LIDAR Usage Near Airports

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: California
I have a very technical question regarding training and use of LIDAR near airports. I'll spare the details and simply say the citation was for 77 in 65 on a section of US 101 that passes within one mile of a commercial airport. The officer made several mistakes in filling out the citation, which may imply sufficient fatigue that other errors were made in the measurement process, but I'm not willing to rest my defense on that.

The LIDAR device in question is a Laser Technology 20-20 TRU-SPEED (http://www.lasertech.com/TruSpeed-Specifications.aspx), which according to its datasheet uses a 90 microwatt, 905nm pulsed LASER. We've all seen the problems of kids using LASER pointers to distract pilots or even drivers from an overpass. There are laws against such, and specific protocols for operating LASER equipment in the vicinity of an airport. The FAA FAQ on LASER (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...e_rules/laser/) includes an Outdoor LASER Operations advisory that is applicable to surveyors, body shops using frame alignment equipment, and a host of other businesses that use LASER equipment in the vicinity of an airport. On page 17 of the Appendix is a very specific diagram showing the maximum allowable power (50 nanowatts) and specific ranges from the runways over which this limitation applies.

Now the Question: Do law enforcement agencies have some carte blanche to operate LIDAR inside this range? Whom should I contact? And before suggesting the CHP, I'll make it known that they've been very uncooperative in providing discovery information thus far. I had to serve the local DA, and all I got back were copies of the flip side of the citation, the calibration log (which didn't match the serial number on the front of the citation), the device certification, and the officer's LIDAR training certificate. I was hoping to also get the video log and the officers small arms qualification scores to show ability to hit a target at 500+ feet. I note that neither the datasheet nor operator's manual mention FAA certification or operating in the vicinity of an airport, so I believe this restriction applies. Thoughts, comments, and insights please.

The laser light from the LTI 20-20 is colorless to humans...you need to get off this track, it leads nowhere.

Can you post the discovery you did get?
Did you get a certificate of calibration ?
You may wish to do a FOIA request asking for the invoice of the LIDAR unit in question & other LTI 20-20 units purchased (may relate to officer's training).

You wish to see if the officer can hit a target @ 500 ft with his LIDAR unit -- he'll testify he can. But he will not be able to testify as to where the beam hits, moves etc. (cause its invisible). This may work in your favor ... but a judge would likely want to hear from an expert in respect to panning issues.

Need to look at visual estimation as well ... he can convict you on this as well.

So, post the docs or link to them ...

Have you asked for the LTI 20-20 manual? You may wish to via discovery & a FOIA request. You should ask to see the device & also the range that they do their daily checks with (measure the range). The LTI's daily check should include a simulated speed output .. so getting the manual would be helpful via a FOIA request or discovery (FOIA requests & responses are admissible).

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

the calibration log (which didn't match the serial number on the front of the citation) & the officers small arms qualification scores to show ability to hit a (MOVING) target at 500+ feet.

---

These are the two red flags that I'd pursue

Quote:

---

Quoting lurkertom

---

These are the two red flags that I'd pursue

---

A calibration log is not a requirement; you can object to its introduction into evidence & it should not go into the reord (the officer will testify that he does do his daily check-thats all thats required) -- if you can get him to say that the log giv & the officer will testify he can target @ 500FT; its not a gun he's pointing, more of a light -- he'll testify that he can ; these are two factors that really are not that critical to the prosecution.

As far as I know, there are no prohibitions for police to run LIDAR near airports. Given the low power rating, extremely short duration, and the fact that LIDAR does not emit visible light (vs 1W laser 'pointers' you can buy on the internet that emit a blue beam out to 10+ miles away), I don't think you'll get very far with that.

On the other hand, non-compliance with discovery and the serial numbers not matching up is a far more promising line of defense.

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

On the other hand, non-compliance with discovery and the serial numbers not matching up is a far more promising line of defense.

---

Its a problem for the documents to be introduced. The log? Not really needed for a conviction, right?

The important ones are the certificate of calibration & the training documents ... those I would like to see...they are critical to the case.

Thanks. LT the point of MOVING is good, but it's my understanding the CHP don't (re)qualify on moving, merely static targets. I got the results of the Trial by Declaration back today...GUILTY. Depressing, but not a total surprise as I'd heard this is perfunctory in this county. Thus the need for more homework. Here is the summary I submitted in the TBD:
The facts in this case are:
• Officer was on duty for nearly 11 hours at time of incident
• Officer chose a poor vantage point that introduced a number of error sources
• Officer initially neglected to turn on the red lights during pull over
• Officer made errors in transcribing license information
• Officer made errors in transcribing registration information
• Officer made errors in recording LIDAR serial number
o There is no correlation between LIDAR #1 on the citation and the information furnished during discovery
• Officer made errors in recording range data
o The device is capable of displaying range in meters or feet, neither noted on citation
• Officer made errors in assessing traffic as light
• Officer made only one measurement across two lanes of traffic with background foliage and traffic contributing significant error to the measurement
• No printout, imagery or video is available from the equipment
• The equipment does not store or transmit data
o There is no tangible proof the device was configured correctly
o There is no imagery showing what portion of the beam struck the intended target
o There is no proof the officer did not make a transcription error in entering the speed on the citation
• The citation is based completely on one single measurement.

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 have beaten LIDAR tickets & I too was underwhelmed at your arguments ...

