What are the Defenses to a LIDAR Ticket

I've read quite a bit about this, and the general consensus seems to be that LIDAR tickets aren't even worth contesting, but I beg to differ. Let me explain my unique situation.

I was recently stopped by Iowa State Patrol. I had just purchased the vehicle on that day, meaning I had no license plates. I've traveled this route for years and I knew the speed limit quickly changes to 65 from 70, and it's a speed trap I have seen several times.

I see a fleet of cars (3 in front on right lane, 2 in front on left lane I was traveling in) abruptly hit their brakes, to the point it was unsafe. Everyone is now going between 50-55 when they were between 65-70 just before that. A few seconds later I see State Patrol parked on the side of a busy interstate, and I realize this is why.

As my car is perpindicular to State Patrol (I'm traveling 52 at this point), he begins to follow me for about a minute. I see his flashing lights turn on and I was completely certain I was pulled over for not having a license plate. I politely articulated this to him when he asked if I knew why I was being pulled over. I instantly showed him the Title of the recently purchased vehicle and my Drivers License. The officer then proceeded to tell me I was stopped for driving 78 in a 65 when he clocked me (which I am unsure of the exact distance, but at least 100 yards, unless he thought I was going that speed when perpendicular to him) and made no mention of not having plates. I politely told him I was not going that speed and had been driving within the parameters of the speed limit. He did not believe me. I was given a ticket for $168 which I believe was the result of a mistake or an overzealous State Trooper. I reiterated to him I thought this was a mistake and made no mention of my plan to appear in court as I was on my way home.

When I got home, I decided to gather all the information I could about LIDAR. At the time I was stopped I did not know this, but LIDAR is generally aimed at the license plate. I did not have a license plate at the time. Also, and I can't find any concrete information on this, which is why I'm posting here, it is very common under a LIDAR citation for the distance from when they clocked you to be there. It was not included on my ticket.

I discovered that LIDAR's accuracy is weakened when there is no license plate present (it locks onto the most reflective surface of aimed target). The LIDAR beam proportionally widens with distance, meaning it may have locked onto the car with a license plate, either next to me, in front of me, or in back of me. There is no way it was my car. I've deserved some tickets in the past, but this time I do know for a fact, some sort of mistake was made.

My theory on what happened, he had clocked a different car, saw I had no plates which diverted his attention to my car - stopped me, and decided to give me the ticket, although it was not my car that was speeding. Also, factor in this happened late in the month and he may have wanted to make quota. Yes, I am questioning the ethics of some law enforcement. If that offends you, please do not reply.

I'm 27 but look younger than my age, he probably just thought I was another kid who wouldn't even bother with contesting the ticket.

My concrete points will be to bring up how LIDAR's accuracy is diminished when no license plate is present, and the fact he did not include the distance I was clocked on the citation. From everything I can find - it is not required but typically standard with LIDAR. A smart cop doesn't want to leave any room for anything to be contested in my opinion.

I plan to ask where LIDAR is most accurate. If he says something other than license plate to protect himself, it will look bad on his part. If he says license plate (which I'm expecting), I plan to point out how how there is greater probability a mistake was then made. I don't plan to include he made me a scapegoat, although that is what I really believe. I just plan to raise the most doubt I can and hope for the best.

First question: Can I write the court a letter contesting the citation, opposed to appearing in court? It will be me vs a prosecutor representing the trooper. I'm worried the prosecutor will try and tie me up in legal semantics knowing I don't know the law as well as he does. It doesn't seem right that they get state-provided representation and civilians do not (especially when it's harder for us), but that's a different story for a different day.

Second question: I plan to make a diagram showing exactly my positioning in relation to the other cars. Is this typically allowed?

Third question: If I lose, can I appeal?

I know this may seem fairly ridiculous, but I am in a difficult financial situation at the moment and I feel this ticket was either deliberately unjust or the result of a mistake.

If anyone has actual experience with LIDAR defense, please let me know what you think of the points I have made. Informed replies are much appreciated.

google this (How to beat a lidar speeding ticket) May have the info you need read entire page

If you wish to argue accuracy issues you'll need an expert. Your best best is to keep out the LIDAR reading & documents supporting it from being introduced at trial.

Argument that he measured wrong car? Officer will testify it was yours - dead defense.

What state are you in?

Your point about distance is probably the best point you have. Without knowing the exact distance of the vehicle to the SMD, it is impossible to calculate how big the beam of the laser is. Lets say he targeted you three miles away. Obviously, the LIDAR beam was big enough that it could have spread past your car and clocked another.

