• 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 in PA

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

CDMULLEN

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? Pennsylvania

I just got a speeding ticket in Pa, and I am planning on pleading not guilty. The Radar equipment was last checked over a month ago and I am wondering how often do these need to be checked. On my Ticket it says " Speed Eqip. Serial No. GHS 1984" and then " Station Eqip. Tested R-8 " I got the ticket on 11/15 and the radar gun was tested 10/11. Can I get out of this ticket because of this?
 


cepe10

Member
What is the name of your state? Pennsylvania

I just got a speeding ticket in Pa, and I am planning on pleading not guilty. The Radar equipment was last checked over a month ago and I am wondering how often do these need to be checked. On my Ticket it says " Speed Eqip. Serial No. GHS 1984" and then " Station Eqip. Tested R-8 " I got the ticket on 11/15 and the radar gun was tested 10/11. Can I get out of this ticket because of this?
60 days but it has to be an original NOT a photocopy...Also there is the calibration of the tuning forks or other device used as the standard to which the radar device was calibrated against...




75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3368(d) (emphasis added). This Court set forth the requirements of § 3368(d) in Commonwealth v. Gernsheimer, 276 Pa.Superior Ct. 418, 419 A.2d 528 (1980), holding that

in prosecuting speeding cases where a radar or other electronic device is used to

Page 899

calibrate a defendant's speed that in order to introduce the results of such into evidence the Commonwealth must offer a Certificate, certified by the Secretary of Transportation or his designee certifying the agency which performs the tests on the device as an official testing station, and must introduce a Certificate of Electronic Device (radar) Accuracy into evidence. The Certificate of Electronic Device (radar) Accuracy must be signed by the person who performed the tests and the engineer in charge of the testing station, must show that the device was accurate when tested by stating the various speeds at which it was tested and the results thereof, and must show, on its face, that the particular device was tested within sixty (60) days of the date it was used to calibrate the particular defendant's speed.

Id. at 423-24, 419 A.2d at 530. Although the question of the admissibility of a photocopy, instead of the original, of the certificate of accuracy did not arise in Gernsheimer, 1 we note that the entry of the original certificate appears to be common practice. See Commonwealth v. Gussey, 319 Pa.Superior Ct. 398, 466 A.2d 219 (1983); Commonwealth v. Gernsheimer, supra.
 

cepe10

Member
also...

We therefore hold that in order for results of a radar device to be properly admissible at trial, the Commonwealth must offer evidence, independent of the certificate of accuracy, to show that the testing facility has been appointed by the Department of Transportation as an official testing station pursuant to the requirements of section 3368(d) of [372 Pa.Super. 323] the Vehicle Code. This independent evidence may consist of either a separate document from the Secretary of Transportation under seal or a citation to the Pennsylvania Bulletin which lists the station as an official testing station.
 
Carefully check the calibration certificate (which must be presented) that all info matches what is on your citation (model, serial #, cal. date, cal. station). Incorrect info invalidates certificate (Comm. v Gernshiemer).

and that there are actual signatures not just typed names (Comm. v Gussey)

and (as mentioned) not a copy (Comm. v Cummings)

and (as mentioned) the officer must supply independent proof (other than the cal certificate) that the testing station is approved. The officer can give judicial notice that the station is listed in the current version of the Pa. Bulletin. (Comm. v Denny and reaffirmed in Comm. v Kaufman)

and that the speed timing device was approved by the Dept. of Trans. (Comm. v Kittelberger). The cal. certificate is not sufficient to show it is an approved device (Comm. v Nardei).

Look over the cal. certificate info, listen to the officer's testimony and hope one of the items goes your way and you can request a dismissal once the officer has finished. Of course it is a gamble. Testifying yourself is pretty much a waste of time.

Good luck and may the force be with you.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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