Discovery For a LIDAR Speeding Ticket

Quote:

---

Quoting rth

---

Can I do something about speedy trial?

---

Are you sure one of those LOTS of documents you had to sign wasn't a speedy trial waiver?

Yes, I REALLY ticked them off as I literally READ EVERY word on EVERY page. Took almost an hour at the counter, they were NOT happy!!!

They even got to the point where about 3 cops, 1 attorney, and 2 secretaries were in front of me behind the window attempting to speed me along by explaining each document to me in hopes I would not take the time to read them. I had so much FUN.

In the middle of the stack, there was one that asked that I waive my speedy trial and I said NO. There was also one that said I agreed to give up my right to an attorney...again I said NO. Funny how those were buried within the stack. I guess folks just sign and do not read and then they are out of luck.

Anyway, can someone answer me this:

As for a speedy trial, I read somewhere 45 days from the time you plead not-guilty is about right, is this accurate?

If so, when is the start of the 45 days? I got the ticket, then went to courthouse window and entered my plea of NOT GUILTY (went through the paper mess described above). At that time I was given a 'court date' that arrived and turned out to be court with NO court...just the city attorney. Since I would NOT change my plea to guilty for him, he gave me a NEW court date 2 months away AND a court date 2 weeks away for a discovery hearing. From where to where are my 45 days?

If from the first court date to the second court date, it is exactly 45 days.
If from when I entered my plea to the second court date, it is 112 days.

Help, my hearing is tomorrow...any advice before I go? Is there any motions I can give tomorrow?

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Those tripod ports on LIDAR devices must have just ended up there. They are silly, obviously serve no valid purpose.

---

If the use of a tripod was as essential to the operation of the unit as you claim it to be, then why wouldn't the manufacturer include a tripod with every unit? Heck, build it in, mark up the price of the unit by that much, and make an even bigger profit!

Funny thing is that you used all these arguments in your own defense... And they all FAILED, miserably, might I add! And yet you continue to present them as if they were "written rules"!

If you had a clue, you might understand that Lidar is not strictly used by law enforcement for speed detection, that is NOT the only manner in which a Lidar gun can be used. As such, and depending on how/where/by whom a unit maybe used, it maybe advisable for the operator to utilize a tripod...

So the manufacturer added a tripod mount to allow for the use of such accessory if and when the need arises!

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

LIDAR procedure doesn't exist - but you know it's there.

---

Kind of like those voices in your head... Everybody tells you "they don't exist" and yet you're still claiming they're there!

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Sort of like Area 51.

---

Yeah, its all a big conspiracy to rob you of your hard earned money... Every state does it, speed measurements are made up, an innocent driver is randomly selected by a boogey man in uniform usually parked at the side of the road...

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Another thing, that "TIPMRA" discovery template was never going to do much in the first place.

---

What are you talking about? And where do you get off suggesting that claims by that author on that website would even come close to being the "legal standard" for discovery in ANY state?

Wow, I did not mean to stir up trouble. My apologies...

Is there any way someone can actually HELP me with my questions rather than just do the FLAME war thing?

I have court TOMORROW MORNING and I really need some help, I am not wanting to cause a war here, just hoping to find some folks who can help me win this thing.

Thanks...

That guy, You are free to assume what you wish.

LIDAR is intentionally left unregulated in every state besides New Jersey. In 12 years, not one state has passed any sort of law regarding how it should be used. Yet, every state law organization has recommendations for accuracy they are taught during training - are these regulations always followed? No, they are not. The public is not supposed to notice this.

Why would the manufacturer include tripods to prevent sweep error? The "sweep error" results in higher readings, meaning more tickets, making their device more successful.

I never said the TIPMRA defense was any sort of legal standard. I said it "was never going to do much in the first place", implying it's not worth much, if any, merit.

You have a motion for discovery, yes? Then just say that you filed it to get the court's permission to perform discovery & you thought the court's permission was required. The court should grant your motion -- ask the court to set a date for the production of documents to be completed.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

That guy, You are free to assume what you wish.

LIDAR is intentionally left unregulated in every state besides New Jersey. In 12 years, not one state has passed any sort of law regarding how it should be used. Yet, every state law organization has recommendations for accuracy they are taught during training - are these regulations always followed? No, they are not. The public is not supposed to notice this.

Why would the manufacturer include tripods to prevent sweep error? The "sweep error" results in higher readings, meaning more tickets, making their device more successful.

---

And you're free to claim that this is all part of one grand conspiracy between the manufacturers, law enforcement, and the legal justice system against the general public. May be one day you'll realize that the entire world does not have to run on your rules nor does it have to meet your standards. If you do, you're bound to get over all this bitterness that you're still feeling simply because you were convicted of a valid and righteous speeding citation, in spite of all your claimed knowledge about the topic...

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

I never said the TIPMRA defense was any sort of legal standard. I said it "was never going to do much in the first place", implying it's not worth much, if any, merit.

