That's not what I say...it's what the manufacturer says. No idea why you had to throw in the veiled insult.
I'm sure there is some loophole that allows them to shoot LIDAR at the moon and say they were targeting your car.
So discovery can be helpful. See what is available. I would also do a FOIA request with the police and see when they purchased their LIDAR units (I have had an officer testify that he was trained in 2005 but his LIDAR unit was designed & manufactured in 2007 so I asked him "you did not receive formal training on this LIDAR unit officer, is this correct?" He answered "correct" Judge ruled he was not trained with the specific LIDAR equipment used. Always use leading questions with the cross examination I always do a little background set of questions "you did not gradutate college, correct?"..just to show that his education is not that great, hurting his appearance in front of the court when he speaks to any scientific information regarding LIDAR.
The goal (or perfect goal) is to not argue with the officer's testimony but to place doubt on his equipment (keeping out supporting documents); show that his training is lacking & may be the cause of the erroneous reading; and to require that the state show that the specific LIDAR unit is given judicial notice; and show that the officer did not use the suggested methods of use of the instrument (if he does not say specifically that he followed the suggested methods I generally just leave his testimony as that but others like to point out specific errors but ? the cop along these lines allows him to "fix" his testimony so there are pros & cons in doing this type of cross ~ to each their own, just be aware). And to win with a motion for aquittal or summary judgment before I present any defense case. And hey, if you lose this type of motion then get the kitchen sink out during your defense presentation of the case. If I don't have to testify, its best ... (open mouth, insert foot lol) + it allows them to cross the defendant (and hey, almost every time I have been to traffic court I did exactly what they said I did .... they still have to prove it, right?)
OK, if you really really really want to get into the manual information at trial then you will need to get the manual via such a method to make it admissible evidence. How? Via a FOIA request is best or via a motion to admit (give them a copy & ask if it is an accurate copy of the LIDAR unit used by the officer during your speed measurement) & it they admit yes, then it will be admissible.
If you don't have a copy that you can admit, the copy will mean nothing .. the judge will not look at it. Do not expect a copy gotten from a website will be admissible ~ any DA with 1/2 a brain would object & well they should..
All FOIA requests & responses (all the documents related to the request must be included as a document to be admitted) are admissible in any court. You just have to lay the foundation for their admittance (I filed a FOIA request on this date to this agency, I received a response on this date, these documents are the complete request & response produced and received).
I know what the LIDAR manuals say & I always have a copies ready at trial (obtained through a FOIA request) .. never had to admit one though as officer's have never said that they actually followed the suggested methods for the manual for whatever they do. They say "I did this test, this test, this test" and "I did this , that, and the other during my measurement". And they may state line for line from the manual what they did but they NEVER say they actually followed the manufacturer's method .. and I make a point that they never say this (otherwise the judge will just assume he did~it human nature to "fill-in-the-blanks" --- its my job to highlight those "blanks" to the judge)
Just so you are aware - infrared LIDAR does not LOCK ON anything. Rapidly pulsed beams of infrared light are reflected off of the moving target back to the instrument. The difference in the amount of time the pulses take to reflect back to the instrument is calculated to determine SPEED and DISTANCE. It only takes about 1/3rd of a second to get a reading. The aiming reticle allows the operator to see which target he is aiming at. There are many highly reflective surfaces on a motor vehicle, the license plate usually being the most desirable target due to its reflectivity. A car's headlights are also very reflective, along with chrome trim and bumpers. Because a plate is missing does not mean that a reading cannot be obtained.
I'm not looking for cheerleaders of any sort. I made a point about LIDAR that is factually true. It is supposed to be aimed at the plate for maximum accuracy. Page 9.
I'm not big on tit-for-tat arguments, so I'll leave it at that.
The last point I made, when contesting a ticket, absolutely everything is skewed in their favor. They even have free representation from the state. A civilian does not on traffic tickets. There is no distance on the citation (wonder why that is), no plates were present, LIDAR was used through the windshield (not supposed to be done according to manufacturer)...well, LIDAR doesn't ever "lie", it is the most high-tech speed capturing device in history and anyone who challenges that is completely wrong and just trying to get out of the ticket.....you get the point.
It does seem skewed and it is to a degree. You are free to represent yourself or obtain legal representation. If there is no distance or exact location of the officer in relation to yours on the ticket that may help your case. The no license plate argument is likely going to get you no where. Shooting the LIDAR through the cruiser windshield will need more than just your word. You'll need to get the officer to make that statement under oath. Good luck with whatever you try.
Read about LIDAR vehicle detection, LIDAR tracking. Some even bill themselves as working both ways, having a non-lock vs lock mode. There's several different kinds of LIDAR guns. That's why I said earlier it would be beneficial to know the exact model, and my questions about discovery were partially regarding that.
The LIDAR shoots out a beam of light (if fact a pair of pulses--this is for the first light): it bounces off the target back to the LIDAR unit. From the time of flight (and assuming the speed of light is constant at 186,000 mi/sec) then the distance is calculated .. call this DISTANCE 1
The LIDAR shouts ot a 2nd beam of light (the 2nd in the pair); it bounces off the taget back to the LIDAR unit. From its time of flight then DISTANCE 2 is calculated.
The time between the 2 beams of light is measured by the LIDAR unit... TIME X
Speed is calculated from the measured values of distance and time: (DISTANCE 1 - DISTANCE 2) / TIME X = MPH
Ta-Da ! People use laser range finders (using similar flight-of-time & return calculations) that is based on similar technology....
This is not to mean that the errors involved cannot be hugh .... heck, the speed of light is not even constant (only in a vacuum) .. you can find patents online too that detail the methods they use.