Speeding

Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). A state trooper observed Defendant speeding and subsequently issued the appropriate citation. At trial, Defendant moved to dismiss the charged violation on the grounds that the radar unit used to detect Defendant’s speed was not tested within a reasonable time. But the trial magistrate denied the motion to dismiss because the state trooper provided credible testimony which established that the radar unit had been internally tested using the dashboard test button which “calculates and tests the internal calculations of the radar unit itself.” On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial magistrate erred because the evidence presented at trial established that the radar unit had not been externally calibrated within a reasonable time. Specifically, the evidence established that the radar unit had not been externally calibrated in four years.

To be admissible at trial, radar unit readings require testimony that establishes that the radar unit was “tested within a reasonable time and by an appropriate method.” See State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (1974). Here, the Appeals Panel found that evidence presented at trial established that the radar unit had been tested within a reasonable time because the state trooper provided credible testimony demonstrating that the radar unit was internally tested by the dashboard test button. Notably, the Appeals Panel stated that Sprague did not conclude that the “by an appropriate method” standard is only met when a third-party tests the radar unit. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was not clearly erroneous because the Appeals Panel lacks the authority to assess witness credibility. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.

*NOTE: The District Court reversed the Appeals Panel’s decision on the grounds that using the dash-mounted radar unit’s test button, standing alone, does not constitute calibration by an appropriate method.  An internal calibration establishes that the radar is providing internally consistent results.  Only an external calibration establishes that those results are accurate.  As such, the District Court held that the state failed to meet its burden under Sprague.

State of Rhode Island v. Daniel Houle, No. T19-0003 (August 26, 2019).pdf