Image source: http://blog.greenflag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/GF-Feb-Speeding-drivers.jpg
Radar
It is no defense to argue unlawful arrest, selective enforcement, custom and usage, non-ownership of automotive driven, lack of wisdom or mistake of legislations, lack of precise speed proved, defective speedometer or cruise control. Obey the legislations, follow speed limits and you will have no need to know about Radar.
How Radar Operates
The Municipal Judges Benchbook Speeding Monograph, in the part on RADAR covers the situation of "Who certifies Tuning Forks." The part reads: "The proper entity to certify tuning forks and RADAR appliance is the Division of Weights and Measures in the Department of Law and Public Safety." The part also states "N.J.S.A. 51: 1-84 requires that all weights and measures used in change shall be tested and sealed at least one time in a year."
This Division was initially set up by N.J.S.A. 51:1-42 to set up a uniform system of weights and measures in the state. N.J.S.A. 52:17B-24 sets forth that the Division of Weights and Measures shall be headed by the a superintendent, and N.J.S.A. 51:1-fifty five presents the State Superintendent shall be the custodian of all criteria of weights and measures. A traditional operating procedure for the N.J. State Police to have tuning forks tested annually by Weights and Measures to be certified as accurate. N.J. State Police S.O.P. - Radar Operation April 25, 1983, page 5.
In State v. Kalafat 134 N.J. Super. 297 ( App. Div. 1975), the court held that in a speeding case "the Superintendent of Weights and Measures has the duty of providing a traditional measure and of certifying approved measures." Id. at 301, referring to a measured distance. The State Department of Weights and Measures routinely calibrates tuning forks for the State Police and many municipalities in Central New Jersey.
State v. Van Syoc 235 N.J. Super. 463, 465 (Law Div. 1988), aff'd o.b. 235 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1989). In VanSyoc, defendant, an attorney appearing pro se, failed to item to the introduction of K-fifty five radar unit evidence of extreme speed until the trial had been concluded, and he then argued that the charge against him should be dismissed because the State had failed to demonstrate that the K-fifty five unit was being operated in the manual mode, as required. VanSyoc supra, 235 N.J. Super. at 465.
Upon de novo review, Judge Steinberg found that defendant, an experienced trial attorney, failed to item to the introduction of the radar evidence because he perceived a tactical talents in withholding his objection. Ibid. The judge then held that defendant had waived his right to item, noting that if an objection had been interposed in a timely trend, the State would have been in a position to produce the missing evidence. Id. at 466. In sustaining the conviction, the judge observed that "[t]rial errors which might be induced, encouraged or acquiesced in, or consented to by defense counsel ordinarily usually are not a basis for a reversal on appeal." Id. at 465.
Since 1985, his number one concentration has been on litigation things. Mr. Vercammen gained other legal stories as the Confidential Law Clerk to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (Supreme Court),with the Delaware County, PA District Attorney Office dealing with Probable Cause Hearings, Middlesex County Probation Dept as a Probation Officer, and an Executive Assistant to Scranton
District Magistrate Thomas Hart in Scranton, PA.
Speeding and Radar
Division of Weights and Measures should examine Tuning Forks and Measuring Devices.
Conclusion
This case was affirmed State v. Abeskaron (In re Admissibility Hearing of the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection Sys.), 326 N.J. Super. 100 ten. November 24, 1999
Before a radar speed reading is admissible, the state must establish the machine was operating properly. MPH Industries' experiment procedure uses two tuning forks: First, the lower-speed fork is struck on wood or plastic and the ringing fork is held in a fastened position two to three inches in front of the antenna with the harrow edge of the fork facing the antenna front. This will result in the Patrol Monitor Window to display the fork's speed. While continuing to hold this ringing fork in place, the higher-speed fork is struck and held next to the lower-speed fork (either forks must be vibrating whilst being held an equal distance from the antenna). The target should then display the "speed" difference between the 2 forks. For example, if the forks used are 35 mph and 65 mph, then the target window will display the difference, which is 30 mph.
Tuning Forks
SPEEDING AND RADAR
By Kenneth A. Vercammen
Admissibility of Evidence
Qualified Operator?
The state must establish as a result of documentary evidence the tuning fork itself was accurate. The state must produce and be capable of admit into evidence certificates as proof of the accuracy of the devices used for testing the correct operation of the machine.
In State v. Cardone 146 N.J. Super. 23 (App. Div. 1976), the court held that whilst certificates do not have to satisfy the ordinary rules of evidence, an Evidence Rule 8 hearing still can be held, at which the court can determine preliminary problems of admissibility of evidence. In such a hearing, the rules of evidence -- in place of Rule 4 or a valid claim of privilege -- do not apply. Id. at 28.
