SPEED RADAR AND THE LAW
FCC Requirements
The Federal Communications Commission requires that all transmitting equipment carry a Grant of Type Acceptance. S DSR
2X
is Type Accepted by the FCC under Type Acceptance number IBQACMI002. The FCC also requires that an operating license be
obtained by the user of the equipment. In the case of local government agencies already licensed under part 90 in the Public Safety
Radio Service, the requirement for a separate authorization for radar speed detection devices was eliminated, effective February 1,
1983, and licensees may operate speed detection devices as part of their base/mobile communications systems. As part of this rule
change, licensees are required to list the number of speed detection units, and the frequencies on which they operate upon renewal of
their land mobile authorizations.
Case Law
Legal precedent has clearly established the accuracy and admissibility of Doppler speed radar evidence. This section on case law is
included so the radar operator can familiarize himself with the more important legal cases involving the use of Doppler speed radar,
and be aware of the guidelines concerning admissibility established by these cases. Much of the referenced material may be obtained
at your local law library or prosecutor’s office.
Reference A
-- State v. Dantonio (N.J.), 115 A2d 35, 49 ALR 2d 460: The landmark case on the use of traffic radar. This case sets
precedent of the following:
1. Judicial notice has been taken of accuracy of radar.
2. A few hours training is sufficient to qualify an operator.
3. The operator need not understand or be able to explain internal workings of the radar.
Reference B
-- Everight v. Little Rock, (Ark.), 326 SW2d 796: Establishes that the court may take judicial notice of the reliability of
radar.
Reference C
-- State v. Graham (Mo.), 322 SW2d 188: Establishes that the court may take judicial notice of the ability of radar to
measure speed.
Reference D
-- State v. Tomanelli (Conn.), 216 A2d 625: Reviews the matter of judicial notice; recognizes the ability of Doppler
radar to measure the speed of a motor vehicle; and acknowledges that the tuning fork is a reliable accuracy test.
Reference E
-- Honeycut v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 408 SW2d 421: In this appeal, the court rejects, one by one, the arguments of the
appellant that the evidence should not have been admitted; and again establishes the following:
(1) A properly constructed, and operated radar device is capable of measuring accurately the speed of a motor vehicle.
(2) The tuning fork test is an accurate method of determining accuracy of the radar. (3) It is sufficient to qualify an operator that has
such knowledge, and training that enables him to properly set up, test, and read the radar. (4) The operator is not required to
understand the scientific principles of radar, nor explain its inner workings; in addition, the operator may be qualified to operate the
radar after receiving a few hours of instruction. (5) The officer’s estimate of excessive speed, from visual observation, when
confirmed by the reading of the radar device and when the offending vehicle is out-front, by itself, nearest the unit, is sufficient to
identify the vehicle, if the officer’s visual observations support the radar evidence.
Reference F
-- People of the State of Michigan v. Zolton Anton Ferency, 133 Mich.App. 526, 351 N.W. 2d 225 (1984)
- Judicial notice of the Doppler Principle. (Moving Radar).
- Officers are not required to present scientific evidence.
- Seven guidelines established for moving radar:
1. Adequate officer training and experience.
2. Radar in proper working condition and installed properly at the time of citation.
3. Radar was used in an area with a minimum of distortion.
4. Patrol speed is displayed and independently verified by speedometer.
5. Testing of unit at the beginning and end of the shift.
6. Officer must be able to establish that the target vehicle was within the beam width.
Lead vehicle theory dismissed
7. Technician certification of the radar.
From the case law above, a successful prosecution may depend on the officer’s ability to testify to the following points:
1. The qualifications and training of the officer.
2. The time, place, and location of the radar device at the time the offense occurred.
3. The location of the offending vehicle at the time the offense occurred.
4. The identification of the offending person as the operator of the vehicle.
5. The identification of the offending person’s vehicle.
6. The visual observation of its apparent, excessive speed.
41
To Next Page
Loading...