Speeding ticket Discovery question

[Zigner]

It's $10 for a tuning fork certification by state vs. whatever amount private company charges.

Not that it matters, since there's no requirement that the state do it. (At least, none that you've shown us so far)

 

[admin456]

I do appreciate your effort of pushing me to research it deeper.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

In my original post I said "measuring devices need to be certified by the state", so that would have nothing to do with the officer's certification.

The comments I made regarding the officer's certification (posts #5 & 6) were directed at asiny's comments in post #2!

I was referring to tuning forks. If you would visit the site provided in the original post then you would read this...
...
...
...

The Division of Criminal Justice recommends periodic certification of tuning forks utilized to operate Doppler Radar. A prudent policy is to certify tuning forks annually. The Division of Weights and Measures conducts certification testing.

I agree with Zigner that a recommendation does not make for a statutory requirement...

I think what you should probably do is to read some NJ Appellate cases... here are a few examples:

State v. Readding, 389 A. 2d 512 - NJ: Superior Court, Law Div. 1978
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Readding&hl=en&as_sdt=4,31&case=1288063240708317203&scilh=0

State v. Overton, 343 A. 2d 516 - NJ: Superior Court 1975
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Readding&hl=en&as_sdt=4,31&case=11880961964365689391&scilh=0

Now keep in mind that these are 1970s cases... Radar technology has improved considerably in the past 30+ years... And from that you can draw your own conclusions.

Good luck!

 

[asiny]

To the OP, whilst the discovery you have lists a private company performing the work... you do realise that if it is a police (be it local and/or state) approved vendor to calibrate their equipment on a regular basis - and the machine was correctly calibrated - then this still would fall under being correctly calibrated as per state requirements.

For example, the older (chemical reading) Breathalyzer 900 and 900A nodules are slowly being dropped (statewide) because of their potential for inaccuracy when loaded with the 'cheaper' nodules created in Canada (many state and local police departments did this to save money - but it, ultimately, cost them dearly in conviction rates). This is a clear view of a 3rd party (local/state) police approved vendor that did not do their job properly which resulted in numerous DUI contests.

Similair standards apply to the radar gun calibration and maintenance.

But the state (and local) are moving over to the more accurate Alcotest 7110 MKIII-C - costs more, but it can fall under mis-calibration and operation... hence why so many DUI lawyers all have their technical arguments and request the officers certification in calibration and operation of the device AND the maintenance logs (to verify it has been maintained as per requirements).

To I_Got_Banned;

...but there's absolutely no possible way that the officer is required to be "trained and holding valid certification in the calibration of Radar".

Any police officer must be trained and hold valid certification in ANY equipment they operate in the course of their duties. That machine must be checked as per their local/state requirements (whether that be before each shift, daily, weekly - I don't know).

In this example when a police officer fails to appear in court to give witness statements, those officer are busy doing their duties, and a continuance may be requested/required. Eventually, if the officer repeatedly fails to appear the case 'may' be dismissed (we all know this has happened).

The same applies to when an officer fails to update their certification in radar calibration, operation and maintenance. When this happens, the officer should not have been able to issue tickets based on the 'alleged' speed reflected on the machine.

...read my signature and good luck. Let us all know how this turns out for you.

 

[Free_Advice]

New Jersey

Received a speeding ticket, requested discovery, received discovery package, the radar tuning fork was tested by a private company just like the radar. I remember going over NJ Statutes and reading that all measuring devices need to be certified by the state. Enough info to get the case thrown out?

Not enough to get the case "thrown out" but may be enough to exclude the evidence which may result in a victory for you.

Foundation issues with these documents under common law and maybe a NJ statutory issue. Google scholar search needed ... find case law that supports your position.

 

[Zigner]

Not enough to get the case "thrown out" but may be enough to exclude the evidence which may result in a victory for you.

Please try to keep up

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Any police officer must be trained and hold valid certification in ANY equipment they operate in the course of their duties. That machine must be checked as per their local/state requirements (whether that be before each shift, daily, weekly - I don't know).

The same applies to when an officer fails to update their certification in radar calibration, operation and maintenance. When this happens, the officer should not have been able to issue tickets based on the 'alleged' speed reflected on the machine.

Quoted for 2 reasons: one, to highlight the term "checked", and more importantly, to ask you to post any sort of New Jersey related statutory reference regarding the level of accuracy "required" of an SMD!!! While it is true that there are some procedures that are "recommended" by either the manufacturer, Division of Criminal Justice (as was posted by the OP), or by each individual law enforcement agency.... However, a "recommendation" does not make a "requirement", especially in a state that has recognized and has taken judicial notice of the accuracy of Radar as a speed measuring device from as long back as 1955!

