Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 04-25-2014, 01:53 PM   #21
19Yzerman19
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner View Post
Officers can search vehicle for the device, they cannot search your person.
Yes they absolutely can search your person - they'll do a pat-down and anything "hard", i.e. plastic, metal, etc can be removed. It's justified at any roadside stop on the basis of "officer safety". I.e., you might have a knife. It would actually be much, much harder for them to justify a search of, say, your glove box than a search of you!
19Yzerman19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 04:39 PM   #22
dissentowner
Franchise Player
 
dissentowner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19 View Post
Yes they absolutely can search your person - they'll do a pat-down and anything "hard", i.e. plastic, metal, etc can be removed. It's justified at any roadside stop on the basis of "officer safety". I.e., you might have a knife. It would actually be much, much harder for them to justify a search of, say, your glove box than a search of you!
On what grounds? Yes, you can pat a person down for officer safety but you can't just pull a guy over based on the grounds you believe he is operating an illegal detector and pat him down. That is how you get sued. You cannot search a person for a radar detector, even if you found it you can't take it, you have zero grounds to seize it. The pat down for officer safety is there for when you believe their is a situation where your safety or another person's safety may be in jeopardy because you believe the person either has a weapon or is being violent. You can't just start patting people down without grounds.
Reasonable grounds to an officer are defined as the facts or circumstances that would cause a normal prudent person a strong belief beyond a mere suspicion. It would not be harder to search the vehicle because the officer would have a strong belief beyond a mere suspicion that there was a radar detecting device being operated inside the vehicle and can therefore articulate in a court of law why he had the right to look in the vehicle. It is Ontario law. He cannot however search a person for that device.
dissentowner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 01:49 AM   #23
TorqueDog
First Line Centre
 
TorqueDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Great post, Delgar. That's sort of what I was trying to allude to when I say that I don't recommend using a laser countermeasure to JTG. If too many people start doing it, we can be certain that legislation prohibiting it is sure to follow.

dissentowner: You'd have to be able to yank the detector down without being seen doing it. Personally, I'd rather not get pulled over for having set off an RDD in the first place, which is why I went with the Bel STi Driver. Apparently the Escort Redline also is Spectre-proof (Escort and Bel are under the same ownership).

Quote:
Originally Posted by an hero View Post
Amazing thought, but going the speed limit isn't that tough either, and often times (especially if you travel during commute times), traffic doesn't even allow you to surpass it.

All the money/time invested into detectors and jammers could be spent finding out what the speed limits are and slowing down, or finding the right time to speed.

In 15 years of driving in two countries, 3 provinces, and 7 states, I've never got a single speeding ticket. It's not that I haven't sped either, it's just that I'm smart enough to know where the cops often set up traps, and where I don't, I follow the speed limit until I do know.
Good for you? Do you want a cookie? I'm struggling to figure out what this contributed to the thread beyond pretentious tripe.
__________________
If the Flames are playing, GO FLAMES GO.
If the Jets are playing, GO JE-... nm, ғ**ĸ the Jets.
GO FLAMES GO.
TorqueDog is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Old 04-26-2014, 08:12 AM   #24
19Yzerman19
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner View Post
On what grounds? Yes, you can pat a person down for officer safety but you can't just pull a guy over based on the grounds you believe he is operating an illegal detector and pat him down. That is how you get sued. You cannot search a person for a radar detector, even if you found it you can't take it, you have zero grounds to seize it. The pat down for officer safety is there for when you believe their is a situation where your safety or another person's safety may be in jeopardy because you believe the person either has a weapon or is being violent. You can't just start patting people down without grounds.
It's pretty easy for an officer to justify a roadside stop generally; there are plenty of legitimate reasons you might be pulled over. If the equipment they find is illegal, they can absolutely take it. And the search is called a "search incident to detention". There is no requirement for reasonable and probable grounds to conduct the search, just an objective concern about safety which in practice is easily met. The standard is incredibly low here - 'better safe than sorry, this guy might have a knife on him', as opposed to R&P grounds, where it's quite high. In contrast, there is no ability for the police to perform a search incident to detention of your car. Whether the detention itself is lawful is a separate issue that may lead to evidence being excluded but they're perfectly entitled to perform the search in any event.

R. v. Mann is a relevant SCC decision. In that case, officers were looking for a break and enter suspect and saw a guy they thought matched what they were looking for, so they detained him and gave him a pat-down. They felt a "soft packet" in his pocket and removed it, which contained drugs. That search violated s.8, however, if it had been a "hard packet", removing would have been justified according to the Court.

