Why the KIYO parking assistant?

Undoubtedly, even a highly experienced driver can easily find himself in unexpected, or even difficult to resolve, situations while driving. Getting into a tight spot parking ? Garage with limited accessibility ? There are countless situations where a special parking assistant is needed to help the driver avoid damage to the car or property.The most common requirement for car enthusiasts is high quality, precise operation and, last but not least, that the device does not alter the appearance of the vehicle, damage the grille or even the bumper.

  KIYO's team of experts, with more than 15 years of experience and a constant focus on customer needs, has set itself the goal of manufacturing and marketing special laser-based parking aids that meet the highest customer expectations, tailored to the individual.

Enough of Austrian police abuses!

None of us probably wants to experience what it’s like when law enforcement—especially in a foreign country—harasses us for no reason, wasting hours of our time under the pretext of discovering alleged violations, arbitrarily and completely unlawfully damaging our car’s electronic systems, and to top it all off, attempting to impose a hefty fine on us.

It is time to put a stop to this unlawful and unjustified procedure, which has already caused significant headaches for many of our fellow Hungarians!

The owner of the Porsche GT3 with license plate number LASER 1 purchased the well-known KIYO parking assist system from Laser Technologies Kft. and had it installed in his car. During a trip to Austria, after crossing the border, the Porsche owner found himself face-to-face with a police officer inspecting the parking assistant integrated into the license plate frame at a gas station. The officer instructed him to remove the aftermarket car accessory (parking assistant integrated into the license plate) with his own hands, as he claimed and believed it to be a device that obstructs police speed measurements, which is illegally installed in his car.

Part of the Austrian official decision:

Although the Porsche owner insisted that he was mistaken and that the device was simply a parking aid, the officer in charge did not accept this explanation. Of course, the Porsche owner insisted throughout that no device designed to interfere with police speed measurements had been installed in his car; only a parking assistant designed to aid in parallel parking had been built into the vehicle. The vehicle owner contested the charge, and proceedings were initiated against him. The police also involved a forensic expert in the evidentiary proceedings, who confirmed the statements of both the distributor of Kiyo products (Laser Technologies Kft.) and the driver of the vehicle, namely the fact that the Kiyo product line includes both laser jammers and parking aids:

When the Court Decides

The case eventually went to court, as this was the only place where the baseless police abuse of power—which had even been peppered with false claims when submitted to the court—could be stopped. Specifically, according to the police report, the vehicle’s owner verbally admitted to the charges brought against him. Needless to say, this is a blatant lie!

It goes without saying that the driver was ultimately not convicted in the case, as he had not committed any of the offenses with which the overzealous law enforcement accused him.

The Burgenland Regional Administrative Court issued its decision on May 30, 2025.

Excerpt from the Austrian court order:

The court found that:

it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the device found in the vehicle was a jammer capable of interfering with traffic monitoring.

Excerpt from the appellate court’s judgment:

A “conviction” requires subjective certainty regarding the perpetrator and guilt; the objective minimum is a probability bordering on certainty. Such a degree of probability is legally regarded as truth, and the judge’s awareness of this high probability is considered a conviction of the truth. If doubts regarding the perpetrator and guilt persist—as the LVwG determined in the appeal case based on the established facts, particularly the statements of the automotive expert, according to which a control unit that has already been removed and the sensors are radar/laser jammers, and that they cannot be inspected retrospectively, then the evidence is lacking. Therefore, any significant doubt—which undoubtedly exists in the present case—must be resolved in favor of the defendant under the principle of “in dubio pro reo” (in case of doubt, in favor of the defendant). This principle of evidence thus means that, in the event of doubt regarding the perpetrator’s identity and guilt, the assumption most favorable to the defendant must be made (see the Foregger Code, The Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure, on Section 258, p. 323).

The proceedings were terminated.
The seized items had to be returned to the Austrian police.

The owner of the Porsche GT3 with license plate number LASER 1 has filed a lawsuit for damages against the Austrian authorities, as the vehicle was returned in an unusable condition, meaning he could not use it for its intended purpose in any way, and he had to have the parking assistance system reinstalled.

The court decision has become final; the Porsche owner has won a final judgment against the Austrian police. The current proceedings are now continuing on the grounds of compensation, with the Porsche owner suing the Austrian police for several thousand euros for the damages and injuries he suffered.

This case serves as an excellent precedent for anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation in the future to stand up for their rights with confidence and a clear conscience, in order to refute the false accusations against them.

The document below contains the precedent-setting case