Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed a Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (Speeding). A Rhode Island State Trooper testified to being stationed at a “fixed radar post on Route 95 South at Exit 2” and obtaining the fixed speed of two oncoming cars going 103 miles per hour. The trooper testified that he followed the vehicles and obtained a moving radar speed on the rear car of 107 miles per hour in a 65 mile per hour zone. The driver was identified to be the defendant and a ticket was issued for speeding. The Trooper provided testimony as to his training in using a radar, noting that he had received “recertification two years prior to the hearing.” He also testified that the radar unit had been calibrated “internally and externally at the beginning of the shift.” The Defendant contested the speeding charge, claiming that he had a device in his vehicle that would alert him if he were driving at an excessive speed. The Trial Judge found the Defendant guilty and the Defendant appealed, arguing that the trooper did not provide sufficient evidence as to his training on the specific radar device that he used that day, nor did he provide proof that it was in fact the Defendant’s vehicle traveling at the excessive speed. 

The Appeals Panel upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The Appeals Panel relied on the two-prong test in State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (1974), and determined that sufficient evidence had been shown to satisfy the second prong as the trooper testified that he “had received training at the Rhode Island State Police Academy” and “recertification two years prior to the hearing.” The Appeals Panel rejected the argument that there must be evidence of training in the “specific radar unit used to obtain a vehicle’s speed.” Further, the Appeals Panel noted that the only evidence offered by the Defendant to contradict the trooper’s testimony was insufficient, as the Defendant claims that he had a device in his car that would alert to speeding but provided no “documentation as to the reliability of the device.” Therefore, the Appeals Panel found no error of law and gave deference to the Trial Judge’s decision. For these reasons the Appeals Panel sustained the charged speeding violation.  State of Rhode Island v. Rosemond Pierre, No. T21-0021 (February 21, 2022).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

The Defendant appealed a Trial Magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violations of  R.I G.L. 1956 §§ 31-14-2 (Speeding), 31-15-11 (Laned Roadway Violations), and 31-15-16 (Use of Breakdown Lane for Travel). A Rhode Island State Trooper testified to having seen a vehicle with Massachusetts plates “drive over a curb as it went from route 6 onto 95.” Additionally, the vehicle was seen switching in and out of traffic lanes without using a turn signal and going at an excessive speed. The trooper activated the “radar unit” and noted that the vehicle was going “80 miles per-hour in a 55 mile per-hour zone.”  The trooper testified that  the “radar unit was calibrated internally using tuning forks, and prior to [his] shift, after [his] shift, and found to be in good working condition.” Further, the trooper testified to having received training on the radar unit. At trial, the Defendant argued that the trooper had presented false allegations and believed that his out of state plates were considered “when deciding to conduct a traffic stop.” The Trial Court found the Defendant guilty of all violations, and the Defendant appealed. 

The Appeals Panel upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The Appeals Panel held that the requirements set out in State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (1974), had been met because evidence showed that the radar unit had been checked for accuracy and the Trooper provided testimony as to his training on the use of the radar. Due to these facts the Appeals Panel upheld the Trial Court’s decision sustaining the speeding charge. State of Rhode Island v. Paris Centeio, No. T21-0020 (February 21, 2022 ).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed a Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of “G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2, “Speeding 11+ MPH in excess of posted speed limit – 1st offense.” At trial a Sergeant for the Rhode Island State Police testified that he was stationed at a radar post enforcing traffic. He noticed there were two vehicles fast approaching in the “high-speed lane” and activated his “dash-mounted radar unit.” He also testified that the radar had been “checked ‘prior to and after [his] shift, and found to be in good working order.” He further testified that he had been trained twice on how to use the radar. The radar indicated that the defendant had been going 112 mph on a 55-mph speed limit. The defendant argued, citing Houle v. Rhode Island, A.A. No. 19-58 (D.R.I. January 25, 2021), that the Sargent’s testimony was insufficient to show that the radar had been properly calibrated because there was no evidence presented that an external calibration of the radar had occurred. The trial court rejected that argument, declaring that it did not consider itself bound by decisions of the District Court.