---

Pretty much applies to 99% of the information that you post on here... It isn't worth much... But you still post it anyways!

Carry on though; not my place to dictate who can post and what they can post!

None of that is true, by the way. I've never said there is any sort of grand conspiracy. Most people looking for advice here, generally have the distance on their ticket, and it's under 1,000ft. Does this happen everywhere? It does not.

It's impossible to "prove" LIDAR should be used a certain way, because such regulation outside one state does not exist. Proving LIDAR should be used a certain way for maximum accuracy is sort of like proving the existence of anti-matter. Only New Jersey has proven the existence of "anti-matter" particles. You know it's impossible to prove something that doesn't exist, and have always taken some odd pleasure in reminding me of that. Because, it can't be proven that LIDAR should be used a certain way (in all but one state), it is rather easy to call any point I make, uninformed, ridiculous, ignorant, etc.

I think it's dangerous that complete free-reign is given to law enforcement over the device (everywhere besides New Jersey). You think it's great to satisfy your Tom Ripley-esque fascination with playing message board prosecutor, and my inability to prove that LIDAR should be used within reasonable distances in 49 states, theoretically gives you a minimum 49 chances to tell me I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

None of that is true, by the way. I've never said there is any sort of grand conspiracy.

---

You obviously can't even read into/don't understand what you yourself are posting. Maybe you're copying lines from other posts on other websites and pasting them here... And if so, understand that it makes your posts even less useful!

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

It's impossible to "prove" LIDAR should be used a certain way, because such regulation outside one state does not exist.

---

So what's your point behind coming on here with the same freaking schpeal in each and every thread where Lidar is mentioned?

"What's the distance? Is it listed on the citation? and did he use Lidar through the window?"

What are you trying to accomplish? If you're trying to change the laws, the rules of evidence and the standards by which these matters are adjudicated, then you'd be better off writing to the legislature in each of the 49 states that you're constantly bitching about, starting with your own state of Iowa (or is it Idaho).

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

Because, it can't be proven that LIDAR should be used a certain way (in all but one state), it is rather easy to call any point I make, uninformed, ridiculous, ignorant, etc.

---

So you do realize that "it can't be proven", you do understand that your theories are far from being appliable and that your standard aren't as decisive as you make them out to be... And yet you're always so adamant about how it all should work out!!! And yes, you do make it way too easy to call you out... And yet you keep coming back... With the same so called uninformed, ridiculous, ignorant, (and may I add "useless") comments!

So, again, what is your point and what are you trying to accomplish??

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

You think it's great to satisfy your Tom Ripley-esque fascination with playing message board prosecutor...

---

Hey, describe it/me as you wish, it is obvious that the value and meaning behind my posts is miles above and beyond what you can comprehend. At least I had one pertinent comment that helped the OP... Compare that with your being a troll, simply hovering around as you wait for the word "Lidar" to appear in a post so that you can regurgitate all the gibberish you are repeatedly posting, and you've offered NOTHING of value that ANYONE can use or benefit from!

So, yet again, what is your point and what are you trying to accomplish???

Quote:

---

Quoting lostintime

---

... and my inability to prove that LIDAR should be used within reasonable distances in 49 states, theoretically gives you a minimum 49 chances to tell me I'm wrong.

---

You couldn't even define "reasonable"... Not by any defined or even remotely relevant standards... That certainly makes it easy for anyone -not just me- to tell you you're wrong!

I call it as I see it... In return, you've had plenty of opportunity to "put up" (some sort of proof validating anything you say) "or shut up" (and yet you still blabber on with the same song and dance)...

Get a clue already!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting rth

---

Wow, I did not mean to stir up trouble. My apologies...

Is there any way someone can actually HELP me with my questions rather than just do the FLAME war thing?

I have court TOMORROW MORNING and I really need some help, I am not wanting to cause a war here, just hoping to find some folks who can help me win this thing.

Thanks...

---

No apology needed... You didn't start anything.

Fact of the matter is, your questions are very specific, and I am sorry I wasn't able to offer much more than what little I did. Personally, I am not as well versed with Texas procedures and I am not aware of anyone on this forum who could answer such specific details. It is unfortunate that you came here so close to your hearing date and that we were unable to address all your inquiries.

Best of luck and please update us with how it all works out!

Through-the-window can refract the laser beam. I'm not say this happened, only bringing up the possibility. The tripod extensions are there for a reason, not just for survey mode. It does help prevent any sort of additional speed. No surprise they aren't in use. If the officer said on the stand that sweep error doesn't exist, that a tripod doesn't help prevent sweep error, he would be lying. Depending on judge/prosecutor, they may allow him to make these points, they may not.

If he said using the device through-the-window didn't alter the beam's angle possibly resulting in a misread, he would be lying again. This is a very arbitrary process, again, one judge may listen, another may not.