Another good point you can bring up is without the distance, the prosecution cannot prove where you were when the violation happened. You could have been in an 80 MPH zone.

Along with this, there are other arguments, such as light reflection through different mediums, and the testing and calibration of the device itself.

I would say that it is essential to go to court rather than write a quick little note to the court. You don't have any of the evidence against you, so how do you know what he did and what he didn't do. Right now we have a whole bunch of hypotheticals so you need to go to court and challenge that evidence. After all, the greatest thing about this country is the right to face your accuser.

You seem to know about this. Is it typically standard to write the distance when using LIDAR? I have seen several tickets via reading this forum that do include that. My concern is...I don't have the exact distance. I know it was at least 100 yards away, my car didn't have a license plate, and the cars in front of me had already slowed down. By not knowing the exact distance, I'm worried that will be used against me. I already have planned to use the lack of distance being mentioned on the citation in my favor.

At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if it was preferred the distance was included - but not required. It seems like when it comes to speeding tickets, everything is skewed against you.

Also, the ticket has a court date already written down. Do I need to mail it to inform them I will be appearing in court, or just show up? The reason I would prefer to write the court, is because going up against a prosecutor sounds very difficult, although I have a defense I plan to use. I don't know how to get the discovery process going either. I'm trying to find a lawyer in my area who handles this at a reasonable price but have not been able to do so thus far.

Was hoping for a few more replies.

Forgot to mention this, because I did not know it was noteworthy until earlier.

He used the LIDAR within the car and the windows were up. Some LIDAR manufacturers explicitly state that LIDAR must be used outside the vehicle, because light gets refracted through glass. I don't understand the complete logistics of the physics behind it, but this has to be stated for a reason.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

He used the LIDAR within the car and the windows were up.

---

Well, he doesn't necessarily need to be outside his vehicle to operate Lidar! You did say he was perpendicular to the traffic lanes (which might mean "hand with Lidar gun out his driver's side window"). I guess that would still leave the possibility that his window was up, I would highly doubt it though!

So do tell, how do you know that his window was up? Did he tell you that or did you actually see him while he was using it -with the window up- to measure your speed?

You should keep in mind that there's a VERY good chance that the Iowa State Police may train and certify their officers in the use of Radar/Lidar before they send them out on traffic enforcement (at least the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy Annual Report may be a good indication of that). And if that holds true, one could safely assume that one of the first things they would teach them there would be to NOT use Lidar from behind glass...

Of course if that's the best defense you can come up with, then by all means, run with it and see what happens. Personally, I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.

His windows were up as my car crossed his, but I had already been "clocked" - the mistake had been made. LIDAR does not work when gauging speed directly perpendicular to the device. Meaning, it was either via the driver's side window or back driver's side window. His squad car was positioned in a way that he would have driven across the highway had he gone in a straight line. Could say he was "ready to attack". The distance was initially too great to know if his windows were up. As I got closer, they were up. It is possible that he put his windows up in that short timeframe from "clocking" me, until I was perpendicular to him. I still contend a mistake was made or this state trooper was overzealous. There were too many cars ahead of me for this to have been my car. He stopped me for no plates and used someone else's LIDAR reading, to lie. Pun not intended. Especially knowing how LIDAR is almost impossible to defend, it makes abuse of power much easier for them. I've read so many stories about Judges always siding with LIDAR, until LIDAR records a photo of your exact vehicle in the crosshairs - there will be room for error and it's unfortunate the legal system refuses (or makes it very difficult) to give unique situations such as mine any credibility. I'll be the first to admit I've deserved every ticket I have gotten in my life. Not in this case.

I obviously cannot prove his windows were up. I can prove I did not have a license plate which greatly diminishes LIDAR's range/accuracy regardless of what many police forums may tell you. I've been reading all the LIDAR-device Operator's manuals I can find and they ALL recommend the device be pointed at the license plate. Across-the-board recommendation with LIDAR.

The distance was not cited on my ticket. Usually included with LIDAR. Trying to find clarification on this for Iowa and still cannot.

There is also something called "LIDAR sweep error" which occurs when the officer is trying to speed up the process of a "lock" on a reflective surface via moving the device. Can cause error up to 8mph either making your speed higher or lower. Police forums will tell you it only works in your favor "speed always registers lower". That is not true.

I'm sure they are trained to not use the LIDAR behind the glass. I'm also sure overzealous law enforcement exists.

Did I miss what state you are in? Do you know the LIDAR model? A manual "recommendation" is not a requirement.

By the way, if I lose, I plan to appeal the maximum extent I can.

