Legal guide
The Ranger EZ Doppler radar is based upon the well-known and legally accepted Doppler principle of operation.
Because of its accuracy and wide legal acceptance over the years, most citations based on Doppler radar now
result in guilty pleas.
The arresting officer does need to acquaint himself, however, with the basic case laws regarding radar and make
sure that he performs certain guidelines to meet these precedent cases. Brief descriptions of the more important
landmark cases are listed below. Much of the referenced material may be obtained at your local law library or
prosecutor's office.
Reference A
- 7 AMJr2d 870 (Sec. 327)
A legal encyclopedia dealing with automobiles and highway traffic, which describes the conditions under
which evidence of excessive speed determined by the use of radar may be admitted.
Reference B -
49 ALR2d 469 and Cumulative Supplements Thereto
A legal publication reporting the Dantonio case (1955) and briefing it and subsequent cases dealing with
proof, by means of radar devices, or violation of speed regulations.
Reference C -
State v. Dantonio (NJ), 115 A2d 35, 49 ALR2d 460
A landmark case on the subject. This case sets precedent of the following:
1.
Judicial notice has been taken of the 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, the internal workings of the radar.
Reference D -
Everight v. Little Rock, Ark., 326 SW2d 796
Establishes that the court may take judicial notice of the reliability of radar.
Reference E -
State v. Graham, Mo., 322 SW2d 188
Establishes that the court may take judicial notice of the ability of radar to measure speed.
Reference F -
State v. Tomanelli, Conn., 216 A2d 625
Reviews the matter of judicial notice, and recognizes the ability of Doppler radar to measure the speed of
a motor vehicle, and that the tuning fork is a reliable accuracy test.
Reference G -
Honeycutt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 408 SW2d 421
In this appeal, the court rejects the arguments of the appellant that the evidence should not have been admitted and
again establishes that:
1)
. A properly constructed and operated radar device is capable of accurately measuring
the speed of a motor vehicle;
2)
. The tuning fork test is an accurate method of determining the accuracy of a radar
unit;
3)
. It is sufficient to qualify an operator who has knowledge and training which enables him to properly set
up, test, and read the radar;
4)
. It is not required that the operator understand the scientific principles of radar or
be able to explain its internal workings, and that a few hours of instruction normally should be enough to qualify
an operator;
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 radar, is sufficient to identify
the vehicle if the observations support the radar evidence.
From the case law, the officer needs to know and to be able to testify to the following points to have a
successful prosecution:
44