(Hint: don't look for it because you won't find it! And no, the code section posted by the OP is not even remotely applicable here).

The same applies to when an officer fails to update their certification in radar calibration, operation and maintenance. When this happens, the officer should not have been able to issue tickets based on the 'alleged' speed reflected on the machine.

The officer is supposed to present a certificate of training for "calibration and maintenance" of a radar unit? Really???

There is a HUGE difference between being able to perform a daily check, or being able to push the "self test" button on a Radar unit to determine if it is working properly... AND... The knowledge, experience to be able to "calibrate" a Radar unit! Similarly, there is big difference between sending a Radar unit out to be calibrated and maintained... AND... Having the knowledge and expertize to put the unit on a work bench, taking it apart to replace any faulty component(s) and to check it for accuracy and to make any needed calibrations to it to ensure it is sufficienly accurate!

You keep using the two terms ("checked" and "calibrated") interchangeably when in fact,, they do not mean the same thing. So again, there is no requirement that the officer be certified in Radar calibration and maintenance; s/he is ONLY required to be certified in the use of Radar (which, depending on the unit, may require him/her to use a set of simple basic instructions to ascertain that the unit is operational)!

 

[asiny]

STATE v John GREEN (full name listed as there are multiple S v G cases): re: Stalker Lidar
"We do not know whether the accuracy of the Stalker Lidar device has been established through independent testing. In short, the device has not been established as scientifically reliable in New Jersey. As a consequence, it may not be used in the trial courts as proof of speed until its accuracy has been established[.]"

N.J.S.A. 51:1-55 provides the State Superintendent shall be the custodian of all standards of weights and measures. A standard 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

Also, just for the heck of it, look up

STATE v ASHJIAN
In sum, we agree with defendant that it was error to admit the Python recording into evidence. Notwithstanding this conclusion, we affirm the conviction because OFFICERS NAME testimony, based on his observations, experience and training, that he believed defendant was speeding, independently provides a sufficient basis on which to find defendant guilty.

Even though the officer could not submit his knowledge of training on a particular brand of radar gun the court allowed, in the officers expert opinion, his visual testimony of the speeding offence. And yes, the evidence of the brand of radar the officer was using was dismissed.

I believe that I_Got_Banned and I are (reasonably) on the same page with an understanding that there are some requirements that the officer be trained in the operation and use of the device.

I apologise to IGB too, my use of the word maintenance is in the every-day operational use (i.e. basic troubleshooting of the device) and not the electronic or mechanical issues that go beyond the officers knowledge and training.

On top of that apology, I also concede to add this;

Division of Criminal Justice Law Enforcement Resources

Although a voluntary training program -

Certification confirms that officers complied with and met the training requirements established by the Division of Criminal Justice.

Even though it is a voluntary program - the DOJ requires certain training.

There is caselaw (from other states) the DO also list that the officer MUST calibrate and test the device at the beginning and at the end of his shift, one caselaw even reference that the officer MUST calibrate and test the device immediately following a speed stop.

And to end, this is a great article if you are going pro se;

Fighting a speeding ticket - WORLD Law Direct

 

[I_Got_Banned]

asniy, I don't know why you posted the quotes you did, but I will address them nevertheless:

Also, just for the heck of it, look up

STATE v John GREEN (full name listed as there are multiple S v G cases): re: Stalker Lidar
"We do not know whether the accuracy of the Stalker Lidar device has been established through independent testing. In short, the device has not been established as scientifically reliable in New Jersey. As a consequence, it may not be used in the trial courts as proof of speed until its accuracy has been established[.]"

That refers to Lidar... Quite a bit different from Radar, not only in the way operates, but in the way it is used, its accuracy rate, the level of acceptance it has received in courts nationwide... You want to see NJ appellate citations in reference to Radar, then read the two case law citations I linked above. here are a few quotes:

From

State v. Readding​

:

It is well established in this State that our courts will take judicial notice of the general accuracy of radar speed-measuring machines. ​

and...

The scientific reliability of radar devices has been generally established and need not be re-proven in every case.​

Now, in all fairness, the Readding conviction was overturned due to the fact that the officer only used one single tuning fork to check the units accuracy. But, this is also a 1978 case and I suspect that NJ courts have become more accepting of Radar's accuracy nowadays than they were back then!

