Speeding

Defendant appealed a decision by a Trial Judge of the Woonsocket Municipal Court sustaining a charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (Prima facie limits). The citing officer observed Defendant traveling at what appeared to be a higher speed than the posted 25 mile per hour limit. The officer then used the speedometer in his cruiser to track Defendant’s vehicle speed at a constant 41 miles per hour over a quarter of a mile. He then conducted a motor vehicle stop and cited Defendant for traveling ten miles per hour over the speed limit. Finding the officer’s testimony credible, the Trial Judge sustained the charge.  The Appeals Panel reversed the decision after finding that the police officer at trial did not satisfy the preliminary evidentiary requirements regarding the operational efficiency of a device used by the officer to clock Defendant’s vehicular speed. Specifically, pursuant to the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Mancino, 340 A.2d 128, 132 (R.I. 1975), the Appeals Panel held that an officer must show that the speedometer used to clock a vehicle was tested against another speed-testing standard and that the speedometer was operating properly at the time of the alleged violation. Because the testifying officer failed to introduce such evidence, the charge could not be sustained. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel reversed the Trial Judge’s decision and granted Defendant’s appeal.

State of Rhode Island v. Momodou Cham, No. M17-0012 (April 24, 2018).pdf