State v. Barker, 2009-Ohio-6907 - December 30, 2009

In the case of the State of Ohio vs. Barker (2009-Ohio-6907) the Ninth District Court of Appeals stated:
     The trial court committed reversible error in granting Barker’s motion to dismiss the charge of driving under suspension on the ground that the registrar lacked the authority to suspend her license. Although the statute granting the registrar authority to request proof of financial responsibility does not itself contain the penalty for noncompliance, Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1-2-08(C), promulgated “pursuant to statutory authority,” provides the penalty.  Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 38 Ohio St.3d at 234. See, also, R.C. 4509.101(M). Construing the statute with the Administrative Code demonstrates that the registrar is indeed authorized to issue financial responsibility noncompliance suspensions.

Basically if you receive a notice from the register to show proof of financial responsibility (auto insurance) and you do not respond, they have the right under Ohio law to suspend your license.

Additional Case Law Summaries Part II (all states):

Additional Case Law Summaries Part II (all states including Ohio):

Please note the newer cases generally have more weight when used during an appeal unless a conflicting ruling exists from a higher court, and the district court of appeals basically holds their rulings in line with their previous rulings rather than taking other districts decisions when they occur within a short period of time. These cases may show how another sister court decided an issue that hasn’t been decided in the state of Ohio.

1. U.S. District Court, Charlottesville Division, United States v. Wornom, (754 F.Supp. 517) – 1/14/1991:

• Defendant was convicted of speeding on federal property by magistrate and he appealed. The District Court, Michael, J., held that: (1) magistrate was correct in disallowing use of radar evidence under Virginia law; (2) federal regulations control over state law requirements for reducing speed limits generally; (3) magistrate's finding that defendant was speeding was supported by the evidence, even though radar evidence was not admissible; and (4) Rule 12 notice was not required for challenge to accuracy of radar equipment.

2. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three, Missouri v. MOORE, (700 S.W.2d 880) - 11/19/1985:

• Evidence in speeding prosecution that trooper tested accuracy of tuning forks which he had used to test accuracy of radar unit by holding them in front of frequency finder approximately eight months prior to defendant's arrest was sufficient; State was not required to prove accuracy of the frequency finder.
• State's burden in speeding prosecution of proving radar unit was checked for accuracy reasonably close to time of use was satisfied by testimony of trooper that he used tuning forks to check accuracy of radar unit before starting his shift and “right after” defendant's arrest.

3. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc, Colorado v. WALKER, (199 Colo. 475, 610 P.2d 496) - May 12, 1980:

• Reversed conviction for speeding holding that: (1) use of a single uncalibrated tuning fork provides a legally insufficient foundation to support a reading taken from a radar device; (2) where a tuning fork test is used to calibrate a radar device, it must be shown that either two forks have been used or, alternately, that the single fork used has been certified as accurate within one year of the test; and (3) where testing procedures other than tuning forks are employed it is for the trial court to determine whether such test gives sufficient indicia of reliability to warrant admission of radar readings.
• Police officer's personal observations could not be used to corroborate radar reading of 66 mph; although officer's testimony that defendant motorist “was going over the speed limit” was probative of fact that defendant was exceeding the 35-mph limit it was not helpful in determining the amount thereof.

4. Court of Appeals of Minnesota, STATE of Minnesota v. DOW, Appellant, (352 N.W.2d 125) - July 31, 1984:

• Radar unit results were properly admitted at defendant's trial for speeding where record indicated that state trooper had sufficient training to properly operate the equipment, trooper testified as to manner that unit was set up and conditions under which it was used, there were no outside sources of interference with use of unit and unit was tested properly both internally and externally, including use of tuning fork and calibrated speedometer on squad car to check unit's accuracy.
• That defendant was not provided with copy of radar training manual did not compel reversal of his speeding conviction. Appellant fails to cite a reason why he was entitled to a copy of this manual in his appeal.

5. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, FITZWATER v. STATE of Maryland, (57 Md.App. 274, 469 A.2d 909) - Jan. 12, 1984:

• Affirmed conviction for speeding holding that: held that: (1) maintenance records were not required to prove the accuracy of internal calibration of radar equipment, in light of fact that arresting officer performed calibration tests and was a certified operator of the radar equipment, and maintenance records for the equipment did exist; (2) state trooper was competent to testify as to the accuracy of internal calibration of radar equipment, because trooper had special knowledge of the radar gained from his experience as police officer, trooper was certified on the particular radar device in his vehicle, trooper had specific knowledge as to procedures used to calibrate the radar, and trooper's testimony was of appreciable help to the jury; and (3) State was not required to establish the time of making, the authorship and the accuracy of documents used by state trooper to refresh his recollection prior to taking oath and testifying, and defense attorney was not entitled to see the contents of the documents.

6. Akron Municipal Court, Ohio. CITY OF AKRON v. GRAY, (60 Ohio Misc. 68, 397 N.E.2d 429) - Sept. 14, 1979:

• Defendant found guilty of speeding with the court holding that where it was shown that K-55 radar unit had been properly calibrated by use of tuning fork certified for calibration and by use of internal calibration device, officer issuing citation was shown to be properly qualified to operate the unit, visual identification, monitor reading and audio all corresponded to confirm that violator was target vehicle, and it was established that target vehicle was driven by defendant, defendant's guilt of operating his vehicle at 48 MPH in 35 MPH zone was established.
• The K-55 unit is found to be a scientifically reliable device for measuring the speed of a vehicle and is accorded judicial notice by this court.

7. Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Ohio v. SHELT, (46 Ohio App.2d 115, 346 N.E.2d 345) - Feb. 20, 1976:

• Granted judicial notice to the MR-7 moving radar device.