The Cardone court found that the certificates of calibration and accuracy of the radar machine -- and for the tuning forks used to experiment the machine -- were properly admitted in evidence, even though no proof was bought to qualifying the certificates as records made in the regular course of business. The certificates were used solely as evidence of proper operating conditions or as a prerequisite to the admissibility of the radar reading, and the defendant made no effort to prove the internal calibrating device or the tuning forks were inaccurate.
In State v. Readding, supra, the Superior Court exonerated the defendant, stating:
It is entirely possible for a particular RADAR device to function properly and record as it should be a 50 m.p.h. but inaccurately at higher speeds......
Accuracy of the precise speedometer should be established by more than one experiment.
In State v. Wojtkowiak 170 N.J. Super. 44 (Law Div. 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 174 N.J. Super. 460, Judge Wells examined in detail the K-fifty five Radar, and his conclusions were incorporated by the Appellate Division. This case should be learn and reread for an in depth explanation of Radar by a Court.
The traffic radar strategy speed detection measurement depends upon the Doppler effect. Simply stated a radio wave which strikes a moving item is reflected from that item at different frequency from that of the incident wave. A radar which transmits waves and receives reflected waves can determine their frequency difference and calculate the speed of the item which produced the reflective wave.
Courts have accepted as scientifically reliable MPH Industries' K-fifty five Traffic Radar -- the number one system employed for the aim of measuring the speed of motorcars in New Jersey.
In State v. Wojtkowiak 174 N.J. Super, 460 (App. Div. l980), the appeals court held in all longer time period cases the state should adduce evidence at the municipal court level as to (1) the precise training and extent of experience of the officer operating the radar, (2) the calibration of the machine was checked by at least two external tuning forks either singly and in combination, and (three) the calibration of the speedometer of the patrol automotive in cases where the K-fifty five is operating in the moving mode.
MPH Industries, manufacturer and distributor of the K-fifty five, sets forth the subsequent eight points an officer must be capable of testify to:
- The officer must establish the time, place and location of the radar device at the time he made the reading.
- The officer must be capable of identify the vehicle.
- The officer must identify the defendant as the operator of the vehicle
- The officer must testify that he made a visual observation of the vehicle and that it was going at an extreme rate of speed.
- At the time of the radar reading the officer must testify that the vehicle was out front, by itself, nearest to the radar.
- The officer must state his qualifications and training in radar use.
- The officer must establish that the radar was tested for accuracy either earlier and after its use.
- If used in the moving mode, that at the time of the radar reading the patrol speed indicated on the unit when in comparison with the speedometer of the police vehicle.
1. Expert testimony in support of admissibility shall not be required, apart from as specifically set forth below.
three. Pre-operational checking procedures counseled by the manufacturer of the laser speed detector shall be shown to have been made in every case.
5. Speed measurements made at any distance up to 1,000 feet shall be admitted, but measurements made at any distance in extra of one,000 feet shall be admitted only with the support of adequate skilled testimony in the person case.
l. By use of the internal tuning fork built into the machine itself (which the court found to be improper).
2. By running the patrol automotive with a calibrated speedometer as a result of the "zone of influence" of the radar machine.
three. By use of external tuning forks calibrated at set speeds and which emit sound waves or frequencies just like those which would come from a vehicle traveling as a result of the Radar bearer at the identical speed for which the tuning fork has been cut.
It is also important to respect that in State v. Readding 160 N.J. Super. 238, the court stated: the correct operation of the device must be proved, usually by detailed reference by the qualified operator to the procedures called for by the manufacturer of the device.
A "pace" or "clock" is done by an officer in a patrol automotive with a calibrated speedometer for a duration of distance or time wherein the officer accelerated to a speed equivalent to the suspect's, and then keeps a steady distance in the back of the suspect's vehicle following that vehicle. It is important that the patrol automotive's speedometer be calibrated and that the certificates of calibration either before and after, be admitted into evidence.
An officer might also infrequently admit he was unable to get an beneficial "clock" but may say that his vehicle was going 70 mph, for instance, and he was still losing ground to the offender. The obvious shortcoming to "clocking" as vehicle is that the officer's objective judgment may be brought into question, the interference by other traffic, or other non-fair factors. It is for these reasons that the "clock" strategy is used less frequently than radar and laser speed detection.
The 'Pace' or 'Clock' Method
While it appeared to the court in State v. Wojtkowiak Supra that the K-fifty five Radar is an accurate and reliable tool for the measurement of speed, its accuracy and reliability ultimately are no better than the skill of the person operating the radar. Id. at 174. The court made this emphasis as a warning to all police departments that proper courses of instruction be developed before the K-fifty five Radar device is employed in any municipality.
