Had an interesting debate on a forum regarding Laser Jammer use. In my Canadian province (Alberta) there are no laws against them. In other provinces they have enacted such laws. A police officer said he would use an obstruction charge to punish their use and said others had been convicted of obstruction. So I did some legal searching. While I could not find any case law regarding obstruction and jammers I did find a case from this year where a judge defined the requirements for proof of an obstruction offence. One of them was "the prosecution shall prove that: 3. the accused knew that the complainant was a peace officer (e.g. could see the officer's uniform, utterance of officer)". So, my argument was that a charge of obstruction would be unjust based on that requirement because:
a) While driving with a jammer on, no laws are being broken where I live
b) While running lidar traps officers make efforts to conceal their identity ie unmarked cars, lights off, hiding in the bushes etc and are at a distance that makes visual identification impossible.
c) The courts do not recognize a jammer as evidence of the existence or non-existence of a lidar hit (refused as evidence of police not using lidar during speeding appeals). So when you first get hit during a trap, usually about 800 feet away from the officer, a jammer alert is not a legally recognized form of police identification.
d) You slow down and turn off the jammer. About 5 seconds after which the police are usually somewhat identifiable. At this point you know they are police and are not obstructing them.
My point was that the people who did get convicted of obstruction likely JTG the whole trap, even after they could visually ID the police. If you did turn off the jammer before you could positively ID the officer then no charge of obstruction should stick. It would be a very very dangerous precedent to convict someone of obstruction without any identifiable officers around during the obstruction. Being that obstruction is a charge applied to a wide range of circumstances I donít think a Judge would set that kind of precedent.
What do you guys think? Anyone ever hear of obstruction being successfully applied to jammer use?