A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LIDAR Trial this Week



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 3rd 05, 08:10 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LIDAR Trial this Week

I live in Massachusetts and got stopped for speeding on a major highway
where the speed trap was suddenly set to 30 mph. The trooper used a
LIDAR unit and I'm contesting it. At least I'm going for a judicial
hearing, which is the end of this week.

I'm impressed with the strategy in the e-book, "Case Dismissed." Has
anyone in a similar situation used this in their case and how did the
case turn out?

Thank you.

Ads
  #3  
Old April 3rd 05, 09:13 PM
fear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i live in mass and my detector has gone off a bunch of times with cops
zapping me with laser (lidar)

which highway were you on?
91? 90?

i actually almost crapped my pants today as i was driving on the Garden
State Parkway in new jersey this morning and my detector went off full
steam at laser.. luckily i dont think i was going fast enough over the limit
for him to go after me cause from what i hear unless you have a laser
jammer.. once your radar detector has picked up that you've been hit with
laser its already too late.

goodluck on the case.. tell us how it turns out.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I live in Massachusetts and got stopped for speeding on a major highway
> where the speed trap was suddenly set to 30 mph. The trooper used a
> LIDAR unit and I'm contesting it. At least I'm going for a judicial
> hearing, which is the end of this week.
>
> I'm impressed with the strategy in the e-book, "Case Dismissed." Has
> anyone in a similar situation used this in their case and how did the
> case turn out?
>
> Thank you.
>



  #4  
Old April 3rd 05, 10:54 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There is an important case law concerning New Jersey and LIDAR use:

In the MATTER OF the ADMISSIBILITY OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPEED READINGS
PRODUCED BY the LTI MARKSMAN 20-20 LASER SPEED DETECTION SYSTEM.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Criminal), Morris County.

Decided June 13, 1996.

Does anyone know if this precedent was overturned by a newer case
diecision?

  #5  
Old April 4th 05, 01:08 AM
fear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> There is an important case law concerning New Jersey and LIDAR use:
>
> In the MATTER OF the ADMISSIBILITY OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPEED READINGS
> PRODUCED BY the LTI MARKSMAN 20-20 LASER SPEED DETECTION SYSTEM.
>
> Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Criminal), Morris County.
>
> Decided June 13, 1996.



yep i found it


> Does anyone know if this precedent was overturned by a newer case
> diecision?
>



yea it seems to have been overturned march 20th 1998


here are the important parts:

if you want to read the whole thing.. i'll post it at the end of this post.
----------------------------------------


In the Matter of the Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Speed Readings Produced
by the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection System

APPEAL NO. 96-029 (Supplementary Proceedings)

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, LAW DIVISION, MORRIS COUNTY

314 N.J. Super. 233; 714 A.2d 381; 1998 N.J. Super. LEXIS 329


March 20, 1998, Decided


ORDER

For the reasons expressed in the foregoing Opinion, speed readings produced
by the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser [*253] Speed Detection System manufactured
by Laser Technology, Inc. (hereinafter "laser speed detector") shall be
admitted into evidence in all municipal courts in Morris County and in
Sussex County in the prosecution of any case arising under the motor vehicle
laws. Admissibility of such readings shall be subject to [***34] the rules
set forth below:
1. Expert testimony in support of admissibility shall not be required,
except as specifically set forth below.

2. Appropriate training of the law enforcement officer operating the laser
speed detector shall be shown in each case.

3. Pre-operational checking procedures recommended by the manufacturer of
the laser speed detector shall be shown to have been made in each case.

4. Speed measurements shall be admitted whether made in daylight or at
night and within any temperature range likely to be found in New Jersey,
even if made under conditions of light or moderately heavy rainfall, but
speed measurements taken during heavy rain or while snow is falling shall
not be admitted [**392] without the support of adequate expert testimony
in the individual case.

5. Speed measurements made at any distance up to 1,000 feet shall be
admitted, but measurements made at any distance in excess of 1,000 feet
shall be admitted only with the support of adequate expert testimony in the
individual case.


Dated: March 20, 1998

Reginald Stanton

Judge of the Superior Court

Assignment Judge


-------------------------------------------------------- the whole case is
below for those intersted ---------------------------------------------


In the Matter of the Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Speed Readings Produced
by the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection System

APPEAL NO. 96-029 (Supplementary Proceedings)

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, LAW DIVISION, MORRIS COUNTY

314 N.J. Super. 233; 714 A.2d 381; 1998 N.J. Super. LEXIS 329


March 20, 1998, Decided

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1]

Corrected March 23, 1998, March 25, 1998. Approved for Publication May 27,
1998.

Opinion of November 24, 1999 Affirming Opinion of Judge Stanton, Reported
at: 1999 N.J. Super. LEXIS 388.