And from

State v. Overton​

:

Defendant contends that this failure to prove the accuracy of these tuning forks is fatal to the State's case. He would require the State to prove not only the correctness of the machine which clocked his speed as excessive — he demands testing as well of the device used to check the accuracy of the radar unit. The argument is unsound. There is no need to place such undue burdens upon the State in proving a simple speeding case. Defendant's argument is best answered by the response to the same type of reasoning in People v. Stephens, 52 Misc.2d 1070, 1072, 277 N.Y.S. 2d 567, 569-570 (Cty. Ct. 1967):

* * * [T]his court is not prepared to cast the burden on the People of offering proof of the accuracy of both the calibrated tuning fork and the speedometer of the test car beyond the simple comparative analyses made in the instant case. Beyond such simple tests must lie tests of the devices used to test other measuring devices. Beyond these tests must lie metal fatigue tests, conductivity tests, and electrical time-lag tests involving the variant components used in all of the testing devices, and so on and on. These tests must end somewhere. The oft-heard layman's opinion that the enforcement of the law can be frustrated by a "legal bag of tricks" must not be encouraged by slavish adherence to hypertechnical requirements of myriad testings of the components of every device used to measure accuracy of every other measuring device.​

And in reference to the OP claim that these tests/calibrations MUST be performed by a state agency (again, from

State v. Overton​

):

Defendant next argues that accuracy of radar units would be best proved by periodic inspections by an agency such as the State Police. Qualified testing personnel could then issue certificates of good working order for each machine which could qualify as business records under Evid. R. 63 (13), or as official reports under Evid. R. 63 (15). This is the method of certifying accuracy of breathalyzer machines in drinking-driving cases. State v. Conners, supra; State v. McGeary, supra; cf. State v. Kalafat, 134 N.J. Super. 297, (App. Div. 1975), indicating that such certificates should be offered as reports of public officials under Evid. R. 63 (15).

The soundness or feasibility of such a spot-checking procedure is somewhat questionable. Unlike breathalyzer machines, radar units are frequently moved from place to place. There is authority to the effect that a radar unit should be checked for accuracy each time that it is set up for use at a different location. Kopper, "The Scientific Reliability of Radar Speedmeters," 33 N. Car. L. Rev. 352, 353 (1955), cited with approval in City of St. Louis v. Boecker, 370 S.W.2d 731, 735 (Mo. Ct. App. 1963).

Defendant further urges that, at the very least, the external tuning forks used to check the machine's accuracy should be subject to periodic inspections by an official agency. Such a procedure commends itself as tending to promote such worthy objectives as simplicity, efficiency and reliability. However, it is not the function of this court to mandate accepted procedures for testing the accuracy of particular speed-measuring devices. The function of this court is simply to determine whether the particular test utilized was of sufficient reliability to prove that the scientific measuring device was accurate at the time of its operation.​

Anyway... Moving along...

N.J.S.A. 51:1-55 provides the State Superintendent shall be the custodian of all standards of weights and measures. A standard 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

I don't know where you found ^that^ or what point you're trying to prove by posting it...

Here is N.J.S.A. 51:1-55:

51:1-55. Standards

The State superintendent shall be the custodian of all standards of weight and measure. He shall procure, at the expense of the State, a set of standards properly certified by the National Bureau of Standards. He shall maintain traceability of the State standards to the national standards in the possession of the National Bureau of Standards. He shall correct the standards of the several counties and municipalities, and other government agencies and shall at least once in five years compare them with the standards in his possession. In addition, he shall at least once in every five years calibrate or verify standards used by professional land surveyors and professional engineers in the performance of their duties, with the expense to be borne by the owners of the devices. The State superintendent, upon request, shall compare and verify any electronic distance measuring device, with the expense to be borne by the owner of the device.​

Amended by L. 1986, c. 167, s. 6, eff. Dec. 3, 1986.
​

Again, I do not see any reference to the NJ State Police, tuning forks or annual checks... It does mention land surveyors and professional engineers but nothing regarding police officer, their use of Radar, or the requirements or even recommendations for testing their accuracy.

However, your quote does indeed open up the door to an assumption that by virtue of the NJ State Police S.O.P. and normal policy to calibrate on an annual basis, and along with the fact that radar accuracy has received judicial notice in New Jersey years ago, may suggest that the officer's failure to provide a copy of a calibration certificate does not necessarily mean an automatic win for the defendant.

I apologise to IGB too, my use of the word maintenance is in the every-day operational use (i.e. basic troubleshooting of the device) and not the electronic or mechanical issues that go beyond the officers knowledge and training.

I had/have no issue with the use if the term "maintenance". The point I was making is that the officer need not be trained nor certified in radar Calibration, but only in how to properly use a Radar unit. Either way, and as long as the issue has been clarified, there is no need to apologize...

 

[admin456]

Update:

The po didn't show up to court, house caught on fire.
Judge rescheduled.

 

[asiny]

Update:

The po didn't show up to court, house caught on fire.
Judge rescheduled.

JESUS!!!!!

 

[admin456]

So after going back for the third time, and prosecutor using his scare tactics of "I have not lost speeding case in 24 years", the PO didn't show up again. Even though the prosecutor dragged the wait of my case to second to last. He was a little pissed.