Speedometer Calibration

Defendant appealed a decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits). At the close of the prosecution’s case, Defendant moved to dismiss the charged violation on the grounds that the testifying officer did not establish the operational efficiency of the police cruiser’s speedometer. The judge denied the motion, and then the officer testified to the operational efficiency of the speedometer. Defendant argued that the trial judge erred by denying the motion to dismiss. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that “testimony regarding the speed of a vehicle is admissible upon a showing that the operational efficiency of the device used to obtain the vehicle’s speed had been tested by an appropriate method within a reasonable period of time.” State v. Mancino, 340 A.2d 128, 132 (R.I. 1975 (citing State v. Barrows, 156 A.2d 81, 83 (R.I. 1959)). When the Mancino requirements are not established, Rule 16 of the Traffic Tribunal Rules of Procedure allows a defendant to move to dismiss a violation on the grounds that the prosecution failed to proffer sufficient evidence. Here, the operational efficiency of the speedometer was not established until after Defendant’s motion to dismiss. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge erred by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss because the officer failed to establish the necessary elements of the charged violation. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel reversed the trial judge’s decision to deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

City of East Providence v. Joshua Vasquez, No. M17-0023 (August 7, 2018).pdf

Speedometer Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial court sustaining the violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 (“prima facie limits”). Defendant argued that Trial Magistrate erred in concluding that the two prongs of State v. Machino, 340 A.2d 128 (R.I. 1975), had been satisfied. State v. Machino requires the prosecution to prove that  a speedometer used to clock a motorists was tested against another speed-testing standard and that the speedometer was operating properly at the time of the alleged violation. At trial, the Trooper testified that his speedometer was calibrated 14 days before the citation and was found to be in good working order. Therefore, the Trial Magistrate’s finding that the two prongs of State v. Machino had been satisfied was not an error. In addition, the Appeals Panel noted that State v. Machino requires the defendant to raise at trial any argument concerning the calibration of the speedometer. Accordingly, the trial court’s decision was affirmed.

State of Rhode Island v. Brett Gralinski, No. T16-0007 (July 11, 2017).pdf

Speedometer 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

Speedometer Calibration

Defendant appealed the decision of the trial magistrate sustaining the violations of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-14-2 (prima facie limits), R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-3-1 (operation of an unregistered vehicle), and R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-47-9 (verification of proof of financial security). The Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate erroneously allowed the trooper to testify as to the calibration of his cruiser’s speedometer without first requiring him to introduce the calibration sheet into evidence. The Court held that this constituted reversible error of law pursuant to State v. Mancino, 340 A.2d 128 (R.I. 1975). Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the trial magistrate and remanded with instructions to dismiss the speeding violation.

State of Rhode Island v. Jim Desrosiers, C.A. No. T09-0052 (August 25, 2009).pdf