LIDAR Usage Near Airports

Do not second guess your arguments, I'd bet money nobody actually read it.

Did you subpoena the records you needed, with a rationale why you needed it? If they failed to comply establish that at trial and move for dismissal citing your inability to prepare a defense without the requested items.

Read up on trial de novo...you present the same case, this time in court, where the "judicial officer" cannot ignore. Recognize that the plan is NOT to convince the judge hearing the case that you are correct...the plan is to create a RECORD such that on appeal the APPEALS COURT will overturn this jokers decision.

Adam, I did NOT submit rationale in my informal request, believing that might be tipping my hand. Your suggestion going forward is resubmit the request with rationale, and if again refused, then obstruction is blatant to the court. That's worth a try.

Arrrg! So your point is there is every likelihood the verdict will be same and I'm really preparing an appeals case at this point. I wasn't aware that infractions could be appealed, so now I have some serious homework. If you have any pointers for getting started or other recommendations, please don't be shy. Thanks Adam.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

The power of the 20-20 TruSpeed LASER is 1,800 times that allowed in an airport zone.

---

I'm not sure how you figure that. The allowed power, according to the documents you've referred to, is 50 nW/cm2. The divergence of the 20-20 is 2.5 milliradians, so at 1,000 feet, you get a circular pattern about 2.5 feet in diameter. Converting that to square centimeters, you get just over 4,500. 90 uW / 4500 cm2 = 20 nW/cm2 -- less than half. At 500 feet it would still only be 40 nW/cm2. So, basically, in order to be in violation, the officer would have to be within 400 feet of the airport. But you said he was a MILE away.

Furthermore, since tests have shown that -- when used properly -- traffic LASERs don't cause eye damage to the target, nor do they cause "flashblindness" since they use infrared light, I think you'll be hard pressed to sell this argument to a judge.

Just my $.02
Barry

Barry,

I'm with you. Even if the OP proved that the cop did violate some FAA regulation, I don't think that would invalidate his ticket.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Barry,

I'm with you. Even if the OP proved that the cop did violate some FAA regulation, I don't think that would invalidate his ticket.

---

And even if it would .. it would require an expert to testify ... OP willing to spend $5,000 on a traffic ticket?

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

What I thought was overwhelming evidence was underwhelming to the Judicial Officer. BTW, what is a judicial officer? Judge? Legal trained? Court advocate? Law enforcement advocate? City official? So, the serial number approach seems moot.

If I move for a new trial, I assume that I have to introduce new evidence. I'm pushing again to get the video, which should show red lights were not turned on initially, and shooting qualification scores. I would also like the LIDAR training course information. I have contacted LTI again to see if they know of any airport restrictions. Stay tuned.

---

^^ I thought this meant you had already submitted the rationale to the court in a TBD, and you were saying "that didnt work, time fore new. You repeat your case.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

Adam, I did NOT submit rationale in my informal request, believing that might be tipping my hand. Your suggestion going forward is resubmit the request with rationale, and if again refused, then obstruction is blatant to the court. That's worth a try.

Arrrg! So your point is there is every likelihood the verdict will be same and I'm really preparing an appeals case at this point. I wasn't aware that infractions could be appealed, so now I have some serious homework. If you have any pointers for getting started or other recommendations, please don't be shy. Thanks Adam.

---

I've done a subpoena for materials, and provided SOME rationale as to why I needed the materals. You don't argue what the material shows, but rather why the material might show something related to your case. Sure it does tip you hand, but there is no legal mind on the other side looking to outmanuuever you...they rely on judicial bias (ie the officer is always right, the defendant always lies) to win their case. I know that if they fail to give you documents you have subpoenaed, and there is a valid rationale, and you come court you point this out and ask for dismissal, and if they deny it and the deny a future date, they are risking an appeal. With an "informal discovery" I think they can ignore you.

My comment on appeals is this: at traffic court they have ZERO interest in finding the 'truth'. They want you to pay the fine and go away...BUT, they sit up and take notice if they get an inkling that they have someone who can cause them issues down the road. They hate losing an appeal. If you can create, in the trial record, evidence that would result in a successful appeal, then the PRESENT judge will decide in your favor. IMO

Attorneys here will say "That is just putting on a good case", and that is true- but as I've sat in court, a lot of people have good stories, and are believeable, and the states case is weak or not completely made- but those that win are where the judge cannot avoid the decision.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Barry,

I'm with you. Even if the OP proved that the cop did violate some FAA regulation, I don't think that would invalidate his ticket.

---

Agreed, Jim. It's not like "entrapment", where the officer's actions enticed you into doing something you otherwise would not. It's not like a "speed trap", where the speed limit is illegally lower for the sole purpose of raising revenue. In this case, the officer's actions -- in violation of FAA regulations or not -- did not have ANY affect on OP's speeding, except, of course, to catch him.

Barry

I love technical folk! Barry, your numbers are good, but the venue is misunderstood. The FAA pointer I gave is to a page that includes an advisory form and diagram for notifying the local airport authority of LASER operation within the zone and over the max. allowed power level. The zone is defined as 3 Nautical Miles from the landing/takeoff edges (and 5,000 ft. wide), plus a 2 Nautical Mile buffer on all other sides of the runway. The officer took up a position in the center of the flight path and less than one mile from the runway edge. He was in the zone and operating at full power; thus the 1,800 (90uW/50nW).

Whether it’s fixation on visual or my misdirection, the real problem is EMI/RFI. The blogs are replete with folks testing RADAR/LIDAR detectors in the vicinity of airports for false triggers. Given the occurrence of these, it follows that an active emitter may disrupt the approach, landing, or ground tracking systems; more specifically LIDAR wind shear detectors. Generating a false event or interfering with detection of an actual event would be bad.

IR blinds just as easily as visible. The fact that you don’t know you’re being blinded until it’s too late makes IR more likely to blind. Battlefield LASER systems operate in the near, mid and far IR ranges in support of covert operations. The worst offenders are the designators (e.g. AN/PED-1 LLDR) and the LASER rangefinders in tank tracking and aircraft ground targeting systems. My retina have been scanned so often I think they’re a matter of public record.

Back on point, the issue is public safety and is this a lack of training issue, or was the training ignored/forgotten. If lacking, the court may consider the airport EMI/RFI as an additional error source that would justify at least lowering the bail (presently $230, ouch!), or dismissal at best. My fear is the CHP is operating in blissful ignorance, but how do I discover/prove that? If officer ignored training, a guilty verdict risks sending the message that airport safety is subordinate to traffic safety. I don’t think that will happen. I really need a copy of the LIDAR training course material, and though I included that, the response to request failed to produce it, only a copy certifying that the officer took the course. That means I’ll have to finesse the answers during cross. Arrg!

As a note, the agency will not likely be in possession of any Lidar training material, that will be in the possession of the agency or organization that conducted the training. You can check with the California office of Peace Officer Standards and Training and see if they can provide you with the minimum requirements or direct you to the specific training course.

Adam, thanks for the insight and wisdom. This is an interesting civics lesson for me. My last speeding ticket was July '79, so I'm not a regular here. Issuing subpoena will be a new experience.

BTW, I contacted the clerk of the court to inquire about who, what position and reasoning for verdict. The clerk gave me the name of the official, that it is an appointed position, but not a judge, and indicated the reason was no TBD submitted. I chuckled and said, “You mean they lost all 20 pages?” Apparently she recognized or knew something more about the case and had me hold. When she returned, she said they found it and to ignore the verdict mailing. I have three weeks to resubmit. Who needs Barnum and Bailey; life is so much more entertaining!