Why Are Manufacturer Guidelines So Important? Manufacturer Guidelines are the operating rules that the maker of each device issues to police forces. These guidelines describe how to use the device in a manner that will achieve an accurate speed reading. Contravening even one of the guidelines can make the evidence inadmissible and mean your case is dropped. This is why they are so important!
Example: The manufacturer's guideline for the Serco Speed Enforcement System Type 1 (a type of GATSO camera) states that they are to be used singly. This is to ensure there is no interference between individual units. However, cases have been won by proving that these units have been used in arrays of three or four per gantry (this usually happens over stretches of the motorway). As this breaks the manufacturer guidelines it also means the device is not being used in a manner that the Home Office has approved, and therefore the speed reading cannot be relied upon.
These operating guidelines are extremely rare and hard to get your hands on. The police and the manufacturers do not want them in public hands as by studying them you can pick apart errors in the officers use of the device and potentially a fundamental floor in the device itself.
Below you will find a link to download the manufacturer's guidelines for a LIDAR device known as the LTI 20-20. This device is extremely common and a popular choice in handheld speed enforcement.
We have an entire library of these manufacturer guidelines that our lawyers put to excellent use when fighting a case. However sharing all of them with you would erode far too much value away from our principle business activity - we hope you can understand this reason while appreciating the below FREE guideline that we are offering.
Final note: The officer will have a log on how they used the device. If anything they've written is in contrast to the manufacturer guidelines you can present their written statement as a fact in court. It would be extremely hard for the officer to then change their previous statement once you've already proven their failure to comply.
In contrast, if the officer omits information in their log then this is not an admission of incorrect use. The court is likely to take the view that the officer used the device correctly (they should after all have an in-date "certificate of competence") despite not making an official record. Our lawyers would then question the officer in court about the omissions in their write up. If the officer responded with an answer which was in contrast to the guidelines then it's a step closer to casting reasonable doubt on the entirety of the prosecutions case.
By reading these pages you are confirming that you have first read and agree to our general disclaimer. We will respond quickly to any intellectual property infringement.