Except for serial number issues (and the officer will attest in court that the unit was the one in which the certificate of calibration is provided - which kills a typo error).

You are running around and not focusing on the important stuff you can address.

Post the lidar docs obtained & the training docs.

HA, I fear you're right. It does go to public safety, training and officer's state of mind when operating in a protected zone. I'm not sure I can leverage that in court. The power of the 20-20 TruSpeed LASER is 1,800 times that allowed in an airport zone. I'll tell you the same thing I've told soldiers I've trained, "There is no such thing as an eye safe LASER. Eye safe merely means it takes more than a minute to burn a hole in your retina, not that it can't burn a hole. Wear your eye protection always." BTW, retinal damage is cumulative. The official definition of eye safe is much more complex. The TruSpeed is a Class I LASER, but look carefully at the power and duration limits in Table 1 at this site: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/script...cfm?fr=1040.10. LIDAR is military technology that has been adapted for civilian use. The civilian version has gotten much better, but it has far to go.

God, stop with the using LIDAR around 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!

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

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).

---

You're right -- my numbers are good. Yours, unfortunately are NOT! You are comparing apples to oranges. You CANNOT equate -- or divide -- total power (microWatts) to power per unit area (nanoWatts/square cm). If you do, as you tried, the answer is NOT 1,800 -- it's 1,800 square cm. That means absolutely NOTHING. If your classroom has six pencils and mine has 2 pencils per desk, you don't have 3 times the number of pencils that I have, since you don't know how many "desks" I have. Good luck with your remedial math class.

Barry

So, on a side note. Were you speeding?

Quote:

---

Quoting sniper

---

So, on a side note. Were you speeding?

---

I would suggest the op exercise his rights and not talk to police (even Justice Roberts said as much). Only the court of law can determine whether speeding took place. :) :) :)

Alright Barry, let’s go through the math and get more specific about my argument. The TruSpeed has a point source power of 90uW and a divergence of 2.5mradians, which means it will achieve a power density of 90uW/cm^^2 at a range of 4.0 meters and fall off from there. Your argument, if I can paraphrase it, is that the device couldn’t project 90uW of power onto anything that matters and so the ratio doesn’t apply. Further, the actual ratio would be illuminated power density divided by the allowed. That would be an excellent argument to make for the prosecution. But that is not my interpretation of FAA AC70-1 page 17, and its definition of a LASER Free Zone (LFZ) is quite specific and simple, if not absolute. So my argument takes into account the viewpoint, if not the intent, of the FAA document. Yours is looking at the practical aspect and the likely damage that could result. Both are valid and the court would have to judge the intent, benefits and merits of each. That’s what we pay them for.

Bottom line, should the officer have been operating the device in the LFZ, and does that bear any merit on the case? I contend he should not have, and putting airport safety at risk in an effort to improve highway traffic safety is not justifiable…the ends don’t justify the means. The case should be thrown out as a means of discouraging the use of LIDAR in the LFZ.

As a point of order, I am hoping to keep these exchanges in the spirit of education and contributions to the public good. Some of your remarks were intended to be inflammatory, if not offensive. Apparently you construed mine as condescending, I apologize for that. Please keep in mind as a senior member your actions reflect on your peer group. ‘Nuf said.

Quote:

---

Quoting HonkingAntelope

---

I would suggest the op exercise his rights and not talk to police (even Justice Roberts said as much). Only the court of law can determine whether speeding took place. :) :) :)

---

And yet at the end of the day, the OP was cited for 77 in 65... (My guess: "a 22349(a) citation"). I'm tired of saying this but I will anyways: This case is pretty simple... CHP officer is likely RADAR/LASER trained/certified and can/will testify to a visual estimate with a +/- 5mph error rate. OP is looking at a speed range of anywhere between 82mph and 72mph, both of which are in excess of the 65mph limit, both of which are in violation of 22349(a).

The judge/commissioner/judicial officer (whatever you want to call him/her) is not likely to allow the defendant to waste (yes, I said "waste") 2 hour of the court's time on a quantum physics/LIDAR technology lecture explaining why he "thinks" the FAA would disapprove of the officer's actions (NONE of which is likely to raise ANY sort of doubt as to the officer's speed estimate), nor is he/she going to read a "20 page declaration".

Clearly, the OP misunderstands the concept of "weight of the evidence"... The case is not judged based upon the SIZE of one's declaration and/or argument, but upon the legal relevancy of its content and the arguments presented therein and, more importantly, whether those arguments can raise sufficient doubt as to whether the elements of the offense were committed or not.

AH, thanks but I don’t need to plead the fifth on this. Sniper, I was hoping to keep the argument at a high level and general in nature, but I recognize the hunter instinct and human nature to fight for the underdog. So I’ll share more and you decide.