Quote:
Reasonable grounds to an officer are defined as the facts or circumstances that would cause a normal prudent person a strong belief beyond a mere suspicion. It would not be harder to search the vehicle because the officer would have a strong belief beyond a mere suspicion that there was a radar detecting device being operated inside the vehicle and can therefore articulate in a court of law why he had the right to look in the vehicle. It is Ontario law. He cannot however search a person for that device.
Basically you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your glove compartment and there are no "officer safety" grounds for ignoring that expectation. An interference with such reasonable expectation constitutes a search for s.8 purposes and is presumptively unreasonable barring a warrant. In other words, the onus is on the officer to establish reasonable and probable grounds that an offence was being committed as well as exigent circumstances.

I don't see what the basis for R&P grounds would be in this scenario unless the police have equipment that can sense whether or not a radar detector is being used? I don't know the technology.

In any event neither is likely to happen in practice. However, it boils down to this. If there are reasonable and probable grounds to suspect you've committed an offence it doesn't matter if you have the illegal item on you or in your car, they can probably search your car anyway, and they can definitely search you because in that instance the detention is lawful. If there aren't reasonable and probable grounds, the detention may not be lawful, in which case any evidence recovered from a pat-down might be excluded if they tried to prosecute you, but they can still do the pat-down, nominally to ensure you don't have weapons. If they find an illegal item I don't see why you'd expect that they'd hand it back to you any more than they would if it was a case full of heroin.

EDIT: Maybe I should simplify what I'm saying here.

-You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your glove box, center console, whatever. You also have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your jacket pocket.
-Interfering with that reasonable expectation absent a warrant is a presumptively unreasonable search in contravention of s.8 of the Charter, and is offside unless unless reasonable and probable grounds that an offence has been committed exist (and a couple of other things).
-For these purposes, your jacket and your glove box are no different - the officer needs R&P grounds to properly search either one of them. Consequently, there is no situation where "he can search your car but can't search your person". Either way he is interfering with your expectation of privacy, triggering the same legal requirements.
-However, there is an additional basis for searching your person incident to detention that can be relied on, which isn't available for a search of your vehicle. So, it's easier to justify a search of your jacket pocket.

Last edited by 19Yzerman19; 04-26-2014 at 08:24 AM.
19Yzerman19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 03:11 PM   #25
dissentowner
Franchise Player
 
dissentowner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19 View Post
It's pretty easy for an officer to justify a roadside stop generally; there are plenty of legitimate reasons you might be pulled over. If the equipment they find is illegal, they can absolutely take it. And the search is called a "search incident to detention". There is no requirement for reasonable and probable grounds to conduct the search, just an objective concern about safety which in practice is easily met. The standard is incredibly low here - 'better safe than sorry, this guy might have a knife on him', as opposed to R&P grounds, where it's quite high. In contrast, there is no ability for the police to perform a search incident to detention of your car. Whether the detention itself is lawful is a separate issue that may lead to evidence being excluded but they're perfectly entitled to perform the search in any event.

R. v. Mann is a relevant SCC decision. In that case, officers were looking for a break and enter suspect and saw a guy they thought matched what they were looking for, so they detained him and gave him a pat-down. They felt a "soft packet" in his pocket and removed it, which contained drugs. That search violated s.8, however, if it had been a "hard packet", removing would have been justified according to the Court.


Basically you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your glove compartment and there are no "officer safety" grounds for ignoring that expectation. An interference with such reasonable expectation constitutes a search for s.8 purposes and is presumptively unreasonable barring a warrant. In other words, the onus is on the officer to establish reasonable and probable grounds that an offence was being committed as well as exigent circumstances.

I don't see what the basis for R&P grounds would be in this scenario unless the police have equipment that can sense whether or not a radar detector is being used? I don't know the technology.

In any event neither is likely to happen in practice. However, it boils down to this. If there are reasonable and probable grounds to suspect you've committed an offence it doesn't matter if you have the illegal item on you or in your car, they can probably search your car anyway, and they can definitely search you because in that instance the detention is lawful. If there aren't reasonable and probable grounds, the detention may not be lawful, in which case any evidence recovered from a pat-down might be excluded if they tried to prosecute you, but they can still do the pat-down, nominally to ensure you don't have weapons. If they find an illegal item I don't see why you'd expect that they'd hand it back to you any more than they would if it was a case full of heroin.

EDIT: Maybe I should simplify what I'm saying here.

