Defendant appealed the Appeals Panel’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-12-4 (prima facie limits). A state trooper observed Defendant’s vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed, and the trooper’s dash-mounted radar device registered Defendant’s speed at ninety-four miles per hour in a fifty-five miles per hour speed zone. In the lower court, the Appeals Panel sustained the charged violation based on the state trooper’s testimony that he properly tested the radar unit via the test button on the dash-mounted radar unit. On appeal, Defendant argued that an internal test—such as the use of the test button—is not the same as calibration and, therefore, that the state failed to meet its burden under State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 35, 39-40 (1974), to show that the radar unit was “tested within a reasonable time by a reasonable method.”

While Sprague established that the state must demonstrate that a radar unit was “tested within a reasonable time by a reasonable method,” Sprague is silent as to what constitutes a reasonable time and method. Thus, the District Court sought guidance from several materials, including the National Highway Traffic Safety Act Manual and Rhode Island State Police General Order 56 A1. Each of the materials from which the District Court sought guidance declared that radar units should be subjected to both an internal test and an external calibration test.  As the court explained, “The former is used to make sure that the device is functioning; the latter to make sure that the reading is accurate.”

Here, the District Court distinguished between internal tests and external calibration, and the radar unit in question here was last calibrated five years prior to its use in Defendant’s citation. As such, the District Court held that the Appeals Panel’s decision was clearly erroneous because the state failed to establish that the radar unit was calibrated within a reasonable time and by an appropriate method. Accordingly, the District Court reversed the Appeals Panel’s decision.