you know where I might be able to find it?

Serious replies only.

Thanks!

[sukharev]

Which information specifically are you interested in? I can probably fax you a few pages, but you can get a full manual via FOIA request to PD which issued the ticket. It takes 30 days to get it.

[Leviticus]

Originally Posted by sukharev

Which information specifically are you interested in? I can probably fax you a few pages, but you can get a full manual via FOIA request to PD which issued the ticket. It takes 30 days to get it.

Thanks Sukharev. I would like to give the manual a thorough reading so I guess I might have to make the request from the PD.

[Leviticus]

Originally Posted by sukharev

Which information specifically are you interested in? I can probably fax you a few pages....

Hi Sukharev,

Would you be able to fax me a few pages on the procedure for calibrating the 100LR before use and also documented errors that may occur with the unit?

Levit

[rmet4nzkx]

You may want to contact "Mythbusters"

[Leviticus]

Originally Posted by rmet4nzkx

You may want to contact "Mythbusters"

Sorry, I'm not familiar with them.
Perhaps you can provide a little more detail?
Thanks!

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by Leviticus

Sorry, I'm not familiar with them.
Perhaps you can provide a little more detail?
Thanks!

A court does not need a laser/radar to convict you of speeding; the officer's testimony alone is enough.

[Leviticus]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

A court does not need a laser/radar to convict you of speeding; the officer's testimony alone is enough.

Hi Senior,

I have a few questions for you.
Are you named seniorjudge because you are/were a judge?

If courts don't need laser/radar to convict you of speeding why do they bother with it?

As you know lasers/radar are very expensive equipment. Why would police departments shell out thousands of dollars if they aren't needed for convictions?

And finally, what is Mythbusters?

Thanks!

[rmet4nzkx]

Google it

[CdwJava]

Lidars and radars are to confirm an officer's visual estimation. It is possible to get a conviction without them. They help, but are not required. How much they might be necessary depends a great deal on the jurisdiction and the court.

- Carl

[Leviticus]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Lidars and radars are to confirm an officer's visual estimation. It is possible to get a conviction without them. They help, but are not required. How much they might be necessary depends a great deal on the jurisdiction and the court.

- Carl

Thanks Carl, I always appreciate your replies.

But there is a disconnect here.
I've done quite a bit of research the last three months on speeding/radar etc.

I've also been to court a few times locally and every single speeding charge was backed up by a radar/lidar reading.

The prosecution goes to great length to ask the officer if he tested the unit before and after he used it, if he had proper training with the unit etc. etc.

I think you would agree that although the letter of the law might state they aren't necessary for a conviction, they are relied upon most of the time by police when they make a speeding charge.

And once they have been used in the charge as evidence, the officer and the prosecution opens up a can of worms if the lawyer/defendent is an expert at
finding holes in its use.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Lidars and radars are to confirm an officer's visual estimation. It is possible to get a conviction without them. They help, but are not required. How much they might be necessary depends a great deal on the jurisdiction and the court.

- Carl

Carl. I have always had a problem with the "officer can accurately determine speed" thing. I know that if I'm having a foggy day my perceptions aren't my norm and could easily vary. But since this seems to be the case could a defendent require the officer to submit to a test(s) to verify their accuracy.
This test would need to be performed by a totally disinterested party to have any true validity. Comments?? and thanks for any input

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by justalayman

Carl. I have always had a problem with the "officer can accurately determine speed" thing. I know that if I'm having a foggy day my perceptions aren't my norm and could easily vary. But since this seems to be the case could a defendent require the officer to submit to a test(s) to verify their accuracy.
This test would need to be performed by a totally disinterested party to have any true validity. Comments?? and thanks for any input

Police officers have certification training in all states and it is a continuing obligation.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Leviticus

I think you would agree that although the letter of the law might state they aren't necessary for a conviction, they are relied upon most of the time by police when they make a speeding charge.

As I said, it varies by jurisdiction.

For instance, in some CA counties the DA will prosecute - and the courts will convict - if a DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) conducts an evaluation of a subject under the influence of drugs and testifies to his/her being under the influence ... in other counties, they only want the chemical test, and the evaluation serves only to establish probable cause.

In the case of radar/lidar, the same thing applies. Some jurisdictions will go with an officer's testimony of speed based upon his training and experience (as I have), or only want that in conjunction with a pace or radar/lidar.

As with anything, the defense is free to poke holes as they can. if they can raise reasonable doubt, then so be it.

- Carl

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by justalayman

Carl. I have always had a problem with the "officer can accurately determine speed" thing. I know that if I'm having a foggy day my perceptions aren't my norm and could easily vary. But since this seems to be the case could a defendent require the officer to submit to a test(s) to verify their accuracy.
This test would need to be performed by a totally disinterested party to have any true validity. Comments?? and thanks for any input

Most courts are not going to allow you to engage in such theatrics. Recessing the courtroom so that you can take everyone outside for a test on the local roadway just isn't going to happen. And the old bit about dropping a book to the ground and asking the officer to estimate it's speed isn't likely to work, either.

Depending on the state of the training, radar certified officers are required to successfully make visual estimations at various speeds plus or minus 2 or 5 MPH (depending on training) before they are certified. They must also make numerous observations confirmed with radar prior to final certification.

If the training is poor, than it can be challenged. Even if not, then you are still free to try and raise reasonable doubt in a case decided only on the officer's visual observation.

- Carl