PRIOR HISTORY: Original Opinion of June 13, 1996, Reported at: 1996 N.J.
Super. LEXIS 533.

DISPOSITION: Speed readings produced by the laser speed detector should be
received as evidence of the speed of motor vehicles without the need for
expert testimony in individual prosecutions arising under the motor vehicle
laws.

COUNSEL: Michael M. Rubbinaccio for the State.

Steven K. Greene, Joseph T. Maccarone and Sohail Mohammed appeared as Amici
Curiae.

JUDGES: Reginald Stanton, Judge of the Superior Court, Assignment Judge.

OPINIONBY: Reginald Stanton

OPINION: [*234]

[**382] Criminal Action

OPINION AND ORDER

STANTON, A.J.S.C.

BACKGROUND

This supplementary proceeding involves the reliability of a device known as
the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection System manufactured by Laser
Technology, Inc. For ease of expression, I shall hereafter usually refer to
this device as the "laser speed detector" or the "detector." The laser speed
detector is a compact, hand-held device which the New Jersey State Police
desire to use in enforcing the laws regulating motor vehicle speeds.

In 1996, in connection with a number of motor vehicle speeding cases [***2]
which were then pending in the municipal courts of Rockaway [*235]
Township and Parsippany-Troy Hills Township, I conducted an extensive
evidentiary hearing in the Superior Court for Morris County on the
admissibility of speed readings obtained by the New Jersey State Police
through use of the laser speed detector. In that earlier proceeding, Michael
M. Rubbinaccio, Esq., who was then serving as the Municipal Prosecutor for
both Rockaway Township and Parsippany-Troy Hills Township appeared for the
State. Stephen K. Greene, Esq., Joseph T. Maccarone, Esq. and Sohail
Mohammed, Esq. appeared as attorneys for various defendants in the motor
vehicle cases then pending in the municipal court.

On June 13, 1996, I issued a written opinion in that matter which concluded
that the general concept of using lasers to measure speed is widely accepted
in the relevant scientific community and is valid. However, I was not
satisfied that it had been proven that the laser speed detector device was
accurate and reliable enough to be used for law enforcement purposes. My
principal reason for not accepting the laser speed detector was that there
had not been, in my view, adequate [**383] operational testing of the
laser [***3] speed detector under actual highway conditions. My view was
that good performance testing might conceivably put us in a position of
being sure that the detector in fact worked reliably.

I suggested that it would be relatively easy to design performance tests
which would let independent observers know how accurate the laser detector
device was. I suggested that the tests should include vehicles of varying
sizes and shapes, that they be conducted under various conditions of traffic
flow along actual highways and roads, and that they be conducted at
different times of day under varying climatic conditions. I noted that such
tests should involve target vehicles whose speed was reliably established
either by controlling the driver of the vehicle or through simultaneous
measurement of its speed by a reliable device other than the laser speed
detector. I further noted that the test data [*236] would have to be
accurately recorded and reproduced for examination, analysis and replication
by other persons and agencies.

The State did not take an appeal from my decision excluding evidence
generated by the laser speed detector. The various cases then pending in the
municipal courts were resolved without [***4] the use of laser speed
detector evidence. However, the State did attempt to conduct performance
testing of the detector in an effort to develop data which would permit a
reexamination of the admissibility of speed readings produced by the
detector. Accordingly, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, Bureau
of Transportation Data Development, in cooperation with the New Jersey State
Police, Division of Highway Traffic Safety, conducted field testing of the
laser speed detector during September, October and November of 1996 and June
and July of 1997. Closed track testing of the detector was conducted on
September 19, 1996.

In 1997, the State moved to have me reopen the evidentiary proceedings
involving the laser speed detector. By that time, the pending motor vehicle
cases had been resolved and there were no defendants who had an interest in
contesting the admissibility of readings from the detector. However, in view
of the fact that the State Police were interested in using the detector and
were prepared to attempt to justify the admissibility of readings produced
by the detector on the basis of the field testing which had occurred, it
seemed to me that it would be desirable [***5] for any proceeding to take
place in this court in a way which would allow the parties to build upon
evidence which had been presented during the 1996 hearings before me.
Although I thought it useful and in the public interest to try to build on
the earlier proceedings, I did not want to have a non-adversarial proceeding
before me because such a proceeding would not be likely to produce an
appropriately vigorous scrutiny of the data presented.

Fortunately, Mr. Greene, Mr. Maccarone and Mr. Mohammed, attorneys who had
represented defendants in the earlier proceedings, remained interested in
the issues involved and they agreed to appear as amici curiae and to present
evidence and argument [*237] designed to subject any data presented by the
State to meaningful scrutiny. Although Mr. Greene, Mr. Maccarone and Mr.
Mohammed consented to act as friends of the court on an uncompensated basis,
I did enter an order on July 8, 1997, requiring the State to cover the
reimbursement of defense expert fees and costs. In this way, we were able to
make it possible to evaluate the test data generated by the State on an
adversarial basis.

