Defendant appealed the decision of the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal trial court sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (speeding – third offense). At trial, the officer testified that he used “an internal and external calibrated radio unit found in proper working order” to determine the Defendant’s speed.  He “did not testify as to the time frame in which the radar was calibrated, or to the specific method used to internally and externally calibrate the radar unit.” The defendant argued that the officer’s testimony should be stricken because he did not testify as to the method of calibration of the radar unit, citing Daniel Houle v. State of Rhode Island, A.A. No. 19-58 (D.R.I. January 25, 2021). The Trial Judge denied the motion, stating that the Houle case is not binding on the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal because it was issued by the District Court and because, in the Trial Judge’s view, the case attempts to add a requirement to the two-element test found in State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (R.I. 1974). Under Sprague, for a radar unit reading to be admissible at trial, the testifying officer must meet a two prong test – (1) that the unit was tested within a reasonable time by an appropriate method and (2) that the officer sets forth his/her training and experience in the use of the radar unit. Id. The defendant argued that, even under Sprague, the officer was required to testify as to the method of calibration of the radar unit and when it was calibrated and that, without that testimony, the prosecution failed to meet its burden. The trial judge disagreed and sustained the charge. The Appeals Panel found that the officer’s testimony was insufficient to meet the first prong under Sprague because he failed to state the radar unit had been calibrated by an appropriate method and within a reasonable time. Therefore, the Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the trial judge and dismissed the violation.