Two tickets in three days...

[Pugilist]

Brown says otherwise, so I could be wrong, but this is how I view it.

The CHP officer is just a witness for the prosecution. When you do discovery, you serve opposing counsel, not their witnesses.

I think Brown is a little over-formal. On a traffic ticket I use informal discovery, which I submit as a business letter, not on a court form. I mail it myself (and fax it too). While there is no requirement to send a copy to the court, I would, and there I would get confirmation - either the return receipt, or a clerk-stamped copy.

But there is no harm, except for loss of time, in going over-formal, or serving everyone in sight.

Pug

 

[sukharev]

discovery detail

make sure you get the record of officer's training, then follow up with request under Freedom of Information Act, to get the complete training manual. Also, request user manual, repair and maintenance records for the radar unit. Finally, get radar test records for the day of violation if they exist.

All of these records are needed for one purpose: prove the unit was not used according to training, manufacturer specifications and applicable case laws. Specifically, getting training manual would help you determine if officer remembers relevant parts of the training (such as set-up procedure, testing for interference, testing unit SPEED measurement accuracy and not unit electronics). User manual would help to determine if correct testing procedure was used (if any). Use these documents to fight officer's statements like "this is how I was trained".

Keep in mind, you are entitled to get this information. If you don't get it, you can motion for case dismissal at trial. If judge does not grant you dismissal, and you eventually loose, then you would have a much better chance on appeal.

 

[CdwJava]

make sure you get the record of officer's training, then follow up with request under Freedom of Information Act, to get the complete training manual. Also, request user manual, repair and maintenance records for the radar unit. Finally, get radar test records for the day of violation if they exist.

A record of his training in the use of the radar/lidar is possible ... a copy of the training manual likely does not exist at their office and you might have to send such a request through the DA or to California POST. We do not keep the curriculum content of all the courses our officers attend at our agencies. If this officer's training was conducted at the academy, they can likely send you the outline.

- Carl

 

[sukharev]

I agree

A record of his training in the use of the radar/lidar is possible ... a copy of the training manual likely does not exist at their office and you might have to send such a request through the DA or to California POST. We do not keep the curriculum content of all the courses our officers attend at our agencies. If this officer's training was conducted at the academy, they can likely send you the outline. - Carl

Yes, that's what I would expect, too. However, this is the only way I can think of to confront statements like "this is how I was trained". Same for user manual - would be hard to get. FYI, you can get it for $100 from LTI.

In my personal experience, the judge simply did not with to consider the fact that officer further stated he does not recall curriculum details, or user manual information other than what he stated. So, he said: "I was holding lidar in my hands when testing the distance measurement", and I could not argue: but the training manual said you have to mount it on a tripod!" because I had no specific user manual or training documents. I did have a user manual for a different lidar unit (they do use same principles), but this was immediately dismissed by prosecutor as irrelevant.

 

[CdwJava]

Heck, I can't recall the curriculum details of most the courses I have been to, either. I can recall those areas that were drilled in to me and those that I recall, but I couldn't possibly testify to all the areas that were covered in the training.

In CA if the training was certified by POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training), then a syllabus will be retained with their office in Sacramento. The local offices of the CHP and law enforcement agencies will not have this information unless the coirse was taught "in house".

And one has to be careful about trying to play Clarence Darrow in traffic court ... the traffic court judges have very little patience for what they might see as theatrics. And since most of them are "Pro Tem" (i.e. temporary, appointed judges or commissioners), they don't always care about the details.

- Carl

 

[sukharev]

Sorry, Carl:

let me repeat what I was trying to achieve (this is just one example of inconsistent statement from the government witness).

- The officer states: "this is how I was trained".
- I ask: "Do you have any record about the traffic stop?".
- Officer: "No, we don't keep any records".
- My reply: "Officer, do you recognize this document?"
- Officer: "Yes, this is the Guideline Manual used at our department"
- Me: "is part of your training to study this procedure and follow it when performing your duty?"
- Officer: "Yes"
- Me: "Does the procedure outlined in the manual apply to the traffic stop in question?"
- Officer: "Yes, it does"
- Me: "can you read the highlighted sentence?"
- Officer: "An operator is required to maintain a log of radar violations..."

 

[CdwJava]

Okay. That's an example of the officer or the agency not following procedure. This does not mean that the citation is any less valid. It could be the judge did not see his failure to keep that record as relevant. It would certainly be valid to bring that up as possible evidence, but it does not require that the trier of fact make it a primary determinant in their decision.

I am not trained in radar use, and am not sure what the retention of such a log would be for - though I could make a few educated guesses. I know that our officers DO keep a log of some kind for their radar use for certification purposes ... how it is used, I really couldn't say.

- Carl

 

[felipeii]

SOMDEB, I am facing a similar situation I live in Nevada and was ticketed on HWY 58 . The ticket was for 102mph in a 65mph zone. The official infraction ia22345(B)VC speed over 100 mph. Do you have any new advice for me ? Thank you in advance