I refer to the Opinion which I issued on June 13, 1996 for a detailed [***6]
description of the laser speed detector and of the operational and
conceptual objections which were raised in opposition to its acceptance. I
incorporate herein by reference everything which I said in that earlier
opinion without repeating it in detail. However, I do think it useful to
repeat at this point a general description of the way in which the laser
speed detector is supposed to work:


A laser is an artificially generated and amplified light which is in the
infrared light section of the electromagnetic wave spectrum. It is not
visible to the naked eye. It is very concentrated. The laser speed detector
fires a series of laser pulses [**384] at a selected remote target. When
the laser light strikes the target, a portion of the light is reflected back
to the detector. Since the speed of light is a known constant, by measuring
the time it takes for the laser pulse to travel to the target and back, the
detector is able to calculate the distance between the detector and the
target. Each laser pulse which is fired and reflected back establishes one
distance reading. The laser speed detector fires 43 laser pulses every time
the trigger on the detector is squeezed. These 43 pulses are fired [***7]
in a total period of approximately one-third of a second. If the target at
which the laser pulses are fired is a stationary target, each of the 43
pulses will give the same distance reading to the target, and distance will
be the only thing that the detector can tell us about the target. However,
if the target is moving, each of the 43 pulses will give a slightly
different distance reading and the detector can then compute the velocity or
speed of the target from the changes in distance divided by the known
elapsed time between the firing of each of the laser pulses. In simplest
terms, this is the basic theory underlying the use of lasers to calculate
speed, and there can be no dispute about its fundamental validity.


THE STANDARD

In February, 1995, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the
United States Department of Transportation issued Model Minimum Performance
Specifications for Lidar Speed Measurement Devices. The laser speed detector
is a lidar [*238] device. The specifications require that the speed
measurements produced by the device shall not exceed true speed by more than
one mile per hour or underreport speed by more than two miles per hour. True
speed [***8] is a somewhat philosophical concept, since any measuring
device is susceptible to some amount of error. For practical purposes, the
inquiry into whether a particular device meets the standard specified has to
be determined by comparing the device in question to other devices whose
reliability is generally accepted. Since we are dealing in speed law
enforcement cases with efforts to convict motorists of speeding violations,
the more significant aspect of the standard is that we do not want a device
to over-report speed by more than one mile per hour.

CLOSED TRACK TESTING

Closed track testing of the laser speed detector was conducted at Raceway
Park in Englishtown on September 19, 1996. Four standard passenger
automobiles supplied by the State Police were driven on the track on
controlled speed ranges varying from 90 miles to 20 miles per hour. The
vehicles were clocked simultaneously by the track timer, by K-55 radar, by a
device known as the PEEK 241 recorder and by the laser speed detector. The
track timer used was a Compulink System III which used infrared detectors
designed to calculate miles per hour over a 66-foot speed trap. It is
certified by various international automobile [***9] racing organizations.
K-55 radar is widely used by police departments throughout New Jersey for
law enforcement purposes and has been accepted as reliable by New Jersey
courts for more than 18 years. The PEEK 241 recorder is a portable traffic
monitoring device which is used in New Jersey and in many other states by
state highway departments to determine traffic volumes and speeds. It is not
used for law enforcement purposes against individual motorists. It
determines vehicle speed by calculating the time required for a vehicle to
activate two road hoses placed a known distance apart.

[*239] In the closed track testing at Raceway Park, the laser speed
detector was activated approximately 50% of the time against approaching
vehicles and approximately 50% of the time against vehicles which were
pulling away from the operator of the detector. The laser speed detector and
the track timer measured vehicles simultaneously on 114 occasions. The speed
reading produced by the laser speed detector exceeded that produced by the
track timer by more than one mile per hour in only one case. The reading in
question was two miles per hour higher than the track timer. The laser speed
detector and the PEEK [***10] 241 measured the same vehicles simultaneously
on 234 occasions. The measurements produced by the laser speed detector
[**385] never exceeded the measurements produced by the PEEK 241 recorder
by more than one mile per hour. The laser speed detector and the K-55 radar
measured vehicles simultaneously on 210 occasions. The measurements produced
by the laser speed detector never exceeded the measurements produced by the
radar by more than one mile per hour. The laser speed detector showed a
slight bias towards underreporting speed when compared with each of the
other measuring devices.

HIGHWAY TESTING -- RADAR

On October 1, 1996, State Police officers deployed K-55 radar and the laser
speed device on Interstate 80 in Mount Olive Township, Morris County. The
officers deploying the devices were appropriately trained and certified and
took positions on either the shoulder or the median of the highway which
would be used in standard law enforcement operations. The radar and the
laser speed detector were used simultaneously against 300 vehicles which
happened to be traveling along the highway at varying speeds and at varying
distances. The measurements produced by the laser speed detector exceeded
[***11] the measurements produced by the K-55 radar by more than one mile
per hour on one occasion. On that occasion, the laser reading was two miles
per hour higher than the radar reading.

[*240] On November 6, 1996, K-55 radar and the laser speed device were
again used simultaneously by appropriately trained State Police officers on
Interstate 80 in Mount Olive Township. The officers again took up standard
law enforcement positions and deployed the devices against 599 vehicles
traveling along the highway at varying speeds and ranges. Most of the
vehicles measured simply happened to be traveling along the highway.
However, a marked State Police car with a calibrated fifth wheel speed
measuring device was operated along the highway on 51 occasions during that
test. The measurements produced by the laser speed device exceeded the
measurements produced by the radar by more than one mile per hour on one
occasion. In that instance, the laser speed detector showed a reading five
miles per hour higher than the measurement produced by the radar. On the 51
occasions on which the laser measured the speed of the State Police vehicle
equipped with the fifth wheel, the laser speed detector never exceeded the
[***12] measurement produced by the fifth wheel.

In the highway testing against radar, the laser speed detector showed a
slight bias towards underreporting speed. The laser speed detector also
showed a slight (but more pervasive) bias towards underreporting as compared
to the fifth wheel.

If we combine the closed track testing results and the highway testing
results for a comparison of K-55 radar and the laser speed detector, we have
1,109 cases in which radar and the laser speed detector measured the speed
of vehicles simultaneously. In only two cases did the speed measurement
produced by the laser speed detector exceed the measurement produced by
radar by more than one mile per hour.

The closed track testing took place during daylight hours in fair weather.
The highway testing of the laser speed detector as compared to radar also
took place in daylight hours during fair weather. As previously noted,
during the closed track testing, the laser speed device was deployed against
approaching vehicles approximately one-half of the time and against vehicles
pulling [*241] away approximately one-half of the time. In the highway
testing, the laser speed detector was deployed against approaching vehicles
[***13] on 599 occasions and against vehicles pulling away on 300
occasions. Very few measurements were taken at ranges of more than 1,000
feet.

HIGHWAY TESTING -- WIM SYSTEM

On a number of days in September and October of 1996, the laser speed
detector was tested against piezoelectric Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) systems
which were owned and operated by the New Jersey Department of
Transportation. These systems are manufactured by International Road
Dynamics, Inc. and are used by the Department of Transportation in
connection with federally mandated systems to monitor the weight of trucks.
In addition to recording vehicle weight, the systems also record vehicle
speeds. The WIM systems employ various [**386] sensors imbedded in the
highway pavement and are not apparent to a motorist. In the WIM systems used
in New Jersey, the sensor array usually consists of one upstream loop
followed by two downstream piezoelectric cable sensors. The upstream loop
alerts the system to the entry of a vehicle. The downstream sensors measure
vehicle speed by determining the time it takes for a vehicle to pass between
the two sensors. Since the distance between the sensors is a known quantity,
vehicle speed can be readily [***14] calculated by the electronic package
attached to the system. The WIM systems used in the test were calibrated
against K-55 radar. The laser speed detector was positioned at a fixed
distance from the WIM system for each testing session. The fixed distance
was changed from session to session and varied from 500 feet at the closest
range to 1,000 feet at the longest range. The laser speed detector system
was operated by a trained State Police officer who positioned himself either
on the median or the shoulder of the highway in a position comparable to
that which he would assume in normal law enforcement operations. The laser
speed detector was deployed against vehicles happening to pass along the
highway at the same time at which they passed through the WIM system.

[*242] The WIM system was deployed in only one lane at a time, and the
lane was varied from testing session to testing session. The laser speed
detector was compared against the WIM system on Interstate 80 in Knowlton
Township, Warren County and on Interstate 95 in Ewing Township, Mercer
County.

The speeds of a total of 799 vehicles were calculated simultaneously by the
WIM system and the laser speed detector. Test results were [***15] not
affected by whether the vehicles being measured were in the slow lane, the
center lane or the fast lane of the highway. Three hundred forty-five
vehicles were measured in daylight during fair weather. In five cases the
speed measurement produced by the laser speed detector exceeded the
measurement produced by the WIM system by more than one mile per hour. In
each of those five cases, the laser speed detector reading was two miles per
hour higher. The speeds of 304 vehicles were measured simultaneously at
night time in fair weather. In no case where readings were taken after dark
did the measurement produced by the laser speed detector exceed the
measurement produced by the WIM system by more than one mile per hour.

The WIM system and the laser speed detector were simultaneously used against
150 vehicles during daytime when moderately heavy rain was falling. In nine
cases, the speed measurement produced by the laser speed detector exceeded
the measurement produced by the WIM system by more than one mile per hour.
In six of those nine cases, the laser speed detector reading was two miles
per hour higher. In three of those nine cases, the laser speed detector
reading was three miles [***16] per hour higher.

