• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Speeding ticket questions

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

crichards89

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Missouri

Location of Stop = 80th Street and N. Harrison St (heading north on Harrison from 79th Terrace), Clay County / Kansas City, MO 64118

To be brief, a county sherriff's deputy cited me for doing 40mph in a 25mph area (limit was NOT posted) under the Missouri Revised Statutes, 304.010.

Now, RSMO 304.010 actually specifies that the speed limit for the road I was on is sixty miles per hour. The Kansas City Code of Ordinances DOES specify that unlabeled non-thoroughfare streets (such as N Harrison St) are limited to 25 MPH, but wouldn't the deputy have to cite me under KC Ordinances? (KC Code of Ords. Chap. 70 Sec. 361)

Even if I'm not actually guilty under RSMO 304.010, will the prosecutor simply have the charge amended to KC Ordinance 70-361?

Further, if the radar device can be found insufficiently calibrated, what chance do I have with that route?

Finally, if I can reasonably question the position from which the deputy took the reading, where will that get me?

Thanks in advance!
 


cepe10

Member
If you want to email me at [email protected] i have two case laws regarding radar in MO (see below) - it is highly doubtful the LEO will confrom to them on his own, so it is another defense option.

on the amended charge....It's hard to see a prosecutor actually showing up on this case to amend it. you should try to go before hand to see what the procedure is like in that venue.

Having a map of the area as an exhibit and and pictures and making the LEO point out the spot i believe is the best way to go for establishing the location... otherwise if asked he is just going to mumble incoherently about where he was with no real accuracy.

i like this site to get topo etc as well.
http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com/











With these principles in mind, we shall set forth the evidence the city introduced to establish the radar unit was accurate and operating properly. Robert L. Emerson, an electronics technician, testified that two tuning forks, one calibrated for 30 miles per hour and one calibrated for 50 miles per hour were used to test the radar unit for accuracy. He further testified that he tested the two tuning forks with an oscilloscope on May 29, 1980, October 10, 1980, April 29, 1981, and August 31, 1981, and found the forks to be accurate. Lieutenant Koenig testified that he had been certified to operate the radar gun which he used on the evening of April 28, 1981, by the Jackson Police Department. He identified the two tuning forks used to verify the accuracy of the radar gun. Lieutenant Koenig was asked whether, prior to the time he started using the radar, he did anything to check the accuracy of the radar gun. He testified that it was the policy of the department, prior to using the instrument, to check it with the two tuning forks.

Defendant does not challenge that the tuning forks used to check the accuracy of the radar unit were properly tested for accuracy. But in light of the burden which the city had, our review of Lieutenant Koenig's testimony establishes that it was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the radar unit was found to be operating properly at the site of and reasonably close in time to the arrest of the defendant. State v. Weatherwax, 635 S.W.2d 34 (Mo.App.1982). At best, the city established that the unit was tested sometime prior to 8:30 p.m. on April 28. But at no point in the officer's testimony did he state that the results of the test he conducted established the unit was functioning properly, and without knowing where and at approximately what time the instrument was tested, we would only be speculating that it was reasonably close in time and place to the arrest. Thus, the city failed to make a prima facie case that the machine was functioning properly.

Page 930

Although both Lieutenant Koenig and another officer testified that defendant was traveling in excess of the speed limit, that opinion evidence in the circumstances here, does not constitute sufficient substantial evidence to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. City of Kansas City v. Oxley, 579 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. banc 1979). 3 It follows that the state failed to make a submissible case against the defendant.

Reversed.

All Judges concur.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top