![]() ![]() See Kopper, The Scientific Reliability of Radar Speedometers, 16 Md.L.Rev. Briefly stated, radar devices of the type used in this case utilize a scientific phenomenon known as the "Doppler Effect." The "Doppler Effect" is based on the proposition that when sound waves of a continuous frequency are reflected off of a moving object the resultant frequency of the reflected sound waves will vary in proportion to the velocity of the moving object. Although in this case we hold that judicial notice was proper and that the operator was properly qualified, the question remains whether the use of a single uncalibrated tuning fork is a legally sufficient field determinant of a radar unit's accuracy.Īt the outset, it is useful to review the scientific principles underlying the operation of the radar device itself. 1 (1956) Note, Proposal for a Uniform Radar Speed Detention Act, 7 U.Mich.J.L.Ref. Comment, Scientific Evidence and Traffic Cases, 59 J.Crim.L.C. ![]() As a further foundation for admission of a radar reading, the court must then consider whether the particular radar unit was properly operated and whether the radar unit was accurate at the time the defendant's speed was measured. To support a conviction based on the use of a radar device, the court must first take judicial notice of the scientific principles underlying the use of radar to determine vehicular speed. I couldn't say how fast he was going," was insufficient to corroborate the radar reading. ![]() The district court also held that the officer's statement that the defendant "was going over the speed *498 limit. On appeal to the district court, however, the defendant's conviction was reversed on the grounds that the use of a single uncalibrated tuning fork was legally insufficient to determine the accuracy of a radar gun. The trial court found that the radar gun used by Officer Cox had been tested for accuracy in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements. Although he performed the test both before and after issuing a citation to the defendant, the officer had no knowledge as to whether the tuning fork was properly calibrated and he testified that no other tests were performed to ensure the machine's accuracy. When struck against a hard object and placed in front of a radar device, the tuning fork was designed to produce a reading of 50 mph if the speedgun was functioning properly. The officer's sole method for determining whether the radar speedgun was functioning accurately at the time the citation was issued to the defendant involved the use of a single tuning fork. In addition, he had had eight years of experience with other traffic radar devices. 6." He also testified that he had been trained to operate that model by the manufacturer and that he had used similar types for nearly two and one-half years. ![]() Officer Cox testified that the radar device used to determine the defendant's speed was known as a "Speedgun No. Based upon that reading, the officer cited the defendant for driving at a speed more than 20 mph in excess of the speed limit. Although the officer testified that he was not certain of the vehicle's exact speed, his radar unit indicated that the vehicle was travelling 66 mph. m., the officer observed the defendant's vehicle proceeding at a rate in excess of the posted limit of 35 mph. On June 15, 1978, Officer Cox was "running radar" near the intersection of 23rd and Peoria street in Adams County. We granted certiorari to review the judgment of the district court, and we now affirm that judgment. On appeal to the Adams County District Court, the conviction was reversed on the grounds that the prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence of the accuracy of the radar device used by the arresting officer to determine the respondent's rate of speed. Walker, was convicted in the Aurora Municipal Court of the offense of driving 66 miles per hour (mph) in a 35 mph zone. Hill, Denver, for respondent.īased on evidence derived from a radar device, the respondent, Raymond L. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |