I got back from appeals court after having a contested LIDAR ticket re-heard. The original magistrate was a joke. After hearing my arguments he agreed to reduce the fine from $100 to $50. I said no thanks and went before a real judge. The two State Troopers (the one who “fired” the LIDAR and the one who wrote the citation) were both present. Thanks to the NMA and your advice in previous E-mails, I was able to mount a defense and had the ticket dismissed.
For your information, one of my arguments had to do with posted limits on MDC roads. I was cited for 55 mph in a posted 40 mph zone (on Greenough Blvd in Cambridge). According to the Manual On Uniform Traffic Devices, as you probably know, traffic control studies have to be done before a limit can be posted. I wrote to the MDC several times under the FOIA and was ignored. I followed this with a letter to the Secretary of the Commonwealth who has the duty to compel custodians of public documents to release them upon request. Within one day I received a letter from the counsel for the MDC. In a two sentence letter, I was told that traffic and engineering studies that I requested did not exist. The postings were illegal. I argued that in the face of illegal postings, the prima facie speed laws should hold. Since LIDAR gives an instantaneous (0.3 sec) reading during which time the vehicle could have moved no more than 25 feet, the troopers could not have recorded the speed over the required quarter of a mile. That, along with the improper citationMGL 90/17 for an MDC road which is specifically covered under 350 CMR 4.01(2), and a few other less significant arguments led to a finding of not responsible.
Thanks once again for your assistance and encouragement.