From what I've read, a civilian going up against a prosecutor is very difficult, even when you think your claim is valid. My fear is getting tied up in legal semantics/expert questions. Considering I do know some about how a certain aspect of LIDAR works (given where it should be pointed for maximum accuracy), that opens questions up on cross that I may not be able to answer regarding other specifications of LIDAR. Of course, I am not a lawyer and I won't know the proper time to say "Objection!". I'm guessing prosecutors know how to exploit this well.

I would prefer writing a letter first. I think my chances at dismissal are great that way. How do I request discovery on the State's end?

Let's say he didn't include the distance in his notes (was not on my citation). That would be unheard of using LIDAR. I think I would have immediate grounds for dismissal without having to even step in court.

Who should the letter be addressed to? The office of the District Attorney? Should it be Certified mail, etc?

Lidar is MOST effective when it is bounced off a highly reflective surface, such as a license plate, but any reflective surface like windshield glass, a chrome grille, or bumper will do. It only takes a small fraction of a second to get a 'good' reading. The beam does spread the farther out the target is. Something like 3 feet at 1000 or so. The trick is to be able to STEADILY target and hit a moving object at a great distance with a hand held device much like a pistol. A skill easily described but equally difficult to master.

I beat a LIDAR ticket in Washington. I believe I was able to cast just enough doubt on the written testimony of the trooper to sway the judge. Three lanes of freeway with multiple cars in each lane, going around a slight curve, and a shallow down hill. He said to another victim that he personally had a problem with distances in excess of 1000 feet (mine was at ~906').

At my hearing there was neither prosecutor or trooper. The judge asked me how I wanted to proceed. I stated that I did not commit the infraction. The judge asked me to continue. I stated that the officer's sworn affidavit contained no information on traffic conditions, weather, or the exact location of the trooper when he observed me. I also stated that it was unlikely that the trooper was able to see around a curve, over a small rise, and through all the other traffic between my car and his position in the center median. The judge said he did not believe that my speedometer or cruise control setting was accurate but the lack of detail in the trooper's sworn affidavit was enough to sway his decision to my favor.

You might consider posting up your infraction notice. If you decide to contest the infraction you should be able to ask for discovery materials from the prosecutor.

From your description in the original post you were the "lowest hanging fruit" and the unlucky one who was ticketed. If the trooper did not state at what distance you were tagged and his exact location when he saw you then you might have a pretty fair chance of defending yourself and beating the preponderance of evidence standard.

You have an interesting point that I haven't seen brought up before.

I do believe Iowa is a state where the officer needs to show up to trial to testify. I think you have various ways of going about this.

If you can catch him slipping up in his statement, you can severely injure his credibility. So, ask him questions about where he shot on your car. Unless he really has good notes, he's going to say something like, "Where I was trained to: the license plate." So now you need to get him to agree that he shot your car's license plate. Ask him a question, "So you shot my license plate?" "Correct." "Are you sure?" "Yes. It's how I was trained." Drive that point home, even if the prosecution has to object to the question being asked and answered. Now that he's agreed to shooting your license plate in order to attain the speed, prove to the court that you had no license plate at the time.

Introduce evidence that proves that you had no license plate on your car at the time because you just purchased it. A title and date will do, but can be backed up by one of those "dealer - plate exemption" stickers and a photo or two. Make a statement for the court and the officer, "Your honor, I introduce defense exhibit A which proves that a license plate did not exist on the vehicle I was operating at the time of violation."

Now if you really want to get cocky, you can challenge the overzealous officer's testimony. You can point out to the court that this officer just committed perjury by lying in open court. You can ask that all evidence by a witness who has lied to the court be stricken from evidence and move for dismissal due to lack of foundation, or you can go another route:

Ask the officer if he remembers that you didn't have a license plate. At this point, he's gonna be stumbling on his words and changing his answers faster than a politician on election day. He'll probably say, "Oh, yeah. I remember that." Now you need to prove that the lack of license plate affects the accuracy of LIDAR.

Ask him if if the lack of a license plate severely reduces LIDAR's accuracy. If he says "no," then go to town on how the officer wasn't trained properly and doesn't know the device he is using. Introduce evidence from 2 or 3 different LIDAR manuals stating that the lack of a license plate has a profound effect. Then, Move to dismiss. Easier said than done, but take your time and you will find the judge being very helpful in your defense.

If the court won't accept those manuals, then ask the court for an ability to subpoena a LIDAR expert. Annoying, but you need to get that point across.

