R v Cuccarolo

R. v. Cuccarolo

2009 ONCJ 593
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice M.J. Epstein | November 24, 2009

Background

Bruno Cuccarolo was driving his 2008 BMW on Highway 401 near Cambridge on July 7, 2007, when Constable Collishaw clocked him at 140 km/h in a 100 km/h zone using a Laser Atlanta speed detection device. She was positioned on the shoulder observing three lanes of oncoming traffic when Cuccarolo's vehicle caught her attention for clearly exceeding the speed limit. The laser reading showed 140 km/h at a distance of 135.21 metres, with no other vehicles between the officer and Cuccarolo's BMW.

Constable Fisher, operating a chase vehicle 50 metres down the highway, received the radio transmission and pulled behind Cuccarolo's vehicle to make the traffic stop. At trial, Cuccarolo testified that he was travelling at the speed limit and claimed there was a car identical to his ahead of him that must have been the actual target. The Justice of the Peace convicted him, and Cuccarolo appealed, challenging the officer's qualifications, the device testing procedures, and the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons.

Issues

1. Was Constable Collishaw properly qualified to operate the laser device and did she test it correctly?
2. Did the Justice of the Peace misapprehend the evidence or provide inadequate reasons?
3. Was there sufficient evidence to support the conviction?

The Laser Evidence Challenge

Cuccarolo's agent argued that Constable Collishaw wasn't properly trained on the Laser Atlanta device and had conducted the required tests incorrectly. The officer had originally been trained on a different laser device in 1998 but was retrained in November 2006. She testified that during her retraining, she learned about the Laser Atlanta Speed Laser and received the manufacturer's manual.

The defence challenged three specific tests: the Horizontal Sight Alignment Test (arguing the target was 47 metres away instead of exactly 45 metres), the Range Accuracy Test (claiming she only did three tests instead of six), and the Light Segment Test (misunderstanding the display requirements). Justice Epstein found all these challenges meritless. The manufacturer's specifications required the target to be greater than 45 metres away, making 47 metres compliant. The officer had actually performed six tests total (two distances on three separate occasions), and the Light Segment Test was correctly interpreted as a single-step process.

The Credibility Battle

The real issue came down to credibility. Cuccarolo claimed he had his cruise control set at 100 km/h and could observe an identical BMW ahead of him with alloy rims, but somehow failed to notice Constable Fisher pulling out with emergency lights and following him for over a kilometre. The Justice of the Peace found this testimony implausible — if Cuccarolo could observe vehicles around him in such detail, including seeing through gaps in tractor trailers to spot police officers, how could he miss a police cruiser directly behind him with flashing lights?

Key Takeaway

Technical challenges to laser evidence rarely succeed when the officer followed proper procedures, and implausible testimony about mistaken identity won't save you.

Courts will closely examine whether police properly tested their equipment, but minor deviations from manufacturer specifications (like using a 47-metre target instead of exactly 45 metres) won't invalidate the evidence. More importantly, if your defence relies on claiming the officer targeted the wrong vehicle, you need a credible explanation for why you didn't notice being followed by a police car with flashing lights.