A couple questions:
1) How do you do trial de novo?
2) What was your defense when you did trial by written declaration?
A couple questions:
1) How do you do trial de novo?
2) What was your defense when you did trial by written declaration?
1. Having received notification that I lost the trial by written declaration, I filled in a form to request a TDN, and filed it with the court.
2. All in the book; I argued that the speed measurement was wrong because in order for the speed measurement to be accurate, the beams of light emitted by the lidar speed measuring device have to hit exactly the same point on the car. Given that I was driving down a hill at the time, I don't think that the officer was supporting the lidar device (e.g. with a tripod) when he used it, and he was several hundred feet away from me when he caught me, this is actually extremely unlikely. Check out Josh Bloch's 'Lowdown on Lidar' (also cited in my book).
I sure hope you aren't selling your book. Your "understanding" of lidar speedn
detectors is poor at best.
You should check out the specs on the lidar used and calculate just how large the "spot" was. The minimal error caused by not hitting the "exact point" (if you calculate the actual size of the spot you will realize how invalid your claims are) will not cause an error large enough to make a difference. You should also realize that there are several hundred, at least, measurements taken during a speed check, all in less than half a second, which allows for a very accurate measurement.
I did look up specs and calculated a beam width of ~10 feet for my situation.
Lidar *can* be accurate, but the devices have to be used properly. The CHP publish an operating manual and the lidar device manufacturers publish operating instructions, too. I obtained copies and the officer did NOT follow the instructions. Accordingly, the measurement can't be expected to be accurate.
cdwjava you are correct, argument is untested. But I still won. :-)
It's true that motorists can be cited by officers who don't use tripods. However, that fact alone has no bearing on the accuracy of the measurement. And the documentation I read recommends that supports are used.
So a beam width of 10 feet? Your statement of the light "must hit
the exact same point on the car" fails if the beam width is 10 feet. A car is about 6' wide.
I don't know the distance involved for you but to have a beam width of 10 feet you would have to be at least 700 yards (at the max allowable divergence of 5 milliradian (per federal rule) . 1 milliraidian @ 100 yards results in approx 3.6" ). You said you you were several hundred feet away. At 600 feet (200 yards) the beam would be about 36". (3.6 x 5 x 2) at the max allowable divergence. Your argument of hitting the exact same spot fails at that distance as well.
And realize that is at the max divergence as allowed by law. The actual beam width is likely smaller.
LTI (a lidar smd manufacturer) states their beam width is about 3 feet at 1000 feet.
If your book is as imprecise as your calculations, well, let's just say it wouldn't be worth the sales price if it were free.
As to you winning. You got lucky. The cop didn't show. If
the cop showed, using the arguments you've provided so far, there is no reason to believe you would have won.
10 feet wide is almost as wide as the lanes on the freeway - and I was ticketed at a relatively busy time. The measured speed might be for another car completely.
10 feet really is very wide...the light could have bounced off any combination of the wing mirrors; top of the windshield; base of windshield; radiator; license plate. It's a huge source of error. If you don't want to buy my book, Google "Lowdown on Lidar" by Josh Bloch.
That's the whole point, the beam is so wide that's it's unrealistic to expect it to hit the same spot on the car, especially one being driven down a hill.
I don't know the exact distance either, because neither the DA nor the CHP fully responded to my request for discovery. However, I estimate ~1000 ft or so.
That will depend on how it's used.
There's nothing wrong with my calculations, and they are all referenced. The problem is with the way the officers use the lidar devices.
It's true that my arguments are untested. It's also true that I was lucky that the cop didn't show.
But the most important thing is that I won, and I feel one reason that I did was because I dragged the process out over nine months. All in the book. :-)
Fascinating that the professional defense bar has not uncovered this glaring flaw in the use of lidar that you claim to have discovered.
I think you overestimate the strength of the claim you make. You also forget that radar trained officers are also trained in visual estimation, so regardless of the lidar they will also testify that they made a visual estimation of the speed of your vehicle (which was confirmed by their use of radar/lidar). So, I wouldn't count those chickens so fast.
But, if all a person has is a Hail Mary and they do not need a guarantee of traffic school, why not go for the end zone in an all-or-nothing pass?
And, of course, your lidar argument is entirely untested because the officer did not show and the matter was dropped. Not to mention the fact that a tripod is NOT required for the use of a lidar! I have no idea where you got that impression.