Our Fitness Tactical Training Program consists of 3 Elements, some form
of physical fitness, Mixed Martial Arts and Firearms training. In this
video I show you a glimpse of some of the upcoming programs I am going to
bring you on a monthly basis, During all my drills I always keep my
heart rate between 170-180 bpm, making it harder for me to keep my fine
motor skills in tune. So you will see me make mistakes, be slow to stay
accurate, my magazine reloads will not be fast and on point all the time
I do this on purpose to get better at a higher heart rate. In this
video Iam using Iron sights for all my shooting (griffin armament
failsafe sights) which I have never used before. Hope you guys enjoy,
Ill be bringing different drills and routines, every month so stay
tuned.
SPEEDING AND RADAR By Kenneth A. Vercammen It is well established that the prosecution of a defendant for a motor
vehicle violation is a quasi-criminal proceeding. In such a proceeding
the burden of proof is upon the state to establish all elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In every charge of a speeding
violation, the complaint or summons should specify (l) the speed at
which the defendant is alleged to have driven, (2) the speed which is
prima facie unlawful, and (3) the time and place of the alleged
violation. A sign showing a speed limit is merely notice of the
law or an ordinance or regulation prohibiting a greater speed. The sign
itself does not set the speed limit. There can be no conviction for
violation of the edict of a posted sign, but only for violation of the
statute, ordinance, or regulation having the force of law. There are
many unauthorized signs in the state which may serve as a warning but
have no effect in creating an offense. Radar Speed-measuring radar in various forms has been accepted since State v.
Dantonio 18 N.J. 570 (1955), where the N.J. Supreme Court held it is not
essential that the court determine the precise speed at which the
vehicle was being operated when the alleged offense occurred, and that
the operator of the vehicle must be adjudged guilty if the evidence
established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the drive exceeded the
statutory speed limit. It is not necessary for the trial court to
make a particular finding as to the precise speed in excess of the speed
limit at which the defendant was traveling at the time of the
violation. State v. Bookbinder 82 N.J. Super. 179, 183 (App. Div.
1964). However, if the defendant is found guilty, the trial court
should determine the quantum of excess was so many miles per hour in
exercising its discretion as to the penalty to be imposed within the
statutory limitation. The precise speed a motorist was traveling thus
is material only on the question as to the penalty to be imposed, not on
the question of guilt or innocence. State v. Readding 169 N.J.
Super. 238 (Law Div. 1978), restated the general rule that in order for
the radar speedometer reading to be admissible into evidence, it should
be established that: (l) the device is scientifically reliable; (2) the
particular speedometer used in the case being tried is accurate; (3)
the operator is qualified; and (4) the device was operated properly in
the case being tried. How Radar Operates In State v.
Wojtkowiak 170 N.J. Super. 44 (Law Div. 1979), rev'd on other grounds,
174 N.J. Super. 460, Judge Wells examined in detail the K-55 Radar, and
his conclusions were incorporated by the Appellate Division. This case
should be read and reread for a detailed explanation of Radar by a
Court. The traffic radar method speed detection measurement
depends upon the Doppler effect. Simply stated a radio wave which
strikes a moving object is reflected from that object at different
frequency from that of the incident wave. A radar which transmits waves
and receives reflected waves can determine their frequency difference
and calculate the speed of the object which produced the reflective
wave. Courts have accepted as scientifically reliable MPH
Industries' K-55 Traffic Radar -- the primary system employed for the
purpose of measuring the speed of motor vehicles in New Jersey. In State v. Wojtkowiak 174 N.J. Super, 460 (App. Div. l980), the appeals
court held in all future cases the state should adduce evidence at the
municipal court level as to (1) the specific training and extent of
experience of the officer operating the radar, (2) the calibration of
the machine was checked by at least two external tuning forks both
singly and in combination, and (3) the calibration of the speedometer of
the patrol car in cases where the K-55 is operating in the moving mode. MPH Industries, manufacturer and distributor of the K-55, sets forth
the following eight points an officer must be able to testify to: - The officer must establish the time, place and location of the radar device at the time he made the reading. - The officer must be able to identify the vehicle. - The officer must identify the defendant as the operator of the vehicle - The officer must testify that he made a visual observation of the
vehicle and that it was going at an excessive rate of speed. - At the time of the radar reading the officer must testify that the vehicle was out front, by itself, nearest to the radar. - The officer must state his qualifications and training in radar use. - The officer must establish that the radar was tested for accuracy both prior and after its use. - If used in the moving mode, that at the time of the radar reading
the patrol speed indicated on the unit compared to the speedometer of
the police vehicle.