-You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your glove box, center console, whatever. You also have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your jacket pocket.
-Interfering with that reasonable expectation absent a warrant is a presumptively unreasonable search in contravention of s.8 of the Charter, and is offside unless unless reasonable and probable grounds that an offence has been committed exist (and a couple of other things).
-For these purposes, your jacket and your glove box are no different - the officer needs R&P grounds to properly search either one of them. Consequently, there is no situation where "he can search your car but can't search your person". Either way he is interfering with your expectation of privacy, triggering the same legal requirements.
-However, there is an additional basis for searching your person incident to detention that can be relied on, which isn't available for a search of your vehicle. So, it's easier to justify a search of your jacket pocket.
The equipment is not illegal, operating it for the purpose of detecting radar is. You cannot search nor seize a radar detector on a person in Ontario. It is not illegal to have a radar detector on your person, it is illegal to possess heroin. You can search the vehicle on reasonable grounds that you believe the person has in operation a radar detecting device. I am not going to debate this with you, I mean I am a police officer in Ontario, what the hell do I know.
dissentowner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 03:17 PM   #26
dissentowner
Franchise Player
 
dissentowner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

Section 79 of the Ontario Traffic Act

Speed measuring warning devices

79. (1) In this section,

“speed measuring warning device” means any device or equipment designed or intended for use in a motor vehicle to warn the driver of the presence of speed measuring equipment in the vicinity and includes any device or equipment designed or intended for use in a motor vehicle to interfere with the effective operation of speed measuring equipment. 1996, c. 33, s. 12.

Speed measuring warning device prohibited

(2) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle that is equipped with or that carries or contains a speed measuring warning device. 1996, c. 33, s. 12.

Powers of police officer

(3) A police officer may at any time, without a warrant, stop, enter and search a motor vehicle that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe is equipped with or carries or contains a speed measuring warning device contrary to subsection (2) and may seize and take away any speed measuring warning device found in or upon the motor vehicle. 1996, c. 33, s. 12.

Forfeiture of device

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, any device seized under subsection (3) by means of which the offence was committed is forfeited to the Crown. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 79 (4).

Penalty

(5) Every person who contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 79 (5).

Exception

(6) Subsection (2) does not apply to a person who is transporting speed measuring warning devices in sealed packages in a motor vehicle from a manufacturer to a consignee. 1996, c. 33, s. 12.
dissentowner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 08:10 PM   #27
19Yzerman19
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Exp:
Default

Again I don't know where you would get your R&P grounds from unless you have some equipment that can detect these devices.

I realize you're a police officer, but I don't see how you get to the conclusion you've arrived at on the law in terms of there being circumstances where you can search a car for evidence but not a person.

EDIT: let me put it to you in a hypothetical. Say that you, somehow or other, have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a motorist is driving a vehicle containing a radar detector in contravention of subsection (2) there. You pull him over and detain him. He gets out of his vehicle, at which point you do a pat-down (search incident to detention) and find the device. You have now uncovered evidence that he was committing the offence described in (2). At what point did you do anything improper?

Last edited by 19Yzerman19; 04-26-2014 at 09:43 PM.
19Yzerman19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2014, 07:44 AM   #28
dissentowner
Franchise Player
 
dissentowner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19 View Post
Again I don't know where you would get your R&P grounds from unless you have some equipment that can detect these devices.

I realize you're a police officer, but I don't see how you get to the conclusion you've arrived at on the law in terms of there being circumstances where you can search a car for evidence but not a person.

EDIT: let me put it to you in a hypothetical. Say that you, somehow or other, have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a motorist is driving a vehicle containing a radar detector in contravention of subsection (2) there. You pull him over and detain him. He gets out of his vehicle, at which point you do a pat-down (search incident to detention) and find the device. You have now uncovered evidence that he was committing the offence described in (2). At what point did you do anything improper?
Except I haven't, I have evidence he has a radar detector on his person. That gives me nothing as I have no legal authority to confiscate it while on his person. Why would I be detaining him? It is a fine, loss of device, and away you go. I know what you are trying to say and I could write up the fine however if he fights it and he will the judge will not only throw it out, he will be pissed I have wasted the courts time and my staff sargeant is pissed I am wasting my own time. You have to be really careful with how laws are worded because it is easy to slip up and even easier for some shark defense lawyer to tear you a new one. Not saying in this case there would be a lawyer, it is just traffic court but some guys with money will bring a lawyer to traffic court. I would ask him to put it in the trunk and go about my business. You got to pick your battles.
dissentowner is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dissentowner For This Useful Post:
Old 04-27-2014, 09:57 AM   #29
CaptainYooh
First Line Centre
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog View Post
?..
dissentowner: You'd have to be able to yank the detector down without being seen doing it. Personally, I'd rather not get pulled over for having set off an RDD in the first place, which is why I went with the Bel STi Driver. Apparently the Escort Redline also is Spectre-proof (Escort and Bel are under the same ownership)...
I've almost decided on a Redline because of its stealthiness to RDDs, but it doesn't have GPS for speed trap location markings and red light cameras, which should be a more useful feature in Alberta and BC, where I drive the most than invisibility. So, I've got a 9500ix. I am now trying to decide between Blinder HP 905 and LaserShifterPro to complement the system. Any opinions on those two?
CaptainYooh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 12:03 PM   #30
TorqueDog
First Line Centre
 
TorqueDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
I've almost decided on a Redline because of its stealthiness to RDDs, but it doesn't have GPS for speed trap location markings and red light cameras, which should be a more useful feature in Alberta and BC, where I drive the most than invisibility. So, I've got a 9500ix. I am now trying to decide between Blinder HP 905 and LaserShifterPro to complement the system. Any opinions on those two?
You and I are going through the same exercise right now.

I've heard the Laser Shifter Pro is actually just a Laser Interceptor re-branded by Escort and marked up slightly. For a while, I've seen the two 'heavyweights' of the laser countermeasure world as the HP 905 and the Laser Interceptor. But I've been reading up on a new one called the AL Priority (AL = AntiLaser ) which has the ability to update its jamming ability to new guns via USB stick, which is VERY appealing and has the ability to switch to a parking sensor on the fly - which is great if you happen to get pulled over for having it. "No, this is a parking sensor. I'll prove it."

Performance seems to be pretty damned decent and from what I've been reading, I'm going to have to give them some serious consideration.

So for me it's a three way race between the Blinder HP 905, the AL Priority, and the Laser Interceptor in that order. I've been a Blinder guy for years but the ALP is really interesting. Check the forums, too: http://www.radardetector.net/forums
__________________
If the Flames are playing, GO FLAMES GO.
If the Jets are playing, GO JE-... nm, ғ**ĸ the Jets.
GO FLAMES GO.

Last edited by TorqueDog; 04-28-2014 at 12:24 PM.
TorqueDog is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2014, 12:35 PM   #31
Delgar
First Line Centre
 
Delgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh View Post
I've almost decided on a Redline because of its stealthiness to RDDs, but it doesn't have GPS for speed trap location markings and red light cameras, which should be a more useful feature in Alberta and BC, where I drive the most than invisibility. So, I've got a 9500ix. I am now trying to decide between Blinder HP 905 and LaserShifterPro to complement the system. Any opinions on those two?
I understand the LaserShifterPro (LSP) is just a rebranded Laser Interceptor (LI). In fact the software for the LSP apparently uses ".LI" extensions just like the LI. I can confirm the LI works amazingly well. I had purchased but sold my older blinder before even installing it once I read the LI reviews. The issue at the time was the LI had true laser diodes while the Blinder used less powerful emitters. I would image the Blinder "HP" stands for high power, and they've now upgraded to real diodes as well, according to their own website.

You probably will be fine with either one.

Edit: Seems TorqueDog has this covered better than I, I've stopped following the new developments, I hadn't even heard of the AL Priority.

I should also add that my LI has stopped working a few days ago . Installed since 2007 or 2008.

Last edited by Delgar; 04-28-2014 at 12:38 PM.
Delgar is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Delgar For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2014, 12:45 PM   #32
Bill Bumface
My face is a bum!
 
Bill Bumface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Exp:
Default

For detecting photo, the glory days appear to be over.

My V1 picked up photo all day long. Calgary was a great place to have a detector, as all you needed was Ka to detect ghost cars and photo, and you never get false Ka. K and X could be disabled.

Now they are using ultra low power K band photo on the new units. You can identify them by the two black boxes on the roof.

I turned K band back on and drove by one of these. I didn't pick it up until I was even with it, and even then, I got a very weak reading from it. There is so much other K out there you'll just ignore it, and even if you did detect the photo unit, it's too late. Now I have to watch for the boxes on parked vehicles.

I drove back from Moab, UT yesterday. 1800km. The detector was highly useful for that trip, as most of the US is still using some form of Ka or X on the highway patrols. It probably saved us 3 tickets yesterday alone.
Bill Bumface is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2014, 12:47 PM   #33
TorqueDog
First Line Centre
 
TorqueDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

I will say that I've never really relied on a detector for mobile photo radar, down to two factors: a) Multanova is a pain in the arse, and b) a van or SUV parked on the side of the road is a dead giveaway for me.


