Speeding

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits).  The Defendant did not deny that he exceeded the speed limit, but argued that trees were obstructing his view of the speed limit sign.  Defendant further argued that the stop was unwarranted because he was being targeted by the Bristol Police for brining his passenger home after her parents filed a missing person report.  Following State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 36 (R.I. 1974), the Panel explained that an officer must be trained to use a radar device and the device must have been calibrated within a reasonable time. Here, the officer testified that he had been trained in the use of a radar device at the Academy and that his radar device had been calibrated both internally and externally.  The Panel held that the defendant’s arguments were irrelevant to proving or disproving the elements of the charged violation.  Accordingly, the Panel affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation.

Town of Bristol v. Allen P. Carpenter, C.A. No. M11-0023 (March 23, 2012).pdf