Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default VC 22349(A) and LIDAR Certification/Calibration

    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CA

    I was cited by CHP for speeding (VC 22349A). When I made a discovery request, the following was provided:

    --In his declaration the officer states that he has over 50 hours of classroom and field training “in the use of radar.” An attached CHP Academy Certificate of Attainment indicates that the officer completed a 24-hour PO standards and training class for radar operator. The officer obtained this certificate five months prior to my citation.

    --Also, in his declaration the officer indicates that he has received 8 hours of post certified training in the use of the LTI 20-20 TruSpeed Laser Lidar. However, no such certificate was included in the discovery documents.

    --A Lidar Calibration Log, bearing the officer’s signature, was included.

    --Another document, Traffic Lidar Certification by IACP Lidar Testing Laboratory was attached indicating that the lidar serial number in question had passed various tests. This certification was completed 17 months before the citation.

    --Finally, there was a Certificate of Calibration by Laser Inc. Technology, with a date going back 47 months.

    From what I hear VC 22349A infractions are rather hard to beat. The only angle that I can think of is the calibration/certification one. But as far as I know, the CA vehicle code is not specific at all as far as calibrations or certifications go. Does any of the above provide any hope that I may have a half-decent chance in court? Would the fact that the 8-hour lidar certification was not provided work in my favor? Or, given what I have, I should cut my losses short and opt for traffic school instead?
    I appreciate all your help!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: VC 22349(A) and LIDAR Certification/Calibration

    You're correct in that there is no statutory requirement for calibration and/or Radar/Lidar training as part of the prosecution's required proof in a 22349 case. The only thing that must be proven is that you were driving in excess of the state's maximum speed limit of 65. That can be easily proven with or without Lidar calibration and while you don't mention what speed you were cited for but I'm assuming it was likely in excess of any margin of error that you could find on a certificate of calibration.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: VC 22349(A) and LIDAR Certification/Calibration

    This is exactly why discovery requests should NOT be sent to the police agency. They are NOT required by law to provide discovery, so the incomplete discovery the OP recieved is perfectly legal. Contrast this with the prosecution's obligation to provide discovery and its easy to see why DAs want you to send discovery requests to someone else!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,006

    Default Re: VC 22349(A) and LIDAR Certification/Calibration

    Here we go again...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: VC 22349(A) and LIDAR Certification/Calibration

    That's exactly what I was gonna say. I'm just curious as to how the indefensible will be defended.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,006

    Default Re: VC 22349(A) and LIDAR Certification/Calibration

    Why dude? Both sides are going to give the same arguments over and over and over again....hijacking and derailing how many threads? Neither side is going to change the mind of the other side. All you are doing is stirring the pot by repeatedly arguing the same things over and over.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: VC 22349(A) and LIDAR Certification/Calibration

    Quote Quoting HomeAgain123
    View Post
    This is exactly why discovery requests should NOT be sent to the police agency. They are NOT required by law to provide discovery, so the incomplete discovery the OP recieved is perfectly legal. Contrast this with the prosecution's obligation to provide discovery and its easy to see why DAs want you to send discovery requests to someone else!!
    What's your point? Are you even sure you're in the right thread?

    Let me take that back and play along for a minute... There is not a single item that you can request through discovery that will change the outcome in this case, no matter who provides it or who refuses to provide it. But lets assume there is...

    Regardless of how you formulate your request or who you send it to, and regardless of who responds or ignores your request, your only recourse is "immediate disclosure" on the same day of your trial (assuming you make a timely & proper motion)...

    Now, who is the court going to order to provide you with discovery on that same day of your trial?
    That's right, the court is going to order the police agency (the citing officer) to fulfill your request.

    And who is going to end up fulfilling your request for discovery?
    That's right, the police agency (the citing officer) will eventually end up fulfilling your request.

    Can you decline/refuse/pick and choose/object and/or request that your objection be made on the record so that you can use that as your ground for an appeal?
    You can do whatever you wish but your objection will be overruled, you have been provided with your discovery and as such, you have no reason to whine, cry or appeal. At that point, you can proceed to trial as ordered (and lose) or forfeit (and lose)!

    Again, what's your point?

    Suit yourself... You can continue to make the same useless, pointless argument in every thread you come across, at the end of the day, you're simply whining about nothing!

    You were offended when TMN called you a troll... Hindsight is 20:20 and looking back, he was spot on!




    Quote Quoting free9man
    View Post
    Why dude? Both sides are going to give the same arguments over and over and over again....hijacking and derailing how many threads? Neither side is going to change the mind of the other side. All you are doing is stirring the pot by repeatedly arguing the same things over and over.
    I can only speak for myself but from now on, and while I will respond to EWYLTJ's pointless commentary once, if he makes the same point again, I'll simply link to my last comment...

    EDIT: I keep forgetting that EWYLTJ was recently banned and that he came back under ^^this^^ new HomeAlone screen name!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: VC 22349(A) and LIDAR Certification/Calibration

    .... Here we go again... Defending the indefensible.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    LA LA Land
    Posts
    9,170

    Default Re: VC 22349(A) and LIDAR Certification/Calibration

    Here we go where? With ^that^ response, it doesn't appear you're going anywhere!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    78

    Default Re: VC 22349(A) and LIDAR Certification/Calibration

    I guess I'll meet you there...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Why dude? Both sides are going to give the same arguments over and over and over again....hijacking and derailing how many threads? Neither side is going to change the mind of the other side. All you are doing is stirring the pot by repeatedly arguing the same things over and over.
    Interesting. You recognize that both sides are going to give the same arguments over and over, yet when I make my point, I'm just "stirring the pot". Howe Ed, when those with opposing views make their point, they do not recieve similar criticism. I wonder why that is?

    The bottom line is... My side is correct. It is based on actual law. The opposing side is incorrect. It is only based on a common (and inappropriate) practice. The point I made above was quite valid. This is an example of how a police agency can simply provide as much or as little discovery as they wish. They can knowingly withhold exculpatory evidence as well because they are not legally obligated to produce it. The police serve the role of witness. Period. The police are NOT the prosecution, as some would have you believe. I can't help that some people would favor a practice over clear black letter law. But their blindness. Does not make me a "pot stirrer".

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Other Violations: Calibration of LIDAR Guns 40802
    By davidlarkin1 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-08-2012, 09:46 PM
  2. Speeding Tickets: Certificates of Calibration for LIDAR Under Melendez-Diaz
    By davidmcbeth3 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-09-2012, 10:14 AM
  3. Discovery: Daily Calibration of LIDAR
    By Kev in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-09-2011, 02:17 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: How Long Does California LIDAR Certification Last
    By robd003 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-28-2011, 03:36 PM
  5. Speeding Tickets: California Speeding Ticket with LIDAR Calibration and Certification Issues
    By ca_wings in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-15-2007, 12:15 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources