MARYLAND SPECIFIC:

The Maryland Supreme Court has held LIDAR evidence to be

reliable since 1995, noting that LIDAR was based on generally
accepted scientific principles. The court wrote that, the trial
court made an extensive investigation into the reliability of the
laser speed measurements [in which it] found that the use of
lasers
to measure speed is generally accepted in the relevant scientific
community. The Maryland Supreme Court agreed with the
trial court and held that laser speed measurements may be
admitted into evidence in judicial proceedings in the State of
Maryland.

The trial judge found Goldstein guilty of exceeding the speed

limit. The court found that the State had proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that the LTI 20-20 is generally
accepted in the relevant scientific community and that
measurements from the LTI 20-20 are therefore admissible to
prove the speed of a motor vehicle.
What LIDAR unit/model was used?

In Maryland City, MD:

No officer will operate a radar/LIDAR unit in an enforcement
capacity without first attending training on the operation of
traffic radar that is equivalent to that provided by the St. Louis
County and Municipal Police Academy or Law Enforcement
Academy Basic Police Training Curriculum. Officers must

demonstrate to a Field Training Officer or Radar Instructor, their

ability to properly use and test the speed measuring equipment.
In addition, LIDAR laser operations require additional specific
training from a certified instructor. The Maryland Heights Police
Department shall ensure that at least one officer is trained as a
LIDAR Laser Instructor. This officer, under the direction of the D
Platoon Traffic Safety Sergeant, will maintain the curriculum and
certification to teach department officers in the operation of the
LIDAR units. Training certificates will be maintained in the
officers personnel file and indicated in the department training
database

NOT SPECIFIC TO MARYLAND/UNKNOWN:

What were the procedures the LEO was supposed to use?
LEO is supposed to test his gun before and after shift if one is
missed ticket may be tossed. (The International Association of
Chiefs of Police recommends that the officer test the calibration
of the device prior to his using the gun and after its use. So
typically an officer will check the calibration of the unit at the
start of his shift and at the end of his shift.)
For the court to accept the speed reading the cop has to prove to
the court that the laser gun was working properly at the time he
used it.
The first thing the cop has to do is test the LIDAR against an
external standard. After that he has to do an internal diagnostics
check, a fixed distance test, a heads up display (HUD) alignment
test, and a differential distance test.
Frequently the officers will list that these tests were indeed
performed on the affidavit but fail to state what the results of
these tests are. This is known as the no result argument. If the

officer fails to state what the results of the tests were, how do I
(and more importantly the judge) know the Lidar was in proper
working order?
We cant. And when the judge cant be sure, they have no choice
but to dismiss the ticket.
h object is to put the officer and the speeding equipment on
trial. Create doubt by skng the fllwng questions:
Ask what the position of the laser gun was in relation to the sun
and thr bright lights, bus laser uses infrared light and
dsnt work well when aimed at the sun or thr bright light.
The sun will make it harder on the gun as well as the laser
countermeasure on your car.
Ask when the equipment was last calibrated, on the day of the
violation? Training and calibration is very important and one of
the easiest ways to beat a ticket.
Ask why, if the officer refused to demonstrate the calibration at
the day of the violation. Always ask when given the ticket, they
can decline but never hurts to ask.
Ask questions about the color of ur clothes, vehicle
characteristics and traffic conditions in order to show that the
officer dsnt remember the incident.
Ask the officer but the laws in the area to establish whether
he ndd knows all the rules and regulations. Most dont know
the differences on radar and laser. Create doubt to the court.
Question the officer but the operating procedure of the laser
unit. Focus on any mistakes that he might have made. Again we
are creating doubt.
Question the officers hand stability bus slight movement
in the arm n produce n incorrect reading, unlss he made
cross reference with stopwatch or radar to check the accuracy

of the reading. A quick move with laser gun could have picked up
another vehicle. Where with radar there is no way of knowing
the certain car the beam is so large.
Ask questions but the officers training to establish whether
he received adequate training to operate the unit. Ask to see the
training dates on that specific gun.
Review all the document(s) / evidence (objectionable / objections)
that the officer plans to use on the trial date. This might include
maintenance, calibrations, training, and other data records.
Police Officers that issue LIDAR / laser speeding tickets /
violations are "Experts" in the operation and not the theory of the
aforementioned devices. Logically the best defense, is to retain
an "Expert / Expert Witness" in this exact field. The expert
should be an engineer, that is familiar with laser / LIDAR (gun)
speed measuring device (certified speed measuring device
operator / instructor), police training, vehicle characteristics,
certified vehicle technician/ mechanic, as well as court rules.