As stated above, a total of 799 vehicles were measured simultaneously by the
WIM system and the laser speed detector. In 14 cases out of this total
group, the measurement produced by the laser speed detector exceeded the
measurement produced by the WIM system by more than one mile per hour. The
figure for readings in excess of one mile per hour is markedly higher for
the WIM system comparison than for the comparison between the laser speed
detector and radar. Despite that, even with respect to [*243] the WIM
system, the laser speed detector showed a bias towards underreporting of
speed. Indeed, even with respect to measurements taken in the rain (where
there were nine readings which were more than one mile per hour higher on
the laser speed detector), there was a very slight bias on average in the
direction of underreporting of speed.

I note that the highway testing of the laser speed detector in comparison
both to the WIM system and to K-55 radar involved a complicated mix of motor
vehicles which happened to be driving along the highway sections where tests
were being conducted. There were all sorts of passenger motor vehicles,
vans, sports utility vehicles, and many types [***17] of trucks. Speed
readings were not affected by the type of vehicle whose speed was being
measured.

[**387] GENERAL RESULTS OF SPEED MEASUREMENTS

Taking an overview of the data on speed measurements, as compared to radar,
the laser speed detector produced an identical reading a little more than
65% of the time, a non-identical reading within the range of -2 miles per
hour to +1 mile per hour a little more than 34% of the time, and a reading
outside the range of -2 miles per hour to +1 mile per hour a little less
than 1/2 of 1% of the time. Thus, the readings were within the range
required by the Model Minimum Performance Specifications of the National
Highway Safety Administration 99.5% of the time. As compared to the WIM
system, the laser speed detector produced an identical reading a little more
than 40% of the time, a non-identical reading in the range of -2 miles per
hour to +1 mile per hour a little more than 56% of the time, and a reading
outside the range of -2 miles per hour to +1 mile per hour a little more
than 3% of the time. Thus, the readings were within the range required by
the Model Minimum Performance Specifications approximately 96.5% of the
time.

[*244] - - - -

There were [***18] no tests conducted in cold winter weather. However, the
way in which the laser speed detector functions and the characteristics of
its component parts are such that I am satisfied that winter temperatures
within the range expected in New Jersey would not affect the functioning of
the detector. If temperature did affect the functioning of the detector, the
result would be a failure to get a reading, not an erroneous reading.

There was no testing of the laser speed detector under conditions of heavy
rainfall or under conditions when snow was falling. My expectation is that
heavy rain might interfere with the transmission of laser pulses and might
make it impossible to obtain speed measurements. I suspect it is even more
likely that falling snow would block the obtaining of measurements by a
laser speed detector. However, the absence of testing in conditions of heavy
rain or of snow is not of practical significance. Heavy rain and snowfall do
cause safety problems on our highways, but those problems do not arise
because motorists operating under those conditions travel at speeds in
excess of posted limits. The reality is that heavy rain and snowfall would
typically cause motorists to [***19] travel at speeds well below posted
limits and law enforcement officers would not have any occasion to deploy a
laser speed detector in conditions of heavy rain or of snow.

ERROR TRAPPING

In the earlier Opinion with respect to the laser speed detector which I
issued on June 13, 1996, I discussed some of the erroneous data which could
theoretically be produced if laser pulses were allowed to sweep along a
vehicle, or were panned from one vehicle to another or were to splash from
one vehicle to another. The designer of the laser speed detector is aware of
those possibilities for error, and has designed computer programs and
hardware mechanisms calculated to trap a variety of errors. When the laser
speed detector receives data which do not permit an accurate calculation of
speed, it is designed to give an error message. An [*245] error message is
not an erroneous reading. It is a positive statement by the detector that it
cannot make a speed measurement because it is receiving insufficient data or
inconsistent data.

In preparation for the current hearings, the State conducted a number of
field tests designed to determine whether the error trapping programs and
mechanisms were functioning [***20] appropriately. On September 26, 1996,
the State Police deployed the detector against 25 different vehicles which
happened to be traveling along Interstate 80 in Knowlton Township. The
police officer operating the detector targeted a vehicle traveling abreast
of another vehicle and then panned the detector from the target vehicle to
the adjacent vehicle. Panning was accomplished in some instances by vertical
movement of the target designator dot off the target vehicle, in some
instances by horizontal movement of the dot off the target vehicle and in
still other instances by circular movement of the target dot. This kind of
operation should have produced error messages. In each of [**388] the 25
cases in which there was deliberate panning from one vehicle to another, the
laser speed detector gave an error message indicating that it could not make
a speed calculation because of insufficient or inconsistent data.