If this fails, you can move on with a distance argument. Ask the officer at what distance he clocked you at. Do a quick calculation to see if the beam was bigger or smaller than your car. Measure the dimensions of your car beforehand and prove to the court that the beam was bigger than your car. You may find that the beam is 8 or 9 feet wide and that the court will accept that the LIDAR device caught another car.

Now, when all that is said and done, push for dismissal as much as you can. If something seems funny, move to dismiss and just explain your gut feeling.

You may find that you won't need to do all this but this is just me taking your ideas and running with them.

It's really hard to formulate a defense without seeing any evidence. So, maybe you're screwed, maybe you're not. But you might as well go down with a fight.

Good luck.

Thank you for the detailed reply.

I'd like to keep it as simple as possible. I'm worried if I start getting into LIDAR beams and whatnot, I'll open up too many questions for the prosecution, questions like "Mr. Accused, you seem to know a lot about LIDAR, why don't you explain the cosine effect, etc?" I won't be able to answer everything, then prosecution will say "Your Honor, obviously Mr. Accused doesn't know anything about LIDAR other than what he read in some manual, Officer X has over year 25 years on the Patrol squad and would not make a mistake and is more informed than Mr. Accused, as we now know Mr. Accused has no further knowledge of LIDAR than one aspect". It's really just too remember and will distract from my main points.

Sort of like I'm trying to pass myself off as a LIDAR expert - when I am not. I've only read and can provide data that LIDAR is supposed to be aimed at license plates because it locks on the most reflective surface. That's the only point I can prove. Regarding the distance, I am unsure, I know it was at least 100 yards and could have been higher - but I don't know exact. In some states LIDAR is inadmissible over 1,000ft, even with a license plate. I don't think that is the case in Iowa and I've been unable to find the laws on this.

I'm also worried a prosecutor will come out with a vengeance - especially when I have a case. It sounds like the majority of these ticket contests, there isn't much besides the "it wasn't me" defense". I can see a prosecutor going to whatever length it took, and taking advantage of the fact I don't know the law as well as they do. I would like to bring in a diagram showing there were at least 7 cars between me and the officer, yet his LIDAR finds the one with no license plate amidst of sea of cars bearing front plates. The truth is, I firmly believe the officer pulled me over for no plates then gave me someone else's LIDAR speed thinking I wouldn't contest it. That would be controversial to directly point that out, but I plan to make everything lead to that presumption.

I want to make my points, and do my best to divert any "expert LIDAR questions" on my behalf by sticking to the facts. I plan to use a "Again, I have no training in the LIDAR system or photo-optics in general. The same way we don't need a Computer science degree to use a computer. We still know with certainty that pushing the off button will turn the computer off. The same way we know, not having a license plate will affect LIDAR, and it's been stated by the STALKER LIDAR and KUSTOM LIDAR manufacturer.

I would like to bring in the "window was closed when I was clocked" but that is hearsay and can't be proved. If everything went well, and the judge was siding with me, I think it would be worth including. LIDAR is not supposed to be used through glass.

This is the main reason I want to motion for discovery, and if the distance is not listed (even in officer's notes) - I would rather write a letter to the court than risk going up against an experienced prosecutor I may have no shot against, even with a credible case. If that does not work, then I feel I've given my case away. So, it's a difficult situation for me.

I got the impression the Officer thought I would not contest this by any means. It still seems rather bizarre he did not include the distance on my citation. If he thought I knew that would be a way out of it, I think he would have let me go with a warning. Yet, he was overzealous and if it comes to court, I will point that out as well.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Of course, I am not a lawyer and I won't know the proper time to say "Objection!".

---

You object whenever there is anything to object is said or presented ... the second after that time period. Just say: Objection! I object to the testimony/document/evidence for the following reasons: blah blah blah

The judge will allow a short argument from the DA & you to commence. Don't cut people off, let them speak but get your objection heard & on the record.

Its not rocket science & that is 1 reason why the judge is there -- to rule on objections; if he does not want to do this he wouldn't be there.

I have verbally objected 20-30 times in a traffic case hearing...if any case law is relevent I cite it (I have objections written down at the ready -- you should to) (as well as ~100 cross questions for the officer & I usually deviate from the list depending on the officer's answers --- if he gives testimony that I think sinks their case, I stop my cross)

You should practice with a friend(s) ... look on youtube at trial footage .. visit courthouse if you wish


Just dont reargue an objection that the court has ruled on ... just move on...make the same objection again if needed for additional testimony or documents trying to be introduced.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Was hoping for a few more replies.

Forgot to mention this, because I did not know it was noteworthy until earlier.