The Appeals Panel upheld the trial court’s decision, including the proposition that the court is bound only by decisions made by the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The Appeals Panel held that the requirements set out in State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (1974), had been met as evidence showed that the radar had been checked for operational accuracy and that Sprague does not require proof of external calibration of the radar. Due to this reasoning, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court’s decision sustaining the charge.   

 State of Rhode Island v. Ryan Warzeka, No. T21-0017 (February 24,2022).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed a decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant set forth a witness credibility argument and a due process argument. The Appeals Panel rejected both of those arguments, but held that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to establish the requirements established in State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974). Pursuant to the holding in Sprague, the testifying officer must state that the radar unit was tested within a reasonable time by an appropriate method, and the officer must set forth his training and experience in the use of a radar unit. Pursuant to Sullivan v. City of Woonsocket, A.A. No. 16-69 (November 10, 2016), those same rules apply when the speed measuring device is a laser.  Here, the testifying officer failed to satisfy either of the Sprague requirements. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the trial judge.

City of Pawtucket v. Diane Assante, No. M18-0005 (August 6, 2018).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Defendant argued that the radar reading was interrupted by “electromagnetic interference” from radio transmitters in East Providence, and thus not accurate. Following State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36,26 (R.I. 1974), the Appeals Panel held 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 properly calibrated, testimony that the trial magistrate found to be “most credible.” The Appeals Panel found no abuse of the trial magistrate’s discretion. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the Defendant.

City of East Providence v. Cheryl Fogarty, No. T15-0024 Amended (February, 2016).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (“prima facie limits”). Defendant argued that the radar device was not calibrated in a reasonable time, as the radar was calibrated nine months prior to Defendant’s traffic stop. In State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974), the RI Supreme Court held that “operational efficiency” of the radar device must be “tested within a reasonable time.” The East Providence Police Department, like many other Rhode Island Police Departments, requires yearly calibrations. In Town of Smithfield v. Connole, CA No. T13-0066, 13411501398 (Sept. 3, 2014), the Appeals Panel held that it was reasonable to assume that police departments promulgate internal procedures for radar certification and calibration to ensure that the machines are working properly. Therefore, the Appeals Panel held that yearly calibration meets the “reasonable time” test in Sprague. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

City of East Providence v. Margarida DaSilva, M16-0002amended (February 13, 2017).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

The Defendant appealed the Pawtucket Municipal Court’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §31-14-2(a) (prima facie limits). At the close of the Officer’s trial testimony the trial judge independently asked the Officer about calibrating the radar unit and whether the Officer was properly trained to operate the radar unit.  Such questioning in hopes of meeting the requirements established under State v. Sprauge, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974), violates the Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Nelson, 982 A.2d 602, 615 (R.I. 2009), that a trial judge may ask questions only for clarification, and not to elicit substantive evidence. Therefore, the Panel found that the trial judge exceeded her boundaries and her decision was made from unlawful procedure. The Panel granted the appeal and dismissed the violation.

City of Pawtucket v. Mary E. Woll, C.A. No. M14-0022 (January 16, 2016).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of a Pawtucket Municipal Court trial judge sustaining the charge of violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant argued that the speeding ticket was not properly notarized because the Officer did not sign the summons in the presence of the Notary Public. Following the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure Rule 3, the Appeals Panel held that summonses do not have to be notarized. Rule 3 of the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure states that “the summons shall be signed by the issuing officer alleging the facts contained therein are true.” Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation against the Defendant. 

City of Pawtucket v. Talia Turco, No. M14-0039 (February 18, 2016).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (“prima facie limits”). Defendant argued that the officer’s testimony that the radar gun “was calibrated prior to, during, and after the stop,” standing alone, was not sufficient to establish that the radar was calibrated properly. Following State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974), the Appeals Panel held that the testimony was sufficient to establish that the officer had been trained to use a radar unit and that the radar unit had been properly calibrated. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

State of Rhode Island v. Andrew Lowell, No. T15-0035 (September 8, 2016).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (“prima facie limits”). Defendant argued that the trial court erred in allowing the laser unit’s speed reading without hearing expert testimony. Holding that State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 36 (R.I. 1974), applies to lasers as well as radars, the Appeals Panel held that expert testimony is not required. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

City of Woonsocket v. James F. Sullivan, No. M15-0042 (June 14, 2016).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-15-2 (slow traffic to right). At trial, the citing officer testified that he followed the defendant for three and one-half miles on Route 95 southbound during which the defendant was traveling between 60 and 65 mph in the left lane, he never passed a vehicle, the normal speed of traffic was between 70 and 75 mph, and the defendant created a “tremendous disruption” by blocking cars, which caused them to drive aggressively and pass in the right lane. However, the Appeals Panel held that the record was devoid of how the officer ascertained the speed of the defendant’s vehicle. In order for speedometer or radar evidence to be admissible, the operational efficiency of the device must be tested within a reasonable time and the record must contain the officer’s testimony setting forth his training and experience. See State v. Mancino, 340 A.2d 128 (R.I. 1975); State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (R.I. 1974). Consequently, the Court held that the decision of the trial judge was affected by error of law as it was not supported by evidence on record and dismissed the violation against the defendant. Town of Hopkinton v. James Duchesneau, C.A. No. M13-0013 (January 8, 2014).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant argued that the state failed to prove the violation by clear and convincing evidence because the officer failed to enter into evidence the certificate of calibration. However, the Court held that the requirements necessary for radar evidence to support the charge of speeding were satisfied because the officer testified to his training and experience in the use of the radar device and that the device had been calibrated within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation against the defendant. State of Rhode Island v. Abraham Cure, Jr., C.A. No. T13-0049 (January 21, 2014).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Following State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 36 (R.I. 1974), the tribunal held 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 on the day the citation was issued. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation against the defendant.

Town of East Greenwich v. Anthony Ianiero, C.A. No. M13-0014 (March 7, 2014).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Following State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 36 (R.I. 1974), the tribunal held that an officer must be trained to use a radar or laser device and the device must have been calibrated within a reasonable time. Here, the Trooper testified that he had been trained in the use of a laser device at the Academy and that his laser device had been calibrated on the day the citation was issued. Moreover, the Trooper testified that no cars were between the laser and the front bumper of defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation against the defendant.

State of Rhode Island v. Jeffrey Babb, C.A. No. T13-0069 (April 16, 2014).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the Burrillville Municipal Court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Appeals Panel found that the requirements set forth in State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974), were satisfied where the officer testified that the radar unit had been properly calibrated within a reasonable time and that he was trained and experienced in the operation of radar devices, despite the failure to certify three calibration reports and admit them into evidence. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.Town of Burrillville v. Venus A. LaRochelle, No. M13-0009 (November 20, 2013).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed a decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Defendant claimed the decision of the trial magistrate was clearly erroneous in light of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the record because evidence of calibration was not properly submitted at trial. The Appeals Panel found that the requirements set forth in State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974), were not satisfied because the officer did not testify as to the calibration of the radar, speedometer, or odometer units or to his training and experience in the operation of the units. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel dismissed the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Michael Hersey C.A. No. T12-0081.pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits).  The Court held that the standards for admissibility of speed readings set forth in State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974) were met because the officer testified that the radar unit had been calibrated “within a reasonable time and by an appropriate method” and that he possessed “training and experience in the use of a radar unit.”  Therefore, the Appeals Panel held the officer’s testimony introduced evidence that the defendant had, in fact, been speeding and sustained the violation against the defendant.

Town of Glocester v. John J. Quinn, C.A. No. T11-0077 (March 7, 2012).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-41-2 (prima facie limits).  The Appeals Panel held that the requirements of the Sprauge were not properly set forth at trial because the officer did not testify that she possessed training and experience in the use of a radar unit. Thus, the charged violation was dismissed.