On June 30 and July 1, 1997, additional tests of the laser speed detector's
error trapping abilities were carried out by the State Police and the
Department of Transportation on Interstate 80 in Mount Olive Township. In
the first test, the operator targeted one of two vehicles moving [***21]
abreast of another vehicle and moved the target dot horizontally from one
vehicle onto the other while keeping the trigger depressed. Fifty vehicle
pairs were targeted in this manner. This kind of use should have produced
error messages. In each instance, an error message was produced. The 50
vehicle pairs used for this test were a variety of motor vehicles which
happened to be traveling along the highway while the procedures were being
performed.

In a further test, two State Police cars were driven at controlled speeds in
adjacent lanes. The target vehicle in the left lane was instructed to
maintain a speed of 55 miles per hour, while the [*246] target vehicle in
the center lane was instructed to maintain a speed of 53 miles per hour. The
target dot was then panned horizontally from the faster vehicle in the left
lane to the slower vehicle in the center lane. Eight total passes were made
at ranges varying from 1,000 feet to 400 feet with several readings being
taken on each pass. This kind of use should have produced error messages. A
total of 57 readings were obtained. Each of the 57 readings was an error
message.

In a further test, two State Police vehicles were driven in adjacent lanes,
[***22] with the left lane vehicle being instructed to maintain a speed of
55 miles per hour, while the central lane vehicle was instructed to maintain
a speed of 53 miles per hour. In this test, the operator of the detector was
instructed not to target either vehicle, but instead to target a spot
between the two vehicles. Eight total passes were made, and 53 readings were
obtained. This kind of use should have produced error messages. Each of the
53 readings was an error message.

The next procedure was designed to determine the ability to detect a
different kind of error possibility. Theoretically, an accurate speed
reading might be determined from a variety of points on a vehicle. However,
the best point on a vehicle for obtaining a speed reading is the license
plate, and police officers are instructed to target the license plate when
attempting to get a reading for law enforcement purposes. An accurate speed
measurement might be obtained on occasion by targeting the windshield of a
vehicle, but the configuration and texture of windshields are such that poor
and misleading reflections would normally be returned from the windshield
area. In this test, the detector operator was instructed [***23] first to
fire a distinct laser shot at the license plate and then to fire a second
distinct shot at the windshield of the vehicle. Fifty target vehicles were
randomly selected from vehicles traveling along the highway. A speed reading
was received for each of the 50 vehicles with respect to the laser shot
fired at the license plate, but the results were markedly different for the
shots fired at the windshields. In 44 [*247] cases, the shot fired at the
windshield produced an error reading, which would be the usual expectation.
In six cases, the shot fired at the windshield produced a speed measurement.
In five of those six cases, the windshield speed reading was exactly the
same as the license plate speed reading for the same vehicle. In one of the
six cases, the windshield target speed was one mile per hour higher than the
license plate target speed.

This test was repeated with a slight variation on 50 additional randomly
selected vehicles. The variation for the second set of 50 vehicles was that
the grill area of the vehicle would be targeted first, with a second shot
being taken at the windshield of the vehicle. The grill area of the vehicle
is thought to be almost as good a spot for [***24] getting an accurate
reading as is the license plate. In this variation of the test, a speed
reading was obtained from each of the 50 vehicles when the grill area was
targeted. With respect to the shots fired at the windshield area, 48 error
messages were received. Two speed measurements [**389] were obtained from
the windshield area, and each of them was identical with the speed
measurement obtained from the license plate area of the same vehicle.

A further test of error trapping involved 50 vehicles, most of which were
trucks, with several being vehicles such as a bus or a motor home. In each
case, the laser speed detector operator was instructed to pan the detector's
red target dot along the side of the vehicle while keeping the trigger
depressed. This kind of operation should have produced error messages. For
all 50 vehicles, the laser speed detector produced an error message. In the
next error trapping test, 49 trucks and one motor home were randomly
selected from the traffic flow, and the laser speed detector operator was
instructed to pan on the side of the vehicle in both a horizontal and a
vertical direction. For each of the 50 vehicles, an error message was
obtained.

A further test [***25] involved two State Police vehicles traveling in
tandem in the left lane. The lead car was instructed to maintain a steady
speed of 55 miles per hour, while the trail car was [*248] instructed to
maintain a following distance of three car lengths behind the lead car. The
laser speed [*249] detector operator was instructed to target the lead car
and then move the red target dot between the lead and the trail cars while
keeping the trigger depressed. The vehicles were targeted starting at 1,000
feet and as many readings as possible continued until the lead car reached
the 400 foot range. This kind of operation should have produced error
messages. A total of six passes were made and 50 distinct readings were
produced by the detector. Each reading was an error message.