He used the LIDAR within the car and the windows were up. Some LIDAR manufacturers explicitly state that LIDAR must be used outside the vehicle, because light gets refracted through glass. I don't understand the complete logistics of the physics behind it, but this has to be stated for a reason.

---

And there's the problem with discussing how LIDAR works in court ... you are not an expert. The court will allow you to speak & give testimony as a lay person but will give your testimony its appropriate weight ~ but the weight given in basically none. The officer is no expert either & you should object if he starts yapping about how LIDAR works for the same reason. Now you can object to documents like any certificate of calibration (and you should) due to the lack of a foundation (read up on these requirements --- these are legal arguments -- you can make legal arguments & they'll be given the same weight as legal arguments from the DA ~ the law is the law , if you or the DA makes a bad argument the judge will rule on what he thinks is correct).

I have NEVER had a certificate of calibration for a LIDAR unit entered into evidence -- I have always argued/objected due to 2 arguments: 1st - the offficer did not & cannot lay a foundation for the document 2nd) that the signatory of the document must be available for cross examination since nobody knows his qualifications, if the tests he did were proper for the instrument, if the tests performed actually meet the requirements -- I usually end with "this could be a signature of a child or monkey your honor -- I don't know who or what signed this & either do you at this point in time"-- Judge usually just rules that the foundation has not been met. (so brush up on foundation requirements and the exceptions & testimony needed for "business records", "maintenance records".)

If you dont want to go through this "hassle" then I suggest you reconsider your decision to go to trial.

You are over-thinking this whole scenario. Most tickets are issued with the thought that the person will not contest and just pay up and move on. If you choose plead "guilty" or if you contest the ticket then you must follow the procedures listed on the infraction notice. First step is to notify the court of your intentions. The court will accept your fine payment or assign a date for your hearing. Second step (if you contest) is to ask the prosecutor for discovery documents to see the evidence against you. Third step is to prepare your defense (based upon facts or the lack of them!). Generally not a good idea to subpoena the officer who issued the infraction. It is "easier" to argue against the officer's written testimony than it is to play trial lawyer and ask questions of a live witness. The fourth step is to go to court and state your case when the judge asks you to tell your side of the story. Personally, I have gone through this a couple of times and it is not difficult or really very formal. The court will swear you in. The judge will read the charges against you and the officer's written statements (infraction notice, notes, etc.). You will then be asked to explain what happened. Here is where you must make your case to the judge and whittle away at the preponderance of evidence against you. If you create enough doubt in the judges mind to sway him to your way of thinking he will dismiss the charges and you will go away without paying a fine or any thing on your driving abstract. If you fail, then you pay the fine and move on. If you really disagree with the judge you could possibly appeal the decision. It's all very quick and relatively painless. Neither the judge, or prosecutor really wants to spend lots of time and resources on your one little case because they have to hear the same stories multiple times each day of the week. Make certain your story is compelling enough to tip the scale in your favor. Don't embellish or try to editorialize. The judge is only interested in the FACTS or what facts may be missing. It is your job to bring those to light. Be firm but respectful and humble.

@Lurkertom:

Not really over-thinking. But I do know you don't know what you're talking about to the point that you're giving him the wrong advice. Although what you said is true for WA Speeding Tickets, I'm pretty sure isn't true for an Iowa Speeding ticket.

I don't want to come off like I know what I'm saying here, so don't construe any of this as advice. This is what I do believe Iowa's Traffic procedures are:
1) The officer WILL show up to court and is not required to write a sworn statement. The officer will be questioned by a prosecutor, or in some rare cases (this happens in FL sometimes), the officer will stand without a prosecutor and will present his case. Then the defendant may question the officer.
2) You may not even be entitled to any discovery. So if you ask for anything, you probably won't get it, or even worse, you could tip off the prosecution to your defense strategies.
3) If the above two are correct, the only way to formulate a defense is to do it in court, with a live witness on the stand.
4) I am pretty sure Washington is the only state that makes the burden of proof a preponderance of the evidence. There could be others, but Iowa is most likely a "beyond a reasonable doubt" state. Granted it really doesn't matter what the burden is...

So, my guess is that OP will need to play trial lawyer to win. But that is just a guess and all of this is really speculation. I've been proven wrong before.

This is why I would rather write a letter and try having this dismissed. Iowa is also a "correctionist" mentality state, meaning you can't even question law enforcement in the eyes of most. In bigger cities, you can do this without being scolded by the general public.

Let's say...I request discovery. They don't give me anything. Then I specifically request "the distance I was clocked at". Again, they don't give me anything or say it isn't available. Shouldn't that be enough to try having it dismissed? I have a right to know that and it's essential to my defense, especially given I didn't have a license plate.