8. Court of Appeals of New York. New York v. DUSING, (5 N.Y.2d 126, 155 N.E.2d 393, 181 N.Y.S.2d 493) - Jan. 8, 1959:

• Speeding conviction reversed holding that where there was proof of a radar reading and some showing of a test of radar equipment, although there was no indication that automobile speedometer against which radar reading had been checked was itself accurate, and there was other proof of speeding by two admittedly experienced and qualified police officers who, from separate positions, had observed motorist's oncoming automobile, such testimony was admissible and sufficient to raise question of fact as to speeding.

9. Supreme Court of New Jersey, New Jersey v. DANTONIO, (18 N.J. 570, 115 A.2d 35) - June 20, 1955:

• Speeding conviction affirmed holding that evidence of radar speedmeter readings could be received in evidence on a showing that speedmeter was properly set up and tested by police officers, without any need for independent expert testimony by electrical engineers at to its general nature and trustworthiness.

10. Court of Appeals of Kansas, Kansas v. PRIMM, (4 Kan.App.2d 314, 606 P.2d 112) - Feb. 8, 1980:

• Speeding conviction affirmed holding that: (1) evidence of radar unit's accuracy at time of the alleged offense was sufficient to establish a sufficient foundation to admit radar reading into evidence; (2) testimony was sufficient to establish trooper's qualifications to operate the radar device; (3) absence of expert testimony regarding construction and method of operation of the radar device did not preclude admission of trooper's testimony as to the radar reading obtained by him; and (4) evidence was sufficient to withstand defendant's motion for acquittal at end of State's case.
• Accuracy of a particular radar unit used to measure speed of motor vehicles can be established by showing that operator tested device in accordance with accepted procedures and the unit was functioning properly and that operator was qualified by training and experience to operate the unit.

11. Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York, Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, New York v. BELLIZZI, (108 Misc.2d 209, 441 N.Y.S.2d 147) - Nov. 18, 1980:

• Reversed speeding conviction holding that reliability of speed detection device to accurately measure speed of an oncoming vehicle while unit is located in a police car traveling in the opposite direction has not been established.

12. Supreme Court of Ohio, CITY OF DAYTON v. ADAMS, (9 Ohio St.2d 89, 223 N.E.2d 822) - Feb. 15, 1967:

• Reversed speeding conviction holding that that police officer who was operating radar device in unmarked automobile in effort to detect speeders was incompetent to testify as witness for prosecution of an alleged speeder thus detected, since officer's automobile was not distinctively marked as required by statute.

13. Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Ohio v. BECHTEL, (24 Ohio App.3d 72, 493 N.E.2d 318) - June 26, 1985:

• A motion to certify the record to the Supreme Court of Ohio was overruled on March 5, 1986 (case No. 86-11).
• Speeding conviction affirmed holding that: (1) trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony concerning tuning forks and external calibration of radar unit, and (2) it is proper for trial court to take judicial notice of scientific reliability of K-55 Doppler effect radar unit in prosecution for speeding, following arresting officer's testimony as to readings on his radar unit, his calibration of the unit, and his qualifications for using the unit.
• For purpose of establishing external calibration of radar, when two tuning forks are used to ascertain accuracy of radar unit, additional proof of accuracy of tuning forks is not necessary, because each tuning fork corroborates accuracy of the other, and it is highly unlikely that radar unit in each tuning fork would be inaccurate to same degree.
• It is proper for trial court to take judicial notice of scientific reliability of K-55 Doppler effect radar unit in prosecution for speeding.

14. Bowling Green Municipal Court, Ohio, Village of Pemberville v. DIETRICH, (7 Ohio Misc.2d 48, 455 N.E.2d 727) - July 26, 1983:

• Defendant convicted for speeding holding that: (1) evidence was sufficient to find that police officer, by training and experience, was qualified to use S-80 radar; (2) evidence was sufficient to conclude that at time of incident the S-80 radar was in good condition for accurate use; (3) evidence was sufficient to conclude that the MPH model S-80 radar while mounted in a moving patrol car is a reliable device for accurately determining speed of a target vehicle moving toward the patrol car; and (4) evidence was sufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that speed of defendant's vehicle was unreasonable for conditions existing at time of incident, and that defendant was guilty as charged.

15. Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Ohio v. FERRIER, (105 Ohio App.3d 124, 663 N.E.2d 729) - July 10, 1995:

• Speeding conviction affirmed holding that: (1) radar evidence was supported by experienced officer's testimony who observed new officer's use of radar gun, and (2) evidence supported finding that defendant exceeded posted speed limit.

16. Ravenna Municipal Court, Ohio, Ohio v. WIBELT, (9 Ohio Misc. 158, 223 N.E.2d 834) - Jan. 11, 1967:

• Speeding charges dismissed holding that where ‘Speed Meter Ahead’ sign was neither reflectorized nor illuminated as required by statute, speeding offense alleged to have occurred at night was not established by evidence obtained by radar speed check.

17. Franklin County Municipal Court, Ohio, City of Upper Arlington v. LIMBERT, (138 Ohio Misc.2d 30, 856 N.E.2d 336) - Aug. 24, 2006:

• Held that Ultralyte LTI 20/20 laser speed detector, used by law enforcement officers to detect when motorists are speeding, is reliable and accurate scientific measure of speed of moving object, if the device is used in accordance with certain procedures delineated by manufacturer granting it judicial notice.

18. Supreme Court of Arkansas, City of Little Rock v. Everight, (230 Ark. 695, 326 S.W.2d 796) - 5/25/1959:

• Speeding conviction affirmed holding that where all the rules of evidence were met in introducing in evidence the speed of the automobile as indicated by the radar speed meter, such evidence was properly admitted by trial court.

© Copyright 2009 by Jeremy Everett. All rights reserved.