The incident took place Sunday evening, shortly before 1700 hrs the weekend before Thanksgiving 2010 on a section of northbound freeway that parallels a strip mall. The officer parked his cruiser off the right side of the pavement (there’s some sort of requirement for them to be completely off the road, but it’s unclear to me why) and taken up a position near the front right corner of his vehicle. The weather conditions were very overcast, setting sun peaking under the clouds, dry road, and moderate humidity. The officer was viewing oncoming traffic from the east while being silhouetted by the setting sun in the west. Good tactical maneuver. The freeway narrows from three to two lanes at the officer’s position and traffic travels in “slugs,” which is to say there are gaps and then heavy concentrations that are caused by unmetered on-ramps from the mall area. As I approached the corridor at 70 MPH in the #2 lane, a burst of traffic entered from the on-ramp. I and others moved to the #1 lane and continued at speed for a short distance. Suddenly against the setting sun was a sea of red lights portending an accident or obstruction ahead. Now, I didn’t look at the speedometer, so I only know I was going less than 70 MPH. When I caught sight of the officer in my periphery, I checked my speed and it was 62 MPH at the convergence point. Prima facia is 65 MPH, the officer wrote the ticket for 77 MPH. Earlier in this thread I gave a summary of the facts as presented in the TBD, noting a number of errors, some blatant, made by the officer. In his defense, he had calibrated the LIDAR unit at 0600 hrs, so he had been on duty for nearly 11 hrs. Did he mean 67 MPH, or did he mean 77 MPH for traffic in the opposing lanes where the freeway expands from two to three lanes? No one in my three lanes of northbound traffic was going anywhere near that speed.

I am arguing the latter and provided pictures, vector analysis, and satellite imagery from the scene showing the exact scenario of a northbound vehicle in the foreground and a southbound motorhome in the background. The TruSpeed User’s Manual directs that the viewing scope reticle be aimed at the front license plate as the target “sweet spot,” and I believe the LIDAR training supports that. The reason for this is the license plate makes an excellent dispersive reflector, unlike a windshield which has very low dispersion and transparency issues. Non-illuminated headlights work well also. Given my position in the slug (I have video of slugs from a Caltrans camera mounted just yards from the officer’s position, but not from the day in question), the viewpoint from the officer’s defilade made it impossible to see my license plate in the thick of traffic, so he was forced to aim high. My vehicle has a large moonroof, guess where the beam went.

From the LTI 20-20 manual:

Measuring a Moving Vehicle
Refer to the instructions below to use the UltraLyte LR B to measure the
speed of a moving vehicle.
1. Ensure that the UltraLyte LR B is powered ON and that the
Speed Mode is active.
2. Use the sighting scope to aim the instrument at the target
vehicle's license plate area and press the TRIGGER.
3. Continue to press the TRIGGER and keep the instrument
sighted on the target
• A low-pitched growl means that the instrument is
attempting to lock onto the target.
• A low-pitched beep means that a measurement error
occurred. An error code will be displayed.
• A high-pitched beep means that a speed was captured. As
long as you hold the TRIGGER, the instrument will
continue to take speed measurements. The measured
speed will be displayed on the LCD screen and will be
projected on the scope, just below the aiming dot.
While the instrument is attempting to lock onto the target, as
long as the TRIGGER is kept pressed, it will retry the speed
measurement.
• Depending upon its configuration, the instrument will
try up to 10 times or more. Information is
accumulated until it gets a good measurement or
generates an error code.
• Consequently, it is very important that the aiming
point on the target remain constant for the entire
measurement time. If you move the instrument off
the aiming point, it will generate an error code
instead of capturing a speed reading.

That is why, when the officer testifies; if he does not say he followed the manufacturer's method or procedure then you ask for an acquittal/summary judgment due to the lack of testimony. It does not matter if he gives every step in his testimony either -- if he does not say he tested in in accordance with the manufacturer's method that should be enough.

The OP could ask to explain each step he did take (if he says he followed the manufacturer's procedure) .. but I would not recommend cross-examination further upon the officer that would allow him to give better testimony upon cross or re-direct. If he does not state he followed the manufacturer's procedure the court should view this as a fatal flaw & you don't have to prove what that procedure is..


From one of my cases in a regular court (trial de novo):

THE COURT: Right, but is there any testi -- I know what he did I’m not disputing that I credited his testimony I have no reason to -- to disbelieve him when he says that, the question is was there any evidence offered as to what the suggested method of testing was?
ATTY. REDACTED: Did I specifically ask him if that was the suggested methods of testing? No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That’s what the Statute calls for. Okay. The motion for judgment of acquittal is granted for the following reasons ...

TG, I’m guessing you were a gunnie in a former life. Did you review the TBD summary earlier in this thread? On the citation the license information was incorrect, the registration information was incorrect, the LIDAR serial number was given as Lidar #1 which did not match the calibration table furnished during discovery…need I go on? The only physical evidence is the citation, and it’s replete with errors. I don’t want to crucify the guy but there have been some comments here that indicate it’s either that or pay the fine and go home. In the bigger picture, the practice of operating a LIDAR in the LFZ is merely one more nail in the coffin. We’re bordering on gross incompetence here, yet you’re convinced otherwise? That’s why I came to you guys, so let’s hear why you’re dismissing each of the summary points. I think I have the “weight of evidence” on my side.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

On the citation the license information was incorrect, the registration information was incorrect, the LIDAR serial number was given as Lidar #1 which did not match the calibration table furnished during discovery…need I go on? The only physical evidence is the citation, and it’s replete with errors.

---

These are ALL valid points.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

I don’t want to crucify the guy but there have been some comments here that indicate it’s either that or pay the fine and go home.

---

No one is saying that. We are just trying to steer you clear of "loser" arguments.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

In the bigger picture, the practice of operating a LIDAR in the LFZ is merely one more nail in the coffin.

