R v Hofland

R. v. Hofland

2011 ONCJ 40
Ontario Court of Justice — Justice of the Peace Kenneth W. Dechert | January 26, 2011

Background

On February 12, 2010, Police Constable Kevin Hanowski was conducting speed enforcement at the intersection of Trafalgar Road and Hornby Road in Halton Hills. Using a hand-held LTI 20/20 laser device, he clocked Andrew Hofland's silver Volkswagen doing 107 km/h in a posted 70 km/h zone as the vehicle travelled northbound through an S-bend on Trafalgar Road. Hofland was charged under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act and pleaded not guilty.

At trial, Constable Hanowski testified that he had tested the laser device both before and after his shift "according to manufacturer's instructions." He described performing a display test, sight alignment test, and fixed zero velocity distance test. However, under cross-examination by defence counsel, cracks began to appear in his testimony about the testing procedures.

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution proved all elements of the speeding offence beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Whether the laser speed reading was reliable given questions about proper testing procedures

The Laser Testing Controversy

The case turned on whether Constable Hanowski had properly tested the laser device. During cross-examination, defence counsel produced the actual "Laser Technology LTI 20/20 True Speed Metric Users Manual" and walked the officer through its requirements. The manual prescribed a specific "Instrument Self Test" procedure that required the operator to actively initiate and complete certain steps.

Hanowski admitted he had never performed this self-test. When asked about it, he initially claimed "the unit does its own self test" and would display problems on the LED screen. But when confronted with the manual's specific instructions, he acknowledged he wasn't following the manufacturer's prescribed self-test procedure at all. The officer also admitted he was doing distance tests at 40 and 50 metres instead of the recommended single test at 60 metres, and was following his instructor's directions rather than the actual manual.

The Justice of the Peace found this non-compliance fatal to the prosecution's case. Citing R. v. Niewiadomski and R. v. Kololgi, he ruled that "only with strict compliance to the manufacturer's mandatory specifications can the Court be assured of the reliability and the accuracy of reading obtained through operation of the device beyond a reasonable doubt."

Key Takeaway

Police officers must follow the manufacturer's actual testing procedures for speed measurement devices, not just what they were taught in training.

This case shows the importance of demanding specifics about device testing during cross-examination. If the officer claims to follow "manufacturer's instructions," ask them to identify exactly which tests they performed and compare that to the actual manual if possible.