Defendant appealed a decision of the Trial Magistrate sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding). At trial, the officer testified that the radar device he used to measure the Defendant’s speed “was calibrated externally and internally.” He also testified that he was trained as an officer at the Police Academy, which included a radar certification. The Trial Judge asked the officer to clarify the issue of the “external calibration” of the radar device. The officer displayed a misunderstanding of the term, testifying that tuning forks are used for calibration “internally as in within the cruiser and externally from outside of the cruiser.” The Defendant presented public records as evidence that the officer’s radar device had not been calibrated since 2011, ten years before the incident. In response, the Trial Magistrate explained the difference between calibrating the device internally and externally, further explaining that the officer’s testimony that it had been externally tested with a tuning fork before and after his shift, if accepted, would be legally sufficient. The Trial Magistrate accepted the testimony of the officer as credible, held that it met the requirements of State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (R.I. 1974), and sustained the charge against the Defendant. Defendant appealed.

Under Sprague, for a radar unit reading to be admissible at trial, the testifying officer must meet a two prong test – (1) that the unit was tested within a reasonable time by an appropriate method and (2) that the officer sets forth his/her training and experience in the use of the radar unit. Id. The Appeals Panel found that the officer’s testimony was sufficient to meet the boths prongs under Sprague because he testified that “prior to and after the shift, [his] radar was calibrated externally and internally” using a tuning fork, and he testified to his training as an officer at the Police Academy. The Appeals Panel found the Trial Magistrate did not err in finding the officer’s testimony satisfactory, denied the appeal, and sustained the violation.