---

This argument is worth bupkis. All we have been trying to tell you is that it will have NO AFFECT, except to tick off the judge. As we've said a few dozen times: whether you're right or wrong (and I still believe you're wrong), the officer's conduct did NOT influence your speeding. You were speeding, you were caught. If you try to argue that the officer should not have been there, the judge will probably respond that YOU shouldn't have been speeding. Concentrate on your other points -- you've got some good ones. Especially the serial number argument.

Barry

Correction: the step by step method was for the LBR Laser Tech model ... I have the LTI 20-20 model manual somewhere .. if I find it I'll repost from that one .. they are likely the same procedure or very similar...

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

This argument is worth bupkis. All we have been trying to tell you is that it will have NO AFFECT, except to tick off the judge. As we've said a few dozen times: whether you're right or wrong (and I still believe you're wrong), the officer's conduct did NOT influence your speeding. You were speeding, you were caught. If you try to argue that the officer should not have been there, the judge will probably respond that YOU shouldn't have been speeding. Concentrate on your other points -- you've got some good ones. Especially the serial number argument.
Barry

---

Total bupkis ... it annoying me to no end too

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

TG, I’m guessing you were a gunnie in a former life.

---

You're probably guessing "wrong" about that too... But hey, at least you're consistent!

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

Did you review the TBD summary earlier in this thread?

---

I sure did... And "none" of the arguments that you itemized will provide you with as solid a defense that you did not commit the alleged offense as you seem to think; even if you had one or two seemingly valid points, they probably got lost in the shuffle of your 20 page declaration.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

On the citation the license information was incorrect, the registration information was incorrect...

---

The license information is there for identification purposes. Neither it nor the registration information are elements of the offense. Individually, those are considered “harmless errors” that have no effect whatsoever on whether you committed the alleged offense nor will they have any impact on your ability to put on a defense. Considering the fact that you've entered a plea in answer to the citation, and submitted a declaration in response, you've confirmed that you were, in fact, the driver who was pulled over and cited on that evening... You're free to bring up these, and other "errors" that you're clinging to, by arguing that, collectively, that they may tend to show that the officer was either tired, inattentive or careless, but is that really sufficient proof that you were not speeding? (Not even close, at least not in my opinion). Ultimately, that decision is up to the judge!

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

... the LIDAR serial number was given as Lidar #1 which did not match the calibration table furnished during discovery…

---

And that is a matter to bring up in a pre-trial motion during which you can argue that you were provided with the wrong calibration certificate at which time it would be likely that the correct certificate will be given to you for your review... Since you've already submitted your declaration for review, and since the court is unable to offer you any relief, I'm guessing that point will not make much of a difference.

That being said, discovery matters, and while they can at times lead to exclusion of the evidence are not issues that will ALWAYS result in a dismissal; not before all of options listed under Penal Code section 1054.5(b) are exhausted (see 1054.5(c)). But let us for the sake of argument assume that you will succeed in having the calibration certificate excluded from evidence. With it or without it, the officer will likely testify that he visually estimated of your speed prior to obtaining the LIDAR reading... and under the circumstances (12mph over with a +/-5mph margin of error) the judge can rely on such testimony as being sufficient for a guilty finding.

I am not clear on who provided you with the discovery material, if it was provided by the CHP then you maybe surprised to know that more often than not, the officer does not prepare/put together the response; it is done by someone else (a secretary, an explorer... etc). Even if it was provided by the prosecuting attorney, then it was likely prepared by someone OTHER than the officer. So while you're free to pin that on the officer's carelessness or inattention, you may find out otherwise as you argue your point in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

The only physical evidence is the citation, and it’s replete with errors.

---

Actually, the citation is merely a charging document/notice to appear or whatever you want to refer to it as. The "evidence" will consist of the officer's testimony and any additional documents that are presented in the case. If you'd like to know what information "must" (SHALL) be on a speeding citation, then you can read VC 40503. You'll note that there is no requirement include any of the information you're making such an issue about, such as the distance he measured your speed at, the serial number of the LIDAR unit he used... etc. All that "evidence" is presented either via his declaration or through his testimony in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

I don’t want to crucify the guy but there have been some comments here that indicate it’s either that or pay the fine and go home.

---

No one is saying you should either crucify him or go home with no other options... The general consensus seems to be that the arguments that you have presented here are not likely to achieve the results that you're seeking but if this is all you've got, then by all means, take it to 'em and let us know how things work out for you.

Similarly, no one is saying you will be found guilty... You came here soliciting opinions and so far it seems that you've gotten more than your money's worth. Just because the answers you've received are not within the realm of your expectations does not make them inaccurate or incorrect.

BY the way... "weather and road conditions" are irrelevant here as well; I think it would be safe to assume that you were not cited for VC 22350 (unsafe speed based on weather/traffic/road conditions). Instead, you were probably cited for 22349(a) (exceeding the maximum 65mph limit). While I cannot dismiss the possibility that others were also driving in excess of 65mph, my bet is that you were specifically targeted based on the officer's observations that you were the “fastest” at the time.

In summary, “it wasn't me it was somebody else”, “the officer made a couple of typos”, “I wasn't doing 77”, “he was near an airport when he shouldn't have been”, “he couldn't have seen my license plate”, “he was into the 11th hour of his shift”... etc, etc, etc... Those type of defenses don't work. Alternatively, if you're hoping for a dismissal in case he makes an egregious error in his declaration/testimony or doesn't appear at a court trial, then you've got a chance but “I” wouldn't put any of my money on it!

