Speedometer Calibration

Defendant appealed a decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). At the close of the prosecution’s case, Defendant moved to dismiss the charged violation on the grounds that the testifying officer did not establish the operational efficiency of the police cruiser’s speedometer. The judge denied the motion, and then the officer testified to the operational efficiency of the speedometer. Defendant argued that the trial judge erred by denying the motion to dismiss. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that “testimony regarding the speed of a vehicle is admissible upon a showing that the operational efficiency of the device used to obtain the vehicle’s speed had been tested by an appropriate method within a reasonable period of time.” State v. Mancino, 340 A.2d 128, 132 (R.I. 1975 (citing State v. Barrows, 156 A.2d 81, 83 (R.I. 1959)). When the Mancino requirements are not established, Rule 16 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure allows a defendant to move to dismiss a violation on the grounds that the prosecution failed to proffer sufficient evidence. Here, the operational efficiency of the speedometer was not established until after Defendant’s motion to dismiss. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge erred by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss because the officer failed to establish the necessary elements of the charged violation. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel reversed the trial judge’s decision to deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

City of East Providence v. Joshua Vasquez, No. M17-0023 (August 7, 2018).pdf