Rhode Island State Police cited the Defendant for violating R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding). A trial took place at the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal wherein the officer stated the Defendant passed him at a high rate of speed. The officer stated he measured the Defendant’s speed with a radar device from his cruiser while traveling behind the Defendant’s vehicle. The officer testified to his training in the use of radar devices and that he calibrated the radar used in this case “internally and externally” on the day of this traffic stop. The Defendant stated he did not speed past the officer, but was traveling in the slow lane when he noticed a car following him. The Defendant testified he sped up and changed lanes in order to avoid an accident. The Trial Judge found the officer’s testimony credible and Defendant was found guilty.

On appeal, the Appellant argued that he was not speeding, and if he was speeding, he was only doing so because the officer was “tailgating” him. The Appeals Panel applied the test from State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (1974), requiring proof that “the operational efficiency of the radar unit was tested within a reasonable time by an appropriate method” and (2) “testimony setting forth [the officer’s] training and experience in the use of a radar unit,”  and found the officer’s testimony met both requirements. Additionally, the Appeals Panel found the officer’s testimony credible and affirmed the conviction. Appellant then appealed to the District Court.

At the District Court level, the Defendant repeated his arguments from below, but additionally argued that there was no physical evidence introduced against him and that there was no evidence introduced regarding the officer’s calibration of the radar device with a tuning fork. The District Court determined the Defendant’s argument that he sped up because the officer “tailgated” him fails because the Trial Judge believed the officer’s testimony. As to the Defendant’s second argument – that there was no physical evidence introduced – the District Court stated “many people are convicted of offenses without physical evidence” and the Defendant did not provide a legal theory stating that evidence is a “legal precondition to a conviction” for speeding. See Iselin v. Ret. Bd. of the Emps.’ Ret. Sys. of Rhode Island, 943 A.2d 1045, 1052 (R.I. 2008). As to the Defendant’s argument that there was no evidence that the officer calibrated the radar device with a tuning fork, the District Court determined this issue was barred under the “raise or waive” rule because the Appellant did not raise it at trial or before the Appeals Panel. Therefore, the District Court affirmed the decision of the Appeals Panel.