Continuing on the subject of the Antilaser Priority... I'm tempted... and it's a Canadian site! http://www.antilaser.ca/al-priority/
__________________
If the Flames are playing, GO FLAMES GO.
If the Jets are playing, GO JE-... nm, ғ**ĸ the Jets.
GO FLAMES GO.

Last edited by TorqueDog; 04-28-2014 at 12:49 PM.
TorqueDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 12:47 PM   #34
Delgar
First Line Centre
 
Delgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog View Post
You and I are going through the same exercise right now.

Performance seems to be pretty damned decent and from what I've been reading, I'm going to have to give them some serious consideration.
Thanks for the link TorqueDog.... I think the biggest concern if you are in Alberta is there is a lingering issue on the LTI Ultralyte with this device. I know (because my LI tells me so) both the CPS and RCMP in Alberta usually use the older LTI , and if they're upgrading they could also go to the new LTI gun. I expect AL will fix any issues but they had some problems jamming a particular model of the gun.

Last edited by Delgar; 04-28-2014 at 12:50 PM.
Delgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 12:55 PM   #35
Delgar
First Line Centre
 
Delgar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog View Post
I will say that I've never really relied on a detector for mobile photo radar, down to two factors: a) Multanova is a pain in the arse, and b) a van or SUV parked on the side of the road is a dead giveaway for me.


Continuing on the subject of the Antilaser Priority... I'm tempted... and it's a Canadian site! http://www.antilaser.ca/al-priority/
They suggest you can get away with one front and one rear for most cars.... interesting. I've had LI dual up front and have never been hit from the rear. I'd be scared to try a single head up front but who knows. The price is right that's for sure. The bluetooth module is also interesting.
Delgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 01:39 PM   #36
TorqueDog
First Line Centre
 
TorqueDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Regarding the LTI Ultralyte, check out post #22 in that thread. Review was written on the 15th, an update was in the works by the 18th to fix it. Surprisingly fast response by Antilaser. I thought most AB LEOs used Laser Atlanta guns.

Maybe it's because I'm thinking of what the coverage map of the Blinder M20X was, but I don't think I'd run a single head on the front of a Smart Fortwo, nevermind a midsized sedan. I'd do dual heads on the front, one head on either side to best cover the headlamps. Rear coverage, we don't tend to worry about in Canada so I'm not sure that I'd bother.
__________________
If the Flames are playing, GO FLAMES GO.
If the Jets are playing, GO JE-... nm, ғ**ĸ the Jets.
GO FLAMES GO.
TorqueDog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 01:48 PM   #37
CaptainYooh
First Line Centre
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog View Post
...

So for me it's a three way race between the Blinder HP 905, the AL Priority, and the Laser Interceptor in that order. I've been a Blinder guy for years but the ALP is really interesting. Check the forums, too: http://www.radardetector.net/forums
Thanks for the links. Blinder HP-905 and LSP are in the same price range, approx. $600 CDN. The price difference between dual sensor Blinder HP-905 and dual sensor AL is significant, $600 vs. $850. I am not sure I see a value upside differential at that level. Ability to upgrade the controller software to learn new gun signals is definitely attractive. But both Blinder HP-905 and LSP also have the USB input capability, don't they?


P.S. BTW, Visions Electronics on-line has a super deal on 9500ix, $398 incl. free shipping. It is with the red LED display, vs. $700 for the blue LED, but the only difference there is colour.
CaptainYooh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 04:40 PM   #38
TorqueDog
First Line Centre
 
TorqueDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

^Haha, $300 for blue LEDs.

The HP-905 needs to be unplugged from the vehicle's 12V power source, and plugged into a PC using a USB cable. The LSP standalone requires a Serial-to-USB cable, while the LSP w/ 9500i Bridgebox uses a standard USB 2.0 cable. Again, must be unplugged from the vehicle's 12V source. This sucks especially if you have the standalone unit. I hate serial-to-USB.

The ALP can remain plugged into power and all you do is copy the file over to a USB stick and follow the instructions. Seems like a less of a pain to me.
__________________
If the Flames are playing, GO FLAMES GO.
If the Jets are playing, GO JE-... nm, ғ**ĸ the Jets.
GO FLAMES GO.
TorqueDog is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Old 04-28-2014, 09:52 PM   #39
CaptainYooh
First Line Centre
 
CaptainYooh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Got it, thanks. Very helpful.
CaptainYooh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2014, 09:57 PM   #40
Realtor 1
#1 Goaltender
 
Realtor 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default


And


I believe the first is illegal as you may have to order it a couple times before it actually reaches your door.... or so I hear
Realtor 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:23 AM.

Calgary Flames
2016-17




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016