Qualified Operator? While it
appeared to the court in State v. Wojtkowiak Supra that the K-55 Radar
is an accurate and reliable tool for the measurement of speed, its
accuracy and reliability in any case are no better than the skill of the
person operating the radar. Id. at 174. The court made this emphasis
as a warning to all police departments that proper courses of
instruction be developed before the K-55 Radar device is employed in any
municipality. A calibration check is accomplished with the use of
two tuning forks and their accuracy must be the subject of the
documentary proof. Use of the K-55 does not eliminate the need for such
proof. State v. Wojtkowiak 170 N.J. Super. at 50, n.1 In State v.
Overton 135 N.J. Super 443 (Cty. Ct. 1975), four external tuning forks
were used to test the radar unit 12 times within a period of
approximately 90 minutes. The court noted there is authority to the
effect that a radar unit should be checked for accuracy each time it is
set up at a different location. MPH Industries argues this is not
necessary with moving radar. In State v. Readding 160 N.J. Super
238 (Law Div. 1978), the court reiterated the decision in State v.
Overton 135 N.J. Super. 443 (Cty. Ct. 1975), where the court found there
are three universally accepted methods of testing the accurate
operation of a radar speed measuring device: l. By use of the internal tuning fork built into the machine itself (which the court found to be improper). 2. By running the patrol car with a calibrated speedometer through the "zone of influence" of the radar machine. 3. By use of external tuning forks calibrated at set speeds and
which emit sound waves or frequencies identical to those which would
come from a vehicle traveling through the Radar bearer at the same
speed for which the tuning fork has been cut. It is also
important to recognize that in State v. Readding 160 N.J. Super. 238,
the court stated: the proper operation of the device must be proved,
usually by detailed reference by the qualified operator to the
procedures called for by the manufacturer of the device. Tuning Forks Before a radar speed reading is admissible, the state must establish
the machine was operating properly. MPH Industries' test procedure uses
two tuning forks: First, the lower-speed fork is struck on wood or
plastic and the ringing fork is held in a fixed position two to three
inches in front of the antenna with the harrow edge of the fork facing
the antenna front. This will cause the Patrol Monitor Window to display
the fork's speed. While continuing to hold this ringing fork in place,
the higher-speed fork is struck and held next to the lower-speed fork
(both forks must be vibrating while being held an equal distance from
the antenna). The target should then display the "speed" difference
between the two forks. For example, if the forks used are 35 mph and 65
mph, then the target window will display the difference, which is 30
mph. Admissibility of Evidence The state must
establish through documentary evidence the tuning fork itself was
accurate. The state must produce and be able to admit into evidence
certificates as proof of the accuracy of the devices used for testing
the proper operation of the machine. In State v. Cardone 146 N.J.
