Radar Calibration

[krisjag]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Jersey

I was "clocked" doing 85mph in a 65 in southern NJ in September 2008, and it earned me a citation for 20-24 over the speed limit (NJAC 39:4-98.24). I requested discovery per NJ Judiciary Rule R. 3:13-3(a), and received (a) a copy of the officer's radar operator training certificate that was expired with a "refresher" date hand-written on the reverse that would be current; (b) radar calibration before and after the stop; and (c) information on the tuning fork certification by the NJ Department of Weights and Measures.

The tuning fork certification is dated August 2006 and in NJ they are required to be certified annually. Thus according to the discovery provided to me, the radar unit was calibrated using tuning forks whose certification had lapsed.

Is this grounds for dismissal due to inadequate procedures? Would I need proof of the certification period, and if so where would I obtain same?

Any help is appreciated. Thank you.

 

[Maestro64]

It depends on how you set up your defense this alone will not generate an automatic dismissal. You have to find out if NJ requires the officer to cal the Radar unit each time with the tuning forks. If they do then you have grounds to case doubt on the officer speed reading. However, their usually fall back is visual estimated, the radar data can be tossed on the out of cal tuning forks, however, if he also said he visual estimated you as well that is enough to be found guilty. So you will have to attach his visual estimated as well. If the officer was hunting with a radar unit he might not have done a visual estimate.

The worst thing you can do is rely on a single defense, you need to cast doubt on as many things as possible

 

[krisjag]

I plan on moving for dismissal. NJ protocol is that officers must calibrate at shift start and after radar is used for a traffic stop with an external calibration device (tuning fork). NJ Weights & Measures regulation stipulates that all tuning forks must be certified annually. Since the radar reading is the State's supporting evidence, and the foundation of the evidence is broken, I plan on making a motion for dismissal due to inadequate procedures.

The prosecution has a prima facie duty to establish that the radar unit was tested and found to be operating properly at the site of and reasonably close in time to the arrest. State v. Weatherwax, 635 S.W.2d 34 (Mo.App.1982); City of St. Louis v. Boecker, 370 S.W.2d 731 (Mo.App.1963). The prosecution must also establish that the measuring device used to test the radar unit for accuracy was itself tested for accuracy. City of Ballwin v. Collins, 534 S.W.2d 280 (Mo.App.1976).

Thank you for your guidance. My appearance is set for tomorrow morning, I'll let you know how it goes.

 

[You Are Guilty]

The prosecution has a prima facie duty to establish that the radar unit was tested and found to be operating properly at the site of and reasonably close in time to the arrest. State v. Weatherwax, 635 S.W.2d 34 (Mo.App.1982); City of St. Louis v. Boecker, 370 S.W.2d 731 (Mo.App.1963). The prosecution must also establish that the measuring device used to test the radar unit for accuracy was itself tested for accuracy. City of Ballwin v. Collins, 534 S.W.2d 280 (Mo.App.1976).

Thank you for your guidance. My appearance is set for tomorrow morning, I'll let you know how it goes.

Please do. (I'm curious what your NJ judge will say when you make your argument using MO law).