• 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.

66 in a 40

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

kroberts

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Missouri

I'm just wondering if anybody would have any idea what I will be facing on my court date, and maybe what I should do about this ticket.

My ticket is for a 66 in a 40 in Missouri. It is my first speeding ticket, and first driving offense of any kind. Although I did receive a Minor in Possession of alcohol about 6 months ago; I assume this will not have anything to do with my speeding ticket, is that correct. Anyways, I'm just wondering if I'm just looking at a fine and points on my license, or if there will be more consequences? It has be a little worried because it is 26mph over. Anyways, thanks for any advice, and just let me know if you need any more information.
 


cepe10

Member
There are several layers to a defense.

The officer may not even show (layer 1) ask for dismissal and object to any continuance.

You can challenge the radar unit and also the tuning forks used to calibrate the radar unit.

The unrelated matter is not relevant to this traffic case.

see:
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Forrest BOECKER, Defendant-Appellant.

Both the defendant and the City cite and rely on the only reported Missouri case involving radar, State v. Graham, Mo.App., 322 S.W.2d 188, decided by the Springfield Court of Appeals in 1959. In that case the state troopers had tested their radar machine shortly before defendant's arrest, and at the point where the arrest occurred, by what is called the run-through test, in which a car was driven through the beam at speeds of 50 and 70 miles per hour (as indicated on the automobile speedometer) to determine whether corresponding speeds were registered on the dial of the radar speedmeter; and also by the use of two tuning forks calibrated to register 50 and 70 miles per hour on the radar speedmeter. The defendant, who was charged with going 65 miles per hour in a 50 mile per hour zone, raised among others the same points as does the defendant here, namely, that there was no proof that the radar had been properly tested or that it was functioning properly at the time of his arrest. The court stated that it was a matter of common knowledge that an automobile speedometer reflects only approximate speed and that there is considerable variance in the speedometers of different cars. It noted that there was no evidence that the speedometer in the patrol car used to check the accuracy of the radar device was itself accurate, or had ever been checked. But it held (l. c. 197 of 322 S.W.2d):

'* * * If such a situation existed in a close case, where there was a slight difference between the allowed and actual speed, we might question the admissibility of such speedometer evidence; but here there was an excess of 15 miles per hour. In addition, there was the confirmation of the tuning fork test. These tests we think were sufficient to make the evidence of the radar speedmeter admissible.'

The court further held that (l. c. 197 of 322 S.W.2d), '* * * the dual tests made almost immediately before the occasion * * *' was prima facie proof that the machine was functioning properly at the time of defendant's arrest.

Defendant argues that it was held in effect in that case that a run-through test by a moving vehicle is absolutely essential to establish the accuracy and proper functioning of a radar speedmeter, and that the court relied entirely on such a test. On the other hand, the City asserts that the court in State v. Graham, supra, recognized the sufficiency of the tuning fork test, standing alone, as prima facie proof of the accuracy and proper operating condition of the radar unit. In our opinion neither view is correct. As the foregoing quotations illustrate, the court based its decision on the duality of the tests made. We think that the important principles to be deduced from State v. Graham, supra, are three-fold: First, the acceptance as a matter of judicial knowledge, '* * * that a radar speedmeter is a device which, within a reasonable engineering tolerance, and when properly functioning and properly operated, accurately measures speed in terms of miles per hour.' (l. c. 195 of 322 S.W.2d); Second, the recognition as a matter of judicial knowledge that the device may not operate properly upon occasions and for various reasons, and that it is therefore, '* * * the obligation of the proponent who uses it to establish prima facie that the machine was properly functioning * * *' (l. c. 197 of 322 S.W.2d); and Third, that '* * * the value of such tests (of a radar speedmeter) would depend upon the accuracy of the measuring device against which it is checked. * * *' (l. c. 197 of 322 S.W.2d).
 

cepe10

Member
interesting MO tidbit on Calibrations (or lack thereof)

From the st central board...

"I got a $137.50 check in the mail from my county DA's office. They said refund was due to the radar's transmission was wrong and it's "frequency was not properly calibrated" and was "not displaying correct speeds".

I really knew I was below the speedlimit and I thought I lost my case bu t it pays to open your mouth and go to court when you know you are right. I have a photostat here from the police department of "certificate of accuracy for doppler radar unit" Midwest Radar, Lamar, Mo. thats dated August 2006. I got this photostat copy when I contested the ticket at court. I was told then this radar was accurate. I guess not. Midwest radar made a mistake and it cost me alot of time and money but I got some money back.