Barry, maybe I'm extrapolating too far. What I was trying to test, and you're debunking, is the notion that the officer succeeded in acquiring evidence without proper authorization. To we non-legal beagles, this is nothing more than illegal search and seizure. As such the LIDAR evidence should be excluded. But you're saying that won't work, so consider it dropped.

TG you’ve given me lots of homework here with regards to PC and VC issues, so I’ll be busy. Thanks for that, and yes the violation is 22349(a).

The point in bringing up the errors is to establish state of mind and introduce the possibility that further errors were made in the setup, measurement, or transcription of data from the LIDAR readout. These errors cannot be verified or dismissed because the LIDAR unit doesn’t offer any physical evidence, and because the officer refused my request to view and verify the serial number, mode, and readout data. It is highly probable that other errors were made.

As to discovery, I went with a friend who acted as process server to the DA’s office to serve the informal request. Two weeks later I received a copy of my request with the DA’s date stamp, CHP date stamp one day later, and material. The envelope indicated it came from the CHP. The calibration sheet indicates the officer checked calibration on LIDAR TS000651, the citation simply says LIDAR #1, and the back of the citation says TS651. The back of the citation also indicates he made two visual estimates at 1200 ft. and 792 ft. of 77MPH (113 ft/sec). So in the space of 3.6 seconds he made two visual estimates and a LIDAR measurement. Hmmm. Possibly he made the visual estimates through the sighting scope of the LIDAR. I wonder if that’s part of the 8 hr. LIDAR training course, for which a copy of the officer's course completion certificate was included in the material.

OK you’re hanging a lot on the visual estimate so let’s examine the holes in that aspect and what may have happened. If I show a video in court of a plane flying in the sky with no reference points and ask him to estimate the speed he may:
• Admit he can’t estimate it without references; right answer
• Take a WAG and hope; thereby establishing a large error budget greater than +5MPH
• Complain it’s an unfair test for which he’s not trained; thereby establishing he has limited ability
The objective is to establish his training relies on references for comparative measurements. Next, what was he using as a reference:
• A section of the center divider
• Lines on the pavement
• Adjacent traffic
My objective here would be to establish adjacent traffic as the comparator. Pavement lines were obscured by traffic and the center divider is too uniform and too difficult to detect seams at ranges >1000 ft. After establishing he used adjacent traffic as the comparator, I next have to establish his estimate of my speed as 12MPH faster than adjacent traffic. Finally I need to establish his presumption that prevailing traffic speed was 65MPH. Now the hard part, I have to establish that his presence and provocative stance with a gun aimed at oncoming traffic caused traffic flow to drop from 65 to 50MPH or something less than 65MPH as evidenced by the sea of red lights between me and his vantage point; uncertainty plays in my favor. If he wasn’t aware of it, didn’t estimate it, or didn’t measure it, then the estimate of my speed is inaccurate. So that adds a third speed estimate to the 3.6 second time window. All that is easily said, but I’ve never had to give presentations like this, so I can see having a lot of nervous moments, and I’m sure the officer is a professional witness and will likely see my finesse coming.

I’m assuming that in the TBD I should be stating what I think affected his visual estimate. More specifically, that he estimated my speed as 12MPH above adjacent traffic and that he was unaware surrounding traffic had significantly slowed. I did not do that in my initial submittal.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

TG you’ve given me lots of homework here with regards to PC and VC issues, so I’ll be busy.

---

I disagree... I think I/we have helped you considerably cut down on the amount of "wheel spinning" you'll be doing as you move forward. I'm sorry to burst quite a few of your bubbles in the process... But would you rather hear it here or hear it in court all while you're getting the judge more and more irritated?

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

Thanks for that...

---

You're quite welcome. I am glad I can help! :)

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

The point in bringing up the errors is to establish state of mind and introduce the possibility that further errors were made in the setup, measurement, or transcription of data from the LIDAR readout.

---

You're free to speculate as to whether any of those errors were made.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

These errors cannot be verified or dismissed because the LIDAR unit doesn’t offer any physical evidence

---

And enlighten us all as to which LIDAR, RADAR or speedometer offers any "physical evidence" (I presume you mean "a print out" of some sort)!!!! Better yet, can you provide a code section or a case law citation that will even come close to alluding that this is a legal requirement!

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

and because the officer refused my request to view and verify the serial number, mode, and readout data. It is highly probable that other errors were made.

---

The officer is under no obligation to show you anything... You're free to argue that you were unable to personally verify the reading or that he simply made it up. Fact is, most officer will outright refuse to show you the reading (for safety reasons), and you have no inherent right to see it as part of a "roadside examination of the evidence"... You do however have the right to cross examine him about it in court.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

As to discovery, I went with a friend who acted as process server to the DA’s office to serve the informal request. Two weeks later I received a copy of my request with the DA’s date stamp, CHP date stamp one day later, and material. The envelope indicated it came from the CHP.

---

So you got your discovery (regardless of who provided it)... You'll be happy to know that you're way ahead of most defendants whose discovery requests go ignored until the day of their trial.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

The calibration sheet indicates the officer checked calibration on LIDAR TS000651, the citation simply says LIDAR #1, and the back of the citation says TS651.

---

Seriously???? Are you freaking kidding me?????