I'm worried when they figure out what I'm doing, they'll just invent a number.

How do I request discovery? And..is there any information I have to disclose when I do that could hurt my case?

go here for a copy of your traffic ticket

http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/ods/traffictickets.htm

You will need to do some research. Go to the district court website in the county where you got your ticket. They should have their procedures available to you there or you may need to call the clerk of the court to find out what you must do to contest the infraction and obtain discovery materials.

As BK said above, my "advice" may be in error. I described my experiences in Washington State thinking that differences between locales is likely only minor. Again I may be wrong about that too.

Here's a link that tells you how to go about handling a speeding ticket in Iowa

http://www.ehow.com/how_4661253_can-...cket-iowa.html

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

This is why I would rather write a letter and try having this dismissed.

---

A letter is not likely to work out for you. You were issued a citation which requires you to appear in court to defend against the charge. You cannot hold the state to the burden of having to prove their case against you without you going through the normal/required steps by which they can legally do that (a court trial). Go to court, listen to the officer's testimony, cross examine him as to the facts of the case and the elements of the offense and hope that you can make a case out of any errors that he commits while testifying.

You claim that Iowa is a "correctionist" state (whatever that means) and that "you can't even question law enforcement in the eyes of most", yet the only arguments you're making here are those that imply that the officer made it all up and that if "questioned", he's bound to "invent" evidence to convict you!

I don't know whether Iowa's laws require the officer to write the distance on the citation or not; nor do I know if you are allowed discovery in these cases. At the end of the day, and if you think that it is that relevant, then plan a defense which includes you cross examining him about the distance while he's on the stand.

Also, you need to get off the idea that just because you had no license plate at the time, that he made up the reading. Anyone who knows anything about Laser/Lidar knows that there are alternate surfaces where the officer can point the beam to get a reading... Your front bumper, grill and in particular, your headlights, work just as well as the front plate.

At any rate, I am not aware of anyone on this forum who is intimately familiar with Iowa's discovery rules or with the consequences for failing to provide discovery. The only thing I can recommend you do is to consult with an attorney in your area... He/she should be able to definitively answer that question for you.

Those surfaces don't work just as well. Page 9 from the STALKER manual. "We suggest that the LIDAR beam be aimed low on the vehicle, at the grill and front license plate area. The license plate is almost a perfect LIDAR reflector and targeting it should produce the best results. Vehicles without license plates will result in the LIDAR having shorter effective range. Page 9 also explains the "LIDAR should not be used through the windshield or any other glass surface".

It is still bizarre my car targeted amidst of sea of cars with license plates. My headlights weren't on, and the car was in much need of a wash when purchased. Not exactly 'reflective'.

I have my traffic ticket. I need the officer's copy. That's the next step. If he never wrote down the distance (even on his notes), I think I have valid reason to write a letter and have this dismissed. That's what I'm hoping for. The type of LIDAR gun would also be beneficial.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Those surfaces don't work just as well.

---

OK, if you say so...

Good luck!

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

How do I request discovery? And..is there any information I have to disclose when I do that could hurt my case?

---

What type of discovery would you plan on doing (if allowed): written interrogatories, request for documents, request to admit, deposition ? Plenty of discovery request examples on the internet... the only one you have to co-file with the court is a motion to admit...

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

This is why I would rather write a letter and try having this dismissed. Iowa is also a "correctionist" mentality state, meaning you can't even question law enforcement in the eyes of most.

---

This is where objections work out best - to limit testimony & evidence even being admitted at trial. And all states could care less what a traffic case defendant says that is counter to the cop's testimony. Unless you have an affirmative defense to present, you should not have to testify at all. You would rather just write a letter...this may be but this is not how it works + you cannot prove your innocence (and you don't have to !) so why bother?

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Let's say...I request discovery. They don't give me anything. Then I specifically request "the distance I was clocked at".

---

Well lets say you get no response at all, then what? Well, if its a request to admit , then the statements listed are admitted & thats good for you. If its a written interrogatory then you call the prosecutor and ask that they answer the questions -- if they refuse then you could, if you want, file a motion to compel -- the the court grants your motion then they would be under a court order to answer & failure to do so would result in a favorable ruling on a motion to dismiss as a sanction for not complying with a court order. If it is a document production request then you call the DA ~ if they have no documents responsive to you requests then this is OK, an acceptable reply since they have no documents (and if they try to introduce such requested docs into evidence or reference them at trial an objection should be raised on the subject); if the DA says they have documents but refuses to provide them for whatever reason then you can file a motion to compel (its best if they say they have no documents to provide --- then they cannot introduce any documents that you requested --- so I just ask the prosecutor "so, you have no documents responsive to the request?".

