Tracking History: A Key Component of Speed Enforcement
One of the most important and least understood concepts in speed enforcement is tracking history. It appears in training materials and in courtrooms. The meaning is generally simple, but it becomes more complex in real-world applications.
What Is Tracking History?
Tracking history is the process by which an officer identifies a vehicle, follows its movement, estimates its speed, and then confirms that estimate with a measuring device such as RADAR or laser. This chain of observation and confirmation separates speculation from proof.
Why Tracking History Matters
In Canadian law, the Crown must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard does not change because technology is involved. A RADAR gun may display a number. A laser device may show a reading. Without tracking history, those numbers are not properly anchored in human observation.
The officer is expected to connect the evidence. They must identify the vehicle. They must visually estimate its speed. They must track it as it moves through traffic. Only then may they use the measuring device to verify the suspicion. If a step is skipped, the case is weakened and may be too frail to found a conviction. The visual estimate is essential because it justifies the use of the device in the first place. Without it, the measurement itself may amount to an unreasonable search.
The Problems with Measurement Alone
Numbers can seem convincing. Yet anyone familiar with these cases knows they can be misleading. RADAR often struggles in traffic. It can pick up the wrong vehicle or reflect from a large surface. Laser appears more precise, but it is not free of problems. The scope may be misaligned. The wrong vehicle can be targeted. A small movement of the hand can record the speed of the car beside the intended target.
Tracking history is intended to prevent this. It provides continuity. It shows that the officer saw the vehicle, estimated its speed, and then confirmed that estimate with a device. This reduces the risk of error.
Courts and Reluctance
There are cases where courts have convicted without tracking history. Occasionally judicial justices have accepted the evidence of a measuring device alone. This is unusual, however. Courts hesitate to remove the human component and rely solely on the machine. There is a sense that digital display, without observation, does not cross the threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
More Than Procedure
Tracking history is not only a police procedure. It reflects a philosophy of proof. It shows that even in a time of advanced technology, human observation remains essential. Speed enforcement is not just about numbers. It is about connecting those numbers to a specific vehicle, a specific driver, and a specific event.
For defence lawyers, the questions are straightforward. Was the vehicle identified and tracked? Was a visual estimate made? Were weather, traffic, or visibility issues taken into account? Was the measuring device used to confirm an observation, or was it the only evidence? Do any missteps or errors along the way raise to the level of amounting to a reasonable doubt?
The Foundation of Speed Enforcement
Tracking history may sound like a minor technical phrase. In reality, it is the foundation of speed enforcement in British Columbia. Without it, the case rests on measurement without connection to the subject. With it, the Crown can present a connected story of observation and measurement. For defence, finding gaps in that story is often the key to raising a reasonable doubt.
Need Help With a Speeding Ticket?
If you’ve been issued a traffic ticket in British Columbia, call us or send us an email. We’re the original BC Driving Lawyers. With well over 25 years of experience defending traffic tickets in BC, we are well equipped to help you with your speeding ticket. Contact us now.