SUMMARY

Stopped on the M4 at 1am in Dec 2005 by Wiltshire Constabulary patrol car.  2 PCs were up on a ramp in their car and had zapped me at a distance of just over 600m with LTI 20/20 used in hand held mode.

Alleged speed: 104MPH

Verbal NIP given, summoned to magistrates court 2 months later.

I have been representing myself in court, but have employed one of the solicitors who advertise on this site to prepare arguments and deal with CPS.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, hold a full UK licence with 3 points on it.

MY DEFENCE

Since the LTI 20/20 was not mounted on a tripod, the reading cannot be relied upon at this distance (a deflection of only 1.85mm of the end of the gun is enough for the beam to change lanes).  This is compounded by the fact that the carriageway was unlit, it was a cloudy night, it was pitch black and there was other traffic on the road (the officers had first seen me "overtaking other vehicles").

CURRENT STATUS

Pleaded guilty to speeding, but at 85MPH not 104MPH

Attended PTH in Feb, then main hearing last week, having sent the CPS a copy of my technical arguments.  I discussed the case with the prosecutor before the court session who then informed me that he had never seen my arguments before.  It turns out the CPS had failed to send them to the prosecutor, despite having them for over 2 weeks.  Hearing adjourned.  They are now going to examine my arguments and report back to the court at an "administrative hearing" in 3 weeks, which I do not need to attend.  At this stage they will state whether they are dropping the case or going for full prosecution.

ADVICE NEEDED!

I am trying to gather evidence to prove that the LTI 20/20 is unreliable when used in hand held mode above 400m.  I note from several websites that the device has been banned in the states above 400m unless used on a tripod.

What I could really do with is the following:

1) The LTI 20/20 user's manual
2) Some concrete evidence/copies of reports about the findings in the USA
3) Any other decent evidence that shows the device should be on a tripod at this distance!

Any ideas where I can lay my hands on any of this info?

Any other comments on this welcome.

Many thanks

Mark  

Here are a few bits for you, do you know which model of LTI 20/20 was used (speedscope or ultralyte)?

http://www.teletrafficuk.com/ultralyte.htm
Note the range on this one! and this (again from ACPO Guide)


Here is the type approval for the speedscope. You will notice a couple of things about it. It is a copy of the actual doc but it's not signed. It states "...activated by means of a light beam or beams." The speedscope is activated by a mechanical switch.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/roadsen...lti20201496.pdf

Sorry! Here is the link for the ACPO code of practice.
www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/ Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf
So when PC says he "...operated in accordance with..." you can jump on the extremes of range as well as him almost certainly having a digital comms device switched on in the vehicle

www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf

Fixed link  :wink:

I dont mean to worry you but the magistrates will take the officers word for the speed!In my case an officer hiding with an LTI20/20 claimed that in 400 metres I got from standstill to 96mph and back to stanstill in a 1.6 fiesta !
The magistrate said the officer was a more credible witness never mind the fact that the car couldnt do it and the other car on the road didnt see anything!

Would be worth checking to see if Wiltshire use Tetra. If they do, then providing the separations are maintained as per this advice, i think they are operating as per guidelines.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Dat...rsion%202-3.pdf
Look at page 87 for the table of recommend separation distances for various different laser devices.  
For Speedscope & Ultralyte the distances are 0.05m for Tetra handset & GSM on belt, and 0.5m for Tetra Mobile & GSM Mobile (presumably these refer to in-car sets?)