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?)

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

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.

---

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)

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

No idea why you had to throw in the veiled insult.

---

A "veiled insult"? Where? You obviously came here looking for cheerleaders, not answers. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I'm "insulting" you, but you're free to interpret my posts however which way you want.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

I'm sure there is some loophole that allows them to shoot LIDAR at the moon and say they were targeting your car.

---

And to use YOUR description (from your first post), that is just as "ridiculous" as your other claims. My guess is you're wrong about that too...

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.

www.stalkerradar.com/pdf/lidarmanual.pdf

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting lurkertom

---

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.

---

Again, it is greatly diminished. The point is to raise reasonable doubt to the judge. Not try to get into some discussion of the exact pulse-diode frequency of LIDAR.

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Again, it is greatly diminished. The point is to raise reasonable doubt to the judge. Not try to get into some discussion of the exact pulse-diode frequency of LIDAR.

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.

---

Did that...and I am familiar with not only how they work but how they can be misused. It all boils down to which testimony the magistrate believes is more reliable. Dazzle him with brilliance, don't baffle him with bullshit. As I said good luck with whatever defense strategy you choose to use. :cool:

Quote:

---

Quoting lurkertom

---

Did that...and I am familiar with not only how they work but how they can be misused. It all boils down to which testimony the magistrate believes is more reliable. Dazzle him with brilliance, don't baffle him with bullshit. As I said good luck with whatever defense strategy you choose to use. :cool:

---

I can explain how they work (its quite simple):

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

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.

www.stalkerradar.com/pdf/lidarmanual.pdf

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.

---

I have seen people cross the officer and ask if he can see the location of where the beam hits the car (of course they can't - its colorless) and then say that the beam could hit the windshield and then the bumper and a reading will be obtained. This is, of course, a panning error .. and I think these errors are very common. Go to youtube and search out this aspect. If the OP wishes to explore this then just get the beam information from the cop's cross & during the defense's presentation ask "do you think the accuracy that the cop testified to was realized in your measurement?" "answer: no and then Explain .. and discuss the panning error that appears (from the cops own testimony, so you are not arguing against the cop) to have been present. (assuming you lost your motion for acquittal/summary judgment).

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

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.

www.stalkerradar.com/pdf/lidarmanual.pdf

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.

---

From the manual:

The license plate is almost a perfect LIDAR reflector and targeting it should produce the best results. Vehicles without license plates will result in the LIDAR having shorter effective range.

SO, not using the plate would result in a shorter range; but the operator did get a reading so is your argument weak or strong?

Off topic..but still related question.

Is is true, in some states, if you contest the ticket, and lose, you can be forced to pay a much greater fine? What is the reason for this?

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Off topic..but still related question.

Is is true, in some states, if you contest the ticket, and lose, you can be forced to pay a much greater fine? What is the reason for this?

---

Perhaps if you lose you have to pay for court costs ... or, the courts are more inclined to impose the higher end of the fine's scale.

Laws vary by state, and rules vary by court.

Appreciated replies. Next...is it worth it obtaining discovery - and how do I go about it? I don't want to give away any defenses.

It doesn't say anywhere on my citation about responding that I will show up in court. It just has a date/time, but not a court room number. Are you typically supposed to call the court ahead of time?

To begin with, lidar or better known as Laser, is NOT accurate. A case in NJ showed that a specfic unit had a 18.6 mph off (against the defendant). Basicall the int. unit uses least square of regression method, for 60% of the pulses for a +/- 3 ft accuracy. Whereas, the balance is avoid, in otherword the prob. is high as far as accuracy. Next, air, glass reflex. of the said glass is also a factor (check snells equations) to verfy this action. Also weather also plays games with the laser beam (H20). Look at the article on this site entitle Traffic Tickets. Search the web for Laser calcuations from the same author.

Quote:

---

Quoting perry1180

---

To begin with, lidar or better known as Laser, is NOT accurate. A case in NJ showed that a specfic unit had a 18.6 mph off (against the defendant). Basicall the int. unit uses least square of regression method, for 60% of the pulses for a +/- 3 ft accuracy. Whereas, the balance is avoid, in otherword the prob. is high as far as accuracy. Next, air, glass reflex. of the said glass is also a factor (check snells equations) to verfy this action. Also weather also plays games with the laser beam (H20). Look at the article on this site entitle Traffic Tickets. Search the web for Laser calcuations from the same author.