A calibration check is accomplished with the use of two tuning forks and their accuracy must be the topic of the documentary proof. Use of the K-fifty five does not eliminate the need for such proof. State v. Wojtkowiak 170 N.J. Super. at 50, n.1
In State v. Overton 135 N.J. Super 443 (Cty. Ct. 1975), four external tuning forks were used to experiment the radar unit 12 times within a period of approximately 90 minutes. The court noted there is authority to the effect that a radar unit should be checked for accuracy every time it is about up at a special location. MPH Industries argues this is not necessary with moving radar.
In State v. Readding 160 N.J. Super 238 (Law Div. 1978), the court reiterated the decision in State v. Overton 135 N.J. Super. 443 (Cty. Ct. 1975), where the court found there are three universally accepted methods of testing the accurate operation of a radar speed measuring device:
Speed-measuring radar in a type of forms has been accepted since State v. Dantonio 18 N.J. 570 (1955), where the N.J. Supreme Court held it isn't essential that the court determine the precise speed at which the vehicle was being operated when the alleged offense occurred, and that the operator of the vehicle must be adjudged guilty if the evidence established, beyond an affordable doubt, that the drive exceeded the statutory speed limit.
It is not necessary for the trial court to make a particular locating as to the precise speed in extra of the speed limit at which the defendant was traveling at the time of the violation. State v. Bookbinder 82 N.J. Super. 179, 183 (App. Div. 1964).
However, if the defendant is found guilty, the trial court should determine the quantum of extra was so many miles per hour in exercising its discretion as to the penalty to be imposed within the statutory limitation. The precise speed a motorist was traveling thus is fabrics only on the question as to the penalty to be imposed, not on the question of guilt or innocence.
State v. Readding 169 N.J. Super. 238 (Law Div. 1978), restated the common rule that in order for the radar speedometer reading to be admissible into evidence, it should be established that: (l) the device is scientifically reliable; (2) the precise speedometer used in the case being tried is accurate; (three) the operator is qualified; and (4) the device was operated properly in the case being tried.
Reginald Stanton, Assignment Judge wrote: the common thought of using lasers to calculate the speed of motorcars is in common accepted within the relevant scientific community and is valid. Despite the indisputable fact that the testing conducted was away from perfect, it was adequate, and I am convinced from the totality of the evidence presented to me that the laser speed detector produces reasonably uniform and reasonably measurements of the speed of motorcars under conditions in all likelihood to be existing on New Jersey highways when the detector is used for legislations enforcement purposes. The error trapping programs and mechanisms built into the detector are fully adequate to steer clear of unreliable speed measurements when used for legislations enforcement purposes. Accordingly, under the broad teaching of cases such as Romano V. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66, 474 A.second 1 (1984), and State v. Wojtkowiak, 170 N.J. Super. 44, 405 A.second 477 (Law Div. 1979), reversed on other grounds, 174 N.J. Super. 460, 416 A.second 975 (App. Div. 1980), speed readings produced by the laser speed detector should be received as evidence of the speed of motorcars without the need for skilled testimony in individual prosecutions arising under the motor vehicle laws.
The Law Division held admissibility of such readings shall be subject to the rules set forth below:
Kenneth A. Vercammen is a trial attorney in Edison, Middlesex County,
In his private practice, he has faithful a substantial portion of his professional time to the preparation and trial of litigated things. He has appeared in Courts throughout New Jersey several times every week on many personal injury things, Municipal Court trials, matrimonial hearings and contested administrative legislations hearings.
Laser Speed Detection
The landmark case on Laser speeding tickets is In the Matter of the Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Speed Readings Produced by the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection System 314 N.J. Super. 233, 714 A.second 381; (Law Div. 1998) affd 326 N.J. Super. 100 ten. (App. Div 1999)
It is well established that the prosecution of a defendant for a motor vehicle violation is a quasi-crook proceeding. In such a proceeding the burden of proof is upon the state to set up all elements of the offense beyond an affordable doubt.
In every charge of a speeding violation, the complaint or summons should specify (l) the speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven, (2) the speed which is prima facie unlawful, and (three) the time and place of the alleged violation.
A sign showing a speed limit is merely notice of the legislations or an ordinance or regulation prohibiting a greater speed. The sign itself does not set the speed limit. There can be no conviction for violation of the edict of a posted sign, but only for violation of the statute, ordinance, or regulation having the strength of legislations. There are many unauthorized signs in the state which will serve as a warning but have no effect in creating an offense.
2. Appropriate training of the legislations enforcement officer operating the laser speed detector shall be shown in every case.
About the Author
4. Speed measurements shall be admitted whether made in daylight or at night and within any temperature range in all likelihood to be found in New Jersey, even if made under conditions of light or in moderation heavy rainfall, but speed measurements taken during heavy rain or whilst snow is falling shall not be admitted without the support of adequate skilled testimony in the person case.