Town of North Kingstown v. Christopher Foley, C.A. No. M12-0007 (December 27, 2012).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974) requires that there is evidence of the speedometer calibration and the citing officer’s training and experience using the radar unit. Since there was no testimony or other evidence on the record that the officer testified to his training and experience using a radar unit, the Court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the charge against the defendant.

City of Warwick v. Edmund Hathaway, C.A. No. M10-0020. (February 23, 2011).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that the trial judge’s decision was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable probative and substantial evidence on the record because the state did not comply with the second prong of State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (1974). because it did not “put forth any evidence of [the officer’s] training or experience in using the radar equipment.  Accordingly, the Court dismissed the violation.

Town of Burrillville v. Jack Carter, C.A. No. M10-0022 (December 8, 2010).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Court held that the radar evidence presented by the town was sufficient to sustain the charge according to the requirements set in State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 39-40 (R.I. 1974) because the officer testified that he was trained in the use of the radar unit and that the unit had been calibrated prior to the defendant’s radar reading.  Accordingly, the Court sustained the violation.

Town of South Kingstown v. Frederick Channing, C.A. T.10-0060 (December 8, 2010).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Appeals Panel held that evidence of the citing officer’s training and experience in the use of a radar unit was required pursuant to State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974). Here, there was no such testimony or other evidence on the record. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial magistrate’s decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss the violation of § 31-14-2.

City of East Providence v. Cleo Graham, C.A. No. M09-00031 (June 26, 2009).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the Pawtucket Municipal Court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The defendant introduced paperwork evidence that her cruise control was working properly and testified that she set her cruise control at the posted speed limit prior to being stopped. The citing officer testified that the defendant was speeding according to his radar unit and also testified that the unit had been calibrated recently. The Court held that the trial court’s decision to credit the officer’s testimony over the defendant’s was within its discretion and was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Yural Mckie, C.A. No. M09-0041.pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Following State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974), the Court held that the officer’s testimony that the radar unit had been calibrated before his shift and of his training for use of a radar unit in 2004 was sufficient to sustain the charge against the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that an officer must be trained on the specific radar unit used for the citation and that the radar unit must have been calibrated on a moving object are not supported by Sprague, or any other law. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. Francisco Melo, C.A. No. T09-0012 (May 22, 2009).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). Following State of Rhode Island v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36, 36 (R.I. 1974), the Court held that an officer must be trained to use a radar gun and the gun must have been calibrated within a reasonable time. Here, the officer testified that he had been trained to use a radar gun in the Academy and that his radar gun had been calibrated three months prior to issuing the citation. Accordingly, the Panel affirmed the decision of the trial court sustaining the charge against the defendant.State of Rhode Island v. George Philips, C.A. No. T09-0036 (August 18, 2009).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). The defendant introduced paperwork evidence from his GPS indicating that he was not speeding at the time he was stopped by the citing officer. The citing officer testified that defendant was speeding according to his radar, that the unit had been properly calibrated, and that he was trained in the use of radar units in 2005. The Court held that the officer’s testimony satisfied the requirements set forth in State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974), that the efficiency of the radar unit be tested within a reasonable amount of time and that the officer testify to his training and experience with a radar unit. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision sustaining the charge against the defendant.

State of Rhode Island v. Frantz Louizia, C.A. No. T09-0054 (July 13, 2009).pdf

Radar/Laser Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the Johnston Municipal Court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. § 13-14-2 (prima facie limits). The Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was affected by error of law and was clearly erroneous because, pursuant to State v. Sprague, 322 A.2d 36 (R.I. 1974), the officer did not provide sufficient evidence that he was trained and had experience in the use of a radar unit. The Court held that when the officer was asked whether he was trained with a radar unit, the reply “yes I am” was not sufficient evidence to show that the officer possessed the necessary “training and experience in the use of a radar unit” as required by Sprague. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial magistrate and remanded with instructions to dismiss the violation of § 13-14-2.

Town of Johnston v. Lucretia Lynn Perry, C.A. No. M09-0010.pdf