VEHICLE DISCRIMINATION

In another test, trucks were randomly selected from the traffic flow. A
State Police vehicle was then instructed to drive alongside the truck and to
achieve a maximum speed of 65 miles per hour as it passed the truck. The
laser speed detector operator was instructed to target the police vehicle
first while it was alongside the truck and then to take as many distinct
measurements as possible of the police vehicle [***26] until the police
vehicle was within 400 feet of the operator. At that point, a final speed
measurement was to be taken by a separate shot fired at the truck. The
purpose of this test was to determine whether reliable speed measurements
could be obtained on vehicles in a passing situation and to determine
whether any "splashover" of the laser beam occurs in this sort of passing
situation. A claimed advantage of the laser speed detector over radar is
that it can discriminate between vehicles under these conditions and get an
accurate speed measurement of each vehicle. A total of 11 passes and 61
measurements were made. In each case, an accurate speed measurement was
obtained for each vehicle targeted and no "splashover" occurred.

The final test involved two State Police vehicles traveling in tandem. The
lead car was instructed to maintain a steady speed of 55 miles per hour,
while the following car was instructed to maintain a steady speed of 53
miles per hour. The laser speed detector operator was instructed to target
the lead car and to lock the target dot on the lead car. He was then to take
as many readings as possible of the lead car while the tandem pair
approached the operator. [***27] The lead vehicle was targeted at 1,000
feet and as many readings as possible were continued until the lead car
reached the 400 foot range. At that point, the operator was instructed to
fire a separate distinct shot at the trail vehicle. A claimed advantage of
the laser speed detector over radar is that it can discriminate between
vehicles under these conditions and get an accurate speed measurement of
each vehicle. Eight passes were made in this fashion and a total of 52
readings were made. In every instance, the detector obtained a valid speed
measurement on both the lead and the trail vehicles.

- - - -

The various tests conducted by the State Police which were designed to
explore the error trapping capability of the laser speed detector indicated
that the error trapping programs and mechanisms functioned precisely as the
detector manufacturer claimed they would. Other tests indicated that when
[**390] operated carefully, the laser speed detector had the ability to
discriminate between vehicles which the manufacturer claimed. However, the
friends of the court presented a videotape of a procedure which produced a
result which seemed to indicate that the error trapping mechanisms did not
[***28] always work as they were supposed to. In the procedure presented on
the videotape, the laser speed detector was targeted at a stationary vehicle
and at the side of a house and was then moved with the trigger depressed in
a variety of directions. In a number of instances, this procedure produced
on the laser speed detector a speed measurement indicating that the
stationary object or the stationary vehicle was moving at a slow rate of
speed, such as five miles per hour or eleven miles per hour.

The designer of the laser speed detector, Jeremy Dunne, countered this
testimony by saying that the error trapping programs built into the detector
were designed to cope with insufficient or inconsistent data which would be
produced by an operator using [*250] the detector for its intended
purpose. That is to say, they were designed in contemplation of being used
against moving vehicles and of coping with error risks which might be
produced when the laser beam was targeted on such vehicles or close to them.
As I understood this testimony, presumably an error trapping program could
be designed to prevent a speed reading of a stationary vehicle, but the
manufacturer had not gone to the trouble and expense [***29] of designing
such a program, because, in real life, an operator using the detector for
law enforcement purposes would have no reason to target a stationary vehicle
and then to move the detector around while keeping the trigger depressed. In
short, the detector was not designed to be deployed against a stationary
vehicle or object (except for distant measurement purposes), and there
simply was no need to design error trapping programs with respect to speed
measurements from a stationary vehicle or object. I accept this explanation.

COMMENTS ON THE TESTING PROGRAM

Evidence with respect to performance testing of the laser speed detector was
presented to me in a hearing which extended over a period of four days. The
evidence established that the basic testing observations were made and
recorded by State Police officers and by employees of the Department of
Transportation. I am satisfied that the observers honestly and accurately
made and recorded their observations. The basic data was then compiled and
organized by Stephen R. Decker, a principal engineer employed by the New
Jersey Department of Transportation. Except for some insignificant clerical
errors, the compilation and reporting [***30] of the basic data are
fundamentally accurate.

The testing program designed and carried out by the Department of
Transportation and the State Police was far from perfect. As the friends of
the court pointed out, the testing could have been much more comprehensive
with respect to the number of vehicles and with respect to variations in
climate conditions. Better procedures for cross-checking and verification of
data [*251] collection could have been employed. There were anomalies
which were not explored as fully as they might have been.

For example, although the vast bulk of speed measurements fell within the
acceptable range of -2 miles per hour to +1 mile per hour, there were a
number of readings which were markedly outside that range and there was no
explanation proffered with respect to that. There was one laser speed
detector reading which was as much as seven miles per hour below the reading
produced by the device against which it was being compared, and there was
another laser speed detector reading which was as much as five miles per
hour higher than the reading produced on the device against which the
detector was being compared. Even though those anomalous readings were very
limited [***31] in number, I would have preferred to have received some
plausible explanation for them other than being asked to conclude that they
are harmless anomalies.

