Finally, he would also have testified that the audio dopler from the radar should not have remained constant as the police officer testified that it did, but should have dropped off as the appellant's vehicle got closer, unless the radar was reading a vehicle further away, such as the tractor-trailer truck. The witness testified that, because of its size and material, the appellant's vehicle was extremely difficult to pick up on radar, that the thirty degree angle of the police officer's car to the highway would have caused an inaccuracy in the speed recorded by the radar, that if the radar had skipped over the appellant's vehicle it would have probably picked up the more reflective vehicle such as the tractortrailer truck and that the likelihood of the radar picking up the appellant's vehicle was further reduced by the fact that the police vehicle was parked on a lot approximately eighteen inches to two feet above the road. The purpose of the testimony was to show that the radar did not record the appellant's vehicle but, instead, recorded that of another vehicle, possibly the tractor-trailer truck behind him. After the witness described his credentials and appellant's counsel offered him as an expert regarding the training and operation of speed measuring devices, his testimony was proffered outside of the presence of the jury. The appellant also proffered testimony of an expert witness. The traffic was light, and, although there was no traffic in his "immediate vicinity," there were several cars in back of him, including a large tractor-trailer truck, that were closing in on him. He said that the arresting officer's automobile was parked at an angle to the highway of approximately twenty-five to thirty degrees. essentially plastic." He said that he saw the arresting officer parked in the church parking lot talking with another police officer in another car parked parallel to hers and that the arresting officer looked up when he passed. The appellant testified that he was driving a Pontiac Fierro, a small two-door sports car, made of "indura-flex material.
The trial court convicted the appellant of speeding and imposed a $50 fine.ĭuring the course of the trial, the appellant testified and attempted to offer the testimony of an expert witness. The speed limit was forty miles per hour. The officer testified that her radar unit recorded that the appellant's automobile was traveling fiftythree miles per hour. For these reasons, we reverse.Īt the time of the alleged offense, the police officer was operating a stationary radar unit located in a church parking lot facing oncoming traffic.
We conclude that the testimony of the expert witness was admissible and that the calibration of the radar by tuning forks alone was insufficient without proper corroboration. The appellant contends that (1) he was entitled to introduce the testimony of an expert witness to show that the radar did not accurately record his automobile's speed and (2) calibration of the radar with tuning forks was insufficient to permit the introduction of the radar measurement into evidence. This appeal is from a speeding conviction resulting from radar surveillance.
Shewmake (Coates & Davenport, on briefs), for appellant.īirdie H.