Let us review:

• The officer is not required to indicate the type or serial number of the SMD he used on the front of the citation (see VC 40503 which I linked previously). So he can leave it out for all anyone cares, or he can refer to it as X, Y or assign it a 100 digit reference number; and as long as he can correlate -through his testimony- that the unit number he used is the same one referred to in the that calibration certificate he will produce... If he's able to do that then all is good in the world!

• The officer's notes can be written in Cantonese or Swahili for all anyone cares. In this case, he chose English but (I'm guessing) decided to eliminate the zeros from the serial # for brevity's sake.

• He will likely testify that he used Lidar # "TS651" all while you were provided with a Calibration certificate for unit #TS0000651"... How is that a different unit?

• I am not psychic but here... In response to your question as to why he used "LIDAR #1" on the front where as he will testify to using unit #TS000651, look for this type of answer: "we have 6 patrol cars with 6 Lidar units numbered TS000651 thru TS000656... I happen to use #1 thru #6, respectively, to refer to each of those units".

• There is no legal requirement for him to produce a calibration certificate in this case. The CA vehicle code only requires the prosecution to prove that the electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility (see VC 40802), BUT that is only in cases where the prosecution must establish that a "speed trap" (see the LEGAL definition in VC 40802) did not exist as part of a prima facie speed limit case (in violation of VC 22350). With this being a violation of the maximum statutory speed limit (VC 22349(a)), that requirement does not exist. Though the prosecution will still produce a calibration certificate (along with officer training and certification) for all speeding cases as icing on the cake and to eliminate all the meaningless arguments that may arise...

• Lastly, and most importantly, even if you are able to get the calibration certificate excluded, the officer will still testify to making (TWO) visual estimates and the judge can rely on those as sufficiently accurate (under the circumstances) to arrive at a guilty finding.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain that those two (certificate # and unit # on the back of the citation) refer to the same unit. However, IF you're still in doubt, you're free to bring the matter up and request that the officer and the judge explain it to you in simpler terms.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

The back of the citation also indicates he made two visual estimates at 1200 ft. and 792 ft. of 77MPH (113 ft/sec). So in the space of 3.6 seconds he made two visual estimates and a LIDAR measurement.

---

And??????

Sounds to me like the officer was quite a bit more perceptive that you're making him out to be!!! (Typically, they'll testify to ONE visual estimate followed by one SMD reading... In this case, he's got TWO plus one).

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

Possibly he made the visual estimates through the sighting scope of the LIDAR. I wonder if that’s part of the 8 hr. LIDAR training course, for which a copy of the officer's course completion certificate was included in the material.

---

Well, if this gets to a Trial De Novo, you'll have the opportunity to question him about ^that^ and about the following:

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

OK you’re hanging a lot on the visual estimate so let’s examine the holes in that aspect and what may have happened. If I show a video in court of a plane flying in the sky with no reference points and ask him to estimate the speed he may:
• Admit he can’t estimate it without references; right answer
• Take a WAG and hope; thereby establishing a large error budget greater than +5MPH
• Complain it’s an unfair test for which he’s not trained; thereby establishing he has limited ability
The objective is to establish his training relies on references for comparative measurements. Next, what was he using as a reference:
• A section of the center divider
• Lines on the pavement
• Adjacent traffic
My objective here would be to establish adjacent traffic as the comparator. Pavement lines were obscured by traffic and the center divider is too uniform and too difficult to detect seams at ranges >1000 ft. After establishing he used adjacent traffic as the comparator, I next have to establish his estimate of my speed as 12MPH faster than adjacent traffic. Finally I need to establish his presumption that prevailing traffic speed was 65MPH. Now the hard part, I have to establish that his presence and provocative stance with a gun aimed at oncoming traffic caused traffic flow to drop from 65 to 50MPH or something less than 65MPH as evidenced by the sea of red lights between me and his vantage point; uncertainty plays in my favor. If he wasn’t aware of it, didn’t estimate it, or didn’t measure it, then the estimate of my speed is inaccurate. So that adds a third speed estimate to the 3.6 second time window. All that is easily said, but I’ve never had to give presentations like this, so I can see having a lot of nervous moments, and I’m sure the officer is a professional witness and will likely see my finesse coming.

I’m assuming that in the TBD I should be stating what I think affected his visual estimate. More specifically, that he estimated my speed as 12MPH above adjacent traffic and that he was unaware surrounding traffic had significantly slowed.

---

The one thing I will say in that regards is this: the officer has been P.O.S.T. trained and certified in the use of RADAR/LASER; part of which includes him being able to visually estimate the speed of moving vehicle. And with all due respect, who are you to question the methodology, content, procedures and or results of that training and/or certification?

Have you ever heard of K.I.S.S.? It means "Keep It Simple, Sir" :D... You, on the other hand, are over thinking the whole shebang... Good luck with all if it though!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

I did not do that in my initial submittal.

---

Are you sure they're waiting for YOU to "resubmit"??? Is it possible that the clerk with whom you spoke meant that he/she will "resubmit the case file to the judge" now that your 20 page declaration was located?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

The CA vehicle code only requires the prosecution to prove that the electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility

---

And who would testify to the SMD being compliant with the NHSTA standards ... this would require an expert I assume & the officer is not going to be a qualified expert. And the certificate of calibration is the proof needed .. the officer cannot testify that it was calibrated unless he actually saw it occur. He can try to lay a foundation for the admittance of the COC but, again, he is not a qualified witness to allow the COC to be allowed in.