---

Which NJ case is that? And what makes you think that a case in NJ would be binding in Iowa?

Quote:

---

Quoting perry1180

---

To begin with, lidar or better known as Laser, is NOT accurate. A case in NJ showed that a specfic unit had a 18.6 mph off (against the defendant). Basicall the int. unit uses least square of regression method, for 60% of the pulses for a +/- 3 ft accuracy. Whereas, the balance is avoid, in otherword the prob. is high as far as accuracy. Next, air, glass reflex. of the said glass is also a factor (check snells equations) to verfy this action. Also weather also plays games with the laser beam (H20). Look at the article on this site entitle Traffic Tickets. Search the web for Laser calcuations from the same author.

---

I have read the patents & you are correct on the regression method used ... it is not a proper mathematical method for this purpose. A 19 MPH error is not surprising to me. OMG I forgot about the index of refraction ... know how this is defined? The definition is the speed of light through a vacuum divided by the speed of light through the medium ..... yet all lidars use just the vacuum speed in their calculations & ignore any error ... and the greater the index of refraction, the looonger it takes light to travel ... and the more error introduced.

Update...

I went to the local courthouse to get the Officer's copy of the ticket, that was submitted to the state. Once again, nothing regarding the distance. No extra notes as well. Interesting thing, as I got there, two security guards were present and they asked where I was going. I told them why I was there, one security guard was extremely upset I would even consider "discovery" for a speeding citation. Right before walking through the metal detector, I put my things in a small bin, and my copy of the ticket as well, he decides to open the ticket up and start reading it, then tells me in a harsh tone "You were either speeding, or you weren't! It's that simple and you obviously got a ticket for a reason!". I was polite, although I found it inappropriate considering this had nothing to do with him. I told him, I believe a mistake was made, and someone was speeding, but it wasn't me, then went on about how this is a right we have. He finally shut up, the female security guard next to him was trying to divert him to the next person who showed up. She was also telling me to goto the traffic information center to obtain my copy, basically in case he got mad again. This guy was borderline livid someone would even dare request discovery over a ticket. I hope that's not a preview of things to come.

I received the copy, and was told I need to call State Patrol for any extra notes or information pertaining to my ticket.

On the way out, the same security guard asks me normally "Did you find out what you were looking for?", I said "yes" and was on my way out.

When I got home, I contacted State Patrol, the person who answered the phone was initially very helpful. I gave her my name and citation number. She put me on hold for about 3 or 4 minutes. I knew this wasn't good. When she finally got back on the phone, she told me she had spoken with the Sarge and he informed her it is not required on their end to disclose any information to me, and that to obtain the few notes the officer left, I'd have to make a request via the District Attorney's office. I'm assuming a Court Order...for this. Really?

What's the best way to go about this? I plan to write a very polite letter and send it via certified mail. I have the phone number, but I just worry they will look for a way to avoid giving it to me and I'd rather make this formal request in writing. I think it's slightly suspicious they don't want me to have this. I did not say that to her, but I could tell there was a change in her inflection when got back from being on hold. Almost a slight concern. I understand it is not required, but I will use it in my favor citing I was never able to obtain the distance (or the officer intentionally left it out thinking I wouldn't know this) and therefore this ticket should be dismissed, especially as LIDAR does give the exact distance one was clocked at. I'm also thinking he may have not said anything about my lack of license plates.

At this point, I'm guessing now that they know, and they could change anything to suit themselves. My court plea date is May 23rd, and I was told the officer will not be there that day. I was told I could change my plea date to sooner, but decided to stick with the 23rd. Seems a little overboard for a speeding ticket trial to have a separate plea date. Maybe they know he's on vacation or something. Again, I'm not sure what to believe. I can tell they operate on the premise every civilian must be as uninformed as the status quo.

I know you are in Iowa but here's a link to how it's done in Washington State. Maybe it is a similar procedure or maybe not...maybe you can cherry pick. I would think that you do have the right to see the evidence the state has against you. You would need to obtain that by requesting it from the county prosecutor or DA. Court procedures vary but the clerk of the court should be able to tell you how to obtain the discovery materials you are requesting. They cannot give you legal advice but they can explain what you must do when you come to the court to defend yourself. Good Luck!

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89115

All the OP has to know is the procedure for discovery in a speeding case. It is either via the practice rules of civil, criminal, special, or administrative procedures. Likely civil ...

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/aspx/Co...teListing.aspx

Gives a list of all the practice rules.

The OP will have to look at the state statutes and see how they determined the procedure for the charge.