If you got a ticket to fight and you know you are right you should find out if the radar is really accrate and it's frequencies are right and look at the certificate of accuracy."
 

kroberts

Junior Member
Well, I'm just wondering if anybody would have any idea of the consequences of this ticket. I'm not really looking to fight it, because I wouldn't know how nor do I have the money for a lawyer. Am I going to just be fined and have points on my license, or am I looking at even more than that because I was going so fast? Thanks for the help.
 

tedc

Junior Member
Advice needed please

From the st central board...

"I got a $137.50 check in the mail from my county DA's office. They said refund was due to the radar's transmission was wrong and it's "frequency was not properly calibrated" and was "not displaying correct speeds".

I really knew I was below the speedlimit and I thought I lost my case bu t it pays to open your mouth and go to court when you know you are right. I have a photostat here from the police department of "certificate of accuracy for doppler radar unit" Midwest Radar, Lamar, Mo. thats dated August 2006. I got this photostat copy when I contested the ticket at court. I was told then this radar was accurate. I guess not. Midwest radar made a mistake and it cost me alot of time and money but I got some money back.

If you got a ticket to fight and you know you are right you should find out if the radar is really accrate and it's frequencies are right and look at the certificate of accuracy."

I tried to find this st central board so I can contact the poster of this message. Anyone know the http for this board? :confused: I'd like to know what town/state this was in. I also have a copy of a certificate of accuracy from Midwest Radar and I'm going to court in a few weeks to fight my case. I wasn't below the speed limit, but was only a few miles over. The guy who stopped me said 16 over but I know this can't be right. There's a rumor that some of the officers are adjusting the radars to make them read higher (as in 'not displaying correct speeds' from the post I've quoted here). The tuning forks should calibrate the radar but from research I've done the tuning forks only test the display and not the gun transmitter. I want to find out how they revealed that the transmission was wrong and what can I do to have the radar checked to see if it is actually calibrated. Any advice anyone? Thank you:) BTW I'm in Missouri
 
Last edited:

moburkes

Senior Member
I wasn't below the speed limit, but was only a few miles over.
Cepe will be back to give you that information, but, just as an FYI, don't tell the judge that you were "only" a few miles over. 24 miles over the speed limit is not a "few".

edit: I may have given you misinformation. I think cepe was banned. Sorry. Maybe another person will come along and help you.
 
Last edited:

cepe10

Member
I tried to find this st central board so I can contact the poster of this message. Anyone know the http for this board? :confused: I'd like to know what town/state this was in. I also have a copy of a certificate of accuracy from Midwest Radar and I'm going to court in a few weeks to fight my case. I wasn't below the speed limit, but was only a few miles over. The guy who stopped me said 16 over but I know this can't be right. There's a rumor that some of the officers are adjusting the radars to make them read higher (as in 'not displaying correct speeds' from the post I've quoted here). The tuning forks should calibrate the radar but from research I've done the tuning forks only test the display and not the gun transmitter. I want to find out how they revealed that the transmission was wrong and what can I do to have the radar checked to see if it is actually calibrated. Any advice anyone? Thank you:) BTW I'm in Missouri
http://groups.msn.com/speedingTicketCentral/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=1&ID_Message=3048&LastModified=4675596549892568513

http://groups.msn.com/speedingTicketCentral/messages.msnw

It is interesting, obviously the governement agency was probably looking at a class action if they were found to have produced bogus citations. It does sound like something occurred and they were caught by someone else with a calibrated GPS or other instrument in their vehicle.

It is possible for the anyone to open the unit and make it read high. They should have the appropriate FCC license permitting him to make those adjustments though. Here the company calibrating the instruments was proably the culrit and it may have been unintentional as well - defective standards etc.

In Reality who would be monitoring if the units were tampered with??? Only the ones who do the tampering themselves.

The regular street officer is only supposed to verify the unit's accuracy via certain tests. If the radar is found to be in error the unit should be repaired by a competent technician. The officer can make certain adjustments to the radar in the field but these adjustments do not alter the internal workings of the unit itself. These adjustments will be for things like audio level, range sensitivity, etc.

You could go to the police agency and ask to see the specific unit tested against the tuning forks due to you concern about the reputation of the company doing the calibrations. If they refuse you could note that in your defense.... You need to look in their logs at the tuning forks calibration as well...You can wirte a basic discovery motion and ask for the same things as well.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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