I note that 150 measurements taken in conditions of moderate rainfall
produced nine laser speed detector readings which were more than one mile
per hour higher than the readings produced by the comparison device,
[**391] while 1,758 measurements taken in fair weather produced only seven
readings which were more than one mile per hour in excess of the reading
produced by the comparison device. It is possible that the rainfall may have
been affecting the comparison device more than the laser speed detector, but
that was not explored. It is also true that the highest reading produced by
the laser speed detector in rainfall conditions was only three miles per
hour in excess of the reading produced by the comparison device, and three
miles per hour is not, in my judgment, a disqualifying number in terms of
the practical law enforcement situation in which the detector will be used.
But there is a somewhat troubling divergence from the viewpoint of
scientific inquiry.

CONCLUSION

I end up being impressed by the fact that when we combine [***32] the
results for the comparisons with both the WIM system and radar, [*252] we
have only 16 cases out of 1,908 in which the speed measurement produced by
the laser speed detector exceeded the measurement produced by the comparison
device by more than one mile per hour. That amounts to 0.8%. I also note
that the speed measurement produced by the laser speed detector only once
exceeded by more than one mile per hour the measurement produced by the
track timer and never exceeded by more than one mile per hour the
measurement produced by the PEEK 241 or the fifth wheel.

I am satisfied from the evidence presented in the proceedings which led to
the issuance of my Opinion of June 13, 1996 and from the evidence presented
during the recent hearings before me that the general concept of using
lasers to calculate the speed of motor vehicles is generally accepted within
the relevant scientific community and is valid. Despite the fact that the
testing conducted was far from perfect, it was adequate, and I am satisfied
from the totality of the evidence presented to me that the laser speed
detector produces reasonably uniform and reasonably measurements of the
speed of motor vehicles under conditions likely [***33] to be present on
New Jersey highways when the detector is used for law enforcement purposes.
The error trapping programs and mechanisms built into the detector are fully
adequate to prevent unreliable speed measurements when used for law
enforcement purposes. Accordingly, under the broad teaching of cases such as
Romano V. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66, 474 A.2d 1 (1984), and State v. Wojtkowiak,
170 N.J. Super. 44, 405 A.2d 477 (Law Div. 1979), reversed on other grounds,
174 N.J. Super. 460, 416 A.2d 975 (App. Div. 1980), speed readings produced
by the laser speed detector should be received as evidence of the speed of
motor vehicles without the need for expert testimony in individual
prosecutions arising under the motor vehicle laws.

- - - -

ORDER

For the reasons expressed in the foregoing Opinion, speed readings produced
by the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser [*253] Speed Detection System manufactured
by Laser Technology, Inc. (hereinafter "laser speed detector") shall be
admitted into evidence in all municipal courts in Morris County and in
Sussex County in the prosecution of any case arising under the motor vehicle
laws. Admissibility of such readings shall be subject to [***34] the rules
set forth below:
1. Expert testimony in support of admissibility shall not be required,
except as specifically set forth below.

2. Appropriate training of the law enforcement officer operating the laser
speed detector shall be shown in each case.

3. Pre-operational checking procedures recommended by the manufacturer of
the laser speed detector shall be shown to have been made in each case.

4. Speed measurements shall be admitted whether made in daylight or at
night and within any temperature range likely to be found in New Jersey,
even if made under conditions of light or moderately heavy rainfall, but
speed measurements taken during heavy rain or while snow is falling shall
not be admitted [**392] without the support of adequate expert testimony
in the individual case.

5. Speed measurements made at any distance up to 1,000 feet shall be
admitted, but measurements made at any distance in excess of 1,000 feet
shall be admitted only with the support of adequate expert testimony in the
individual case.


Dated: March 20, 1998

Reginald Stanton

Judge of the Superior Court

Assignment Judge


  #6  
Old April 4th 05, 04:55 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hmm. Too bad. Do you think a district court judge in Mass. or the state
police prosecutor would be aware of this newer case?

  #8  
Old April 4th 05, 01:09 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As a matter of fact, it does. More so than you, apparently. Unless
you're just being coy, you devil, you.

  #10  
Old April 4th 05, 02:48 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's not free. You must pay for the book, just as you must pay for
membership in the NMA.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info [email protected] Driving 40 January 3rd 05 08:10 AM
Repair of the Week M. E. Bye Jeep 15 December 29th 04 02:54 AM
***HELP*** Got Ticketed, and I have my trial date coming up real soon. Arif Khokar Driving 35 December 18th 04 01:25 AM
One week with an Alfa GT Ivan Alfa Romeo 4 December 5th 04 02:34 PM
Todd Bertuzzi assault trial: stay up on the events of the case as it unfolds.... NHLi.com Corvette 0 August 10th 04 09:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.