State of Wisconsin v Lawrence I. Hanson (1978 WI) 270 N.W. 2d 212
Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Conditions for proving accuracy of a radar;
1.) Operator had adequate training and experience in radar operation
2.) Radar in proper working condition at time of violation
3.) Area radar used had minimum possibility of interference
4.) Input speed of patrol car verified, and car speedometer expertly tested within a reasonable period
5.) Radar tested by means other than radar's own internal calibration
Delaware v Harper (1978 OH) 382 A2d 263 IDel.
Judicial notice of moving radar Doppler shift or effect.
State of Ohio v Shelt (1976 OH) Ohio Court of Appeals
Court took judicial notice of moving radar for the Kustom Electronics MR-7.
State of Ohio v Wilcox (1974 OH) Ohio Court of Appeals
Case concerned with moving radar. Court ruled 3 criteria must be met;
1.) Expert testimony required to substantiate reliability and method of operation.
2.) Evidence presented showing radar in proper working order before and after alleged violation.
3.) Radar operator must be qualified through training and experience.
State v Gerdes (1971 MN) 191 N.W. 2d 428
Minnesota Supreme Court ruling. Conditions for proving accuracy of a radar;
1.) Operator must have adequate training and experience in radar operation,
2.) Testify how radar set up and conditions it was used,
3.) Insure a minimum of distortion from external interference as noise, neon lights, high tension power lines, high power radio stations, etc.,
4.) Test radar accuracy with a tuning fork, or actual test run using another vehicle with a calibrated speedometer.
Erna Elijah Honeycutt v Commonwealth of Kentucky (1966 KY) 408 SW2d 421
Connecticut Supreme Court ruling. In this appeal the court rejects the arguments of the appellant that the evidence should not have been admitted and establishes that:
1.) A properly constructed and operated radar is capable of accurate measurements;
2.) The tuning fork is an accurate method of determining radar accuracy;
3.) It is sufficient an operator have knowledge and training as enables him properly to set up, test and read the radar;
4.) Operator not required to understand scientific principles of radar or be able to explain internal workings;
5.) The officer's estimate of excessive speed from visual observation, when confirmed by the radar and the offending vehicle is out front by itself, nearest the radar is sufficient to identify the vehicle if the officer's visula observations support the radar.
State of Connecticut v Michael R. Tommanelli (1966 CT) 216 A2d 625
Case concerned with stationary radar.
-- reviews matter of Judicial notice
-- recognizes the ability of Doppler radar to measure vehicle speed
-- recognizes a tuning fork is a reliable accuracy test
State of New Jersey v Dominick Dantonio (1955 NJ) 115 A2d 35; 49 ALR2d 460
New Jersey Supreme Court ruling concerning stationary radar.
1.) Judicial notice has been taken of accuracy of radar and the Doppler Principle.
2.) A few hours training is sufficent to qualify an operator.
3.) The operator need not understand or be able to explain internal workings of the radar.
State v Graham (MO) 322 SW2d 188
Established that the court may take judicial notice of the ability of radar to measure speed.
Everight v Little Rock, Ark. (AK) 326 SW2d 796
Establishes that the court may take judicial notice of the reliability of radar.
Police Radar Information Center
Police Radar Case Law