And interestingly, I think that (from the CA vehicle code) the Melendez-Diaz case (SCOTUS) may require the person who signed the COC to actually testify. It seems to be a document produced to be used in court to convict people of speeding. Interestingly, the manufacturer does not require further calibration so it is not a maintanence reason ~ the reason for the re-calibration of the device every so often is shown in the statues ~ to convict folks of speeding & other crimes. A judge may agree. This could be another argument for the OP .. its definately would be new case law for these devices. A document produced to support convictions made by a person unknown to the court using methods unknown , that is all that Melendez-Diaz requires to kick-in the need for the signator to be in court to allow its admittance.

TG, the hits just keep coming.

Quote:

---

• The officer is not required to indicate the type or serial number of the SMD he used on the front of the citation (see VC 40503 which I linked previously). So he can leave it out for all anyone cares, or he can refer to it as X, Y or assign it a 100 digit reference number; and as long as he can correlate -through his testimony- that the unit number he used is the same one referred to in the that calibration certificate he will produce... If he's able to do that then all is good in the world!

---

VC40503 doesn’t require address or registration information either. Is there another VC for those? Obviously some agency designed the form, some judicial /legislative group approved it, and there is POST on how to fill it out. So the fact that the officer volunteered information, and it was false or misleading, has no bearing on the character, quality or credibility of the other information on the citation or the officer recording it. Does moral turpitude mean nothing?

Quote:

---

• The officer's notes can be written in Cantonese or Swahili for all anyone cares. In this case, he chose English but (I'm guessing) decided to eliminate the zeros from the serial # for brevity's sake.

---

Yes, they are quite cryptic. And by omitting the 0’s he created ambiguity with serial numbers 1651, 10651, 100651, 651000… Clearly a sense of quality control is lacking here.

Quote:

---

• He will likely testify that he used Lidar # "TS651" all while you were provided with a Calibration certificate for unit #TS0000651"... How is that a different unit?

---

Objection your honor, TS651 was not in use in this incident, LIDAR #1 is the unit in question. TS651 is a fictitious device, possibly a Chinese knock off, that is similar but not in compliance with Laser Technologies nameplate design and quality control standards. We ask the prosecution produce the device LIDAR #1 referenced on the citation and its documentation or exclude any evidence associated with it. But, you’re arguing judicial discretion could allow it. Sloppiness should not be rewarded!

Quote:

---

• I am not psychic but here... In response to your question as to why he used "LIDAR #1" on the front where as he will testify to using unit #TS000651, look for this type of answer: "we have 6 patrol cars with 6 Lidar units numbered TS000651 thru TS000656... I happen to use #1 thru #6, respectively, to refer to each of those units".

---

I wouldn’t wait until cross. Rather call the unit into question as soon as the prosecution introduces testimony or evidence involving it. See previous objection.

Quote:

---

• …Though the prosecution will still produce a calibration certificate (along with officer training and certification) for all speeding cases as icing on the cake and to eliminate all the meaningless arguments that may arise...

---

Hmm, that may play in my favor as the device certification is dated one month AFTER the incident and the officer’s certification is nearly 3 years old in the discovery documents; his skills may be a bit rusty.

Quote:

---

• Lastly, and most importantly, even if you are able to get the calibration certificate excluded, the officer will still testify to making (TWO) visual estimates and the judge can rely on those as sufficiently accurate (under the circumstances) to arrive at a guilty finding.

---

Don’t care about the certificate, it’s valid for a real device that was produced by LTI and the serial number has traceability to a unique unit. I want LIDAR #1 produced or completely excluded.

Quote:

---

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain that those two (certificate # and unit # on the back of the citation) refer to the same unit. However, IF you're still in doubt, you're free to bring the matter up and request that the officer and the judge explain it to you in simpler terms.

---

A rocket scientist would never make these kinds of mistakes, or his rockets would end up in the drink. This is just poor record keeping as it is duplicative (front and back) and misleading (abbreviated in both cases, inconsistent, invalid, but the calibration log is valid). In the rest of the world we call it traceability. I thought the analogy in the legal world was chain of evidence. Again judicial discretion prevails.

Quote:

---

The one thing I will say in that regards is this: the officer has been P.O.S.T. trained and certified in the use of RADAR/LASER; part of which includes him being able to visually estimate the speed of moving vehicle.

---

So POST techniques has achieved judicial notice, de facto or otherwise? And yet POST documentation is not available online or provided in discovery. If the officer used roadway or center divider markings and timing, would that constitute a speed trap? So that invalidates (VC 40803-40805) his visual estimate and the only valid method is comparative? You’re holding back.

Quote:

---

And with all due respect, who are you to question the methodology, content, procedures and or results of that training and/or certification?

---

Ahh, the victim of it?!? More to the point, as defendant shouldn’t I have access to docs? They provided certs, why not docs? Conversely why should the court accept something so secretive? What role has the court played in developing, testing, certifying POST?

Quote:

---

Are you sure they're waiting for YOU to "resubmit"??? Is it possible that the clerk with whom you spoke meant that he/she will "resubmit the case file to the judge" now that your 20 page declaration was located?

---

Yes, I got the paperwork today, due date is 4/4. We're back at square 2.

So POST techniques has achieved judicial notice, de facto or otherwise? And yet POST documentation is not available online or provided in discovery.

