Speeding

The Defendant appealed a Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2, Prima facie limits. A Trooper for the Rhode Island State Police testified that he was at a fixed radar post when he observed a vehicle “traveling at a high rate of speed.” Further, the Trooper testified that his radar unit gave a speed of “ninety miles an hour in a marked fifty-five miles per hour zone”. After conducting a stop, he identified the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle. He issued a citation for speeding sixty miles per hour in a fifty-five miles per hour zone. The trooper testified as to his training in the use of radars and that the radar was “checked prior to shift, calibrated, and found to be in good working order.” The Defendant testified that he was initially questioned for having the wrong license plates and further argued that he was not speeding. Ultimately, the Trial Magistrate found the Defendant guilty. The Defendant appealed, arguing that “he was not speeding and was stopped for having improperly registered plates on his new vehicle.”

The Appeals Panel relied upon State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974), to support its finding that the Trooper had satisfied the elements required for admissibility of radar readings, as he had testified to checking the radar for “operational accuracy” and that the radar “was in good working order.” Further the Trooper also testified that he had been trained in the use of radar units thus satisfying both requirements of Sprague. The Appeals Panel refused to consider the Defendant’s argument as to the credibility of the witness, as it was without authority to do so, and did not address the Defendant’s argument about the basis for the traffic stop.  The Appeals Panel held that no error had been made and sustained the charged violation. State of Rhode Island v. Timothy Siem, No. T20-001 (April 21, 2021).pdf