POST training has no judicial notice. This has been discussed before. Officers must (can be individually or in groups) correctly estimate the speed of a given number of moving vehicles. They can guess 1 million times, there is no failure % ... only that they correctly estimate a given number overt time. A random number generator could pass the POST visual speed test.

But speed cannot be determined at any specific point; it must be done through an estimation of distance and elasped time. Just question the officer in respect to the two variables and have a calculator handy to show that his "estimate" is actually an estimated range that will usually span 20-50 MPH. How long did you measure the speed ... is this an estimate .. if so what is the actual range that you may have actually measured for (and same with distance). Then you can ask him and lead him into admitting that his visual speed estimate is actually a speed estimate range that will cover such a large range that it would cover a baby crawling to a flying F-16.

You are free to cross examine him in respect to the POST visual estimation methods & how he actually determined the speed. If you really want to poke him ask him if it is a speed or velocity measurement (see if he knows the difference). And you should ask him background questions of his educational background; ask him if he has published any scientific documents in any scientific journal ... basically nailing down that he is not an expert in the SMD.

Quote:

---

Quoting NonIllegitimusCarborundum

---

Don’t care about the certificate, it’s valid for a real device that was produced by LTI and the serial number has traceability to a unique unit. I want LIDAR #1 produced or completely excluded.

---

You are not going to be able to get the LIDAR reading excluded. Now, you best try to get the certificate out & show that the officer did not testify to taking the measurement using the suggested measurement techiniques or method.

Once the certificate is out & its highlighted that the officer did not use a suggested method then the LIDAR reading may be seen as junk by the court (if it is a fair judge it would be).

The certificate should be attacked by objection (to its foundation) when tried to be introduced & the lack of testimony in your motion to acquit after the state rests. Do not ask the officer if he followed the suggested method (he'll say "yes, of course"). Write down your cross examination questions and review them to see if an answer to one would hurt your case. Do not ask questions that help their case ... I have seen people doom themselves by asking the officer follow-up questions when the officer's testimony was too vague; if his testimony is too vague, leave it at that & highlight the holes in his testimony during a motion to acquit.

After a motion to aquit (you either win or the case continues on with your presentation of the case) then the judge may actually highlight the weaknesses or what needs to be addressed during your presentation of the case. Discovery, FOIA requests, and other documents can then be presented and admitted ... assuming that they have the foundation for them; a FOIA request & response together with your testimony that it was your foia request & their complete response lays the foundation for FOIA paperwork to be admitted. Why people don't use FOIA to support documents from being admitted I have no idea. I have seen judges not allow a LIDAR manual gotten through other methods (even from the manufacturer) other than a FOIA request.

So, if you can get documents you need or want available via a FOIA request then go ahead and get them this way.

Quote:

---

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.

---

CDW, thanks for the pointer to CA POST (HQ). I contacted them, talked to a nice lady who said the training material is actually developed by the presenters, but must reference certain key points that POST HQ outlines for them. The material they develop in the outlines comes in part from the NHTSA, who should probably be coordinating with the FAA. POST HQ is looking into that, but cannot share training outlines or data with the public (time to check Wiki-Leaks), but the list of courses and presenters’ contact information is on their site. She recommended contacting them with my question.

One contact I made was a San Diego PD sergeant in charge of all training. He was especially interested as he is a pilot and indicated presently the only training is “don’t point at aircraft.” Their base of operation includes Miramar NavAir where they have “significant” interference from military comms (and vice versa I’m sure). I walked him to the FAA site, downloaded AC 70-1, and to Appendix I page 17. He was very happy to get a picture (words cause forehead bruises as we all know) and will flow it into the presentations.

I also closed the loop with the FAA who said, “ABSOLUTELY NOT! The CHP is no different than any other public or private agency operating in and around an airport.” The fellow went on to say they would probably authorize and coordinate a time for them, but he was concerned that the beam was invisible and that the device has a continuous mode of operation. I sent him the datasheet, users manual and quick reference guide I had for the TruSpeed. He will be coordinating with NHTSA and NTSB after reviewing those.

I think our work here is done. Thanks again for the pointer.

All of which would be key points for training or for the agencies to know, but would do little to nothing in your defense. The operation of the device in proximity to the airport is an issue separate from the allegations against you. The only issue that might be legitimate would be if you could reasonably show through competent testimony or documentation that emissions from the airport likely interfered with the accuracy of the device used by the CHP officer.

I also want to echo That Guy's prior warning - do not bury the court in paper. Presenting a 20 page brief is not likely to curry favor in the traffic court. Keep your claims on point and not on periphery issues. Position, interference, proper training, etc. are all valid points. Arguing the serial number issue is also not likely to be a winner so long as the officer testified to the fact it was the device he used. But, traffic court judges (or commissioners) can be a persnickety lot and one may have pet peeves one way or the other. Sometimes it is hard to tell how they might take something.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

. But, traffic court judges (or commissioners) can be a persnickety lot and one may have pet peeves one way or the other. Sometimes it is hard to tell how they might take something.

---

Some judges are top notch in traffic court but not too many .. most are either doing it as a stepping stone or there at the end of their careers or are there 'caused they messed up something fierce. Some judges will act like its the OJ Simpson trial...they are the most comical. I have seen insane judges too in traffic court; depending on what side of the insanity you lie its either good or bad for you