Super. 23 (App. Div. 1976), the court held that while certificates do
not have to satisfy the normal rules of evidence, an Evidence Rule 8
hearing still can be held, at which the court can determine preliminary
issues of admissibility of evidence. In such a hearing, the rules of
evidence -- except for Rule 4 or a valid claim of privilege -- do not
apply. Id. at 28. The Cardone court found that the certificates of
calibration and accuracy of the radar machine -- and for the tuning
forks used to test the machine -- were properly admitted in evidence,
even though no proof was offered to qualifying the certificates as
records made in the regular course of business. The certificates were
used solely as evidence of proper operating conditions or as a
prerequisite to the admissibility of the radar reading, and the
defendant made no effort to prove the internal calibrating device or the
tuning forks were inaccurate. In State v. Readding, supra, the Superior Court exonerated the defendant, stating: It is entirely possible for a particular RADAR device to function
properly and record accurately a 50 m.p.h. but inaccurately at higher
speeds...... Accuracy of the particular speedometer should be established by more than one test. Division of Weights and Measures should inspect Tuning Forks and Measuring Devices. The Municipal Judge’s Benchbook Speeding Monograph, in the section
on RADAR covers the issue of "Who certifies Tuning Forks." The section
reads: "The proper entity to certify tuning forks and RADAR equipment is
the Division of Weights and Measures in the Department of Law and
Public Safety." The section also states "N.J.S.A. 51: 1-84 requires that
all weights and measures used in trade shall be tested and sealed at
least once in a year." This Division was initially set up by
N.J.S.A. 51:1-42 to establish a uniform system of weights and measures
in the state. N.J.S.A. 52:17B-24 sets forth that the Division of
Weights and Measures shall be headed by the a superintendent, and
N.J.S.A. 51:1-55 provides the State Superintendent shall be the
custodian of all standards of weights and measures. A standard operating
procedure for the N.J. State Police to have tuning forks tested
annually by Weights and Measures to be certified as accurate. N.J.
State Police S.O.P. - Radar Operation April 25, 1983, page 5. In
State v. Kalafat 134 N.J. Super. 297 ( App. Div. 1975), the court held
that in a speeding case "the Superintendent of Weights and Measures has
the duty of providing a standard measure and of certifying approved
measures." Id. at 301, referring to a measured distance. The State
Department of Weights and Measures routinely calibrates tuning forks for
the State Police and many municipalities in Central New Jersey. State v. Van Syoc 235 N.J. Super. 463, 465 (Law Div. 1988), aff'd o.b.
235 N.J. Super. 409 (App. Div. 1989). In VanSyoc, defendant, an attorney
appearing pro se, failed to object to the introduction of K-55 radar
unit evidence of excessive speed until the trial had been concluded, and
he then argued that the charge against him should be dismissed because
the State had failed to demonstrate that the K-55 unit was being
operated in the manual mode, as required. VanSyoc supra, 235 N.J. Super.
at 465. Upon de novo review, Judge Steinberg found that
defendant, an experienced trial attorney, failed to object to the
introduction of the radar evidence because he perceived a tactical
advantage in withholding his objection. Ibid. The judge then held that
defendant had waived his right to object, noting that if an objection
had been interposed in a timely fashion, the State would have been in a
position to supply the missing evidence. Id. at 466. In sustaining the
conviction, the judge observed that "[t]rial errors which are induced,
encouraged or acquiesced in, or consented to by defense counsel
ordinarily are not a basis for a reversal on appeal." Id. at 465. The 'Pace' or 'Clock' Method A "pace" or "clock" is performed by an officer in a patrol car with a
calibrated speedometer for a duration of distance or time wherein the
officer accelerated to a speed equivalent to the suspect's, and then
keeps a steady distance behind the suspect's vehicle following that
vehicle. It is essential that the patrol car's speedometer be
calibrated and that the certificates of calibration both before and
after, be admitted into evidence. An officer may also sometimes
admit he was unable to get a good "clock" but may say that his vehicle
was going 70 mph, for example, and he was still losing ground to the
offender. The obvious shortcoming to "clocking" as vehicle is that the
officer's objective judgment may be brought into question, the
interference by other traffic, or other non-reasonable factors. It is
for these reasons that the "clock" method is used less frequently than
radar and laser speed detection. Laser Speed Detection The landmark case on Laser speeding tickets is In the Matter of the
Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Speed Readings Produced by the LTI
Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection System 314 N.J. Super. 233, 714
A.2d 381; (Law Div. 1998) aff’d 326 N.J. Super. 110. (App. Div 1999) Reginald Stanton, Assignment Judge wrote: …the general concept of using
lasers to calculate the speed of motor vehicles is generally accepted
within the relevant scientific community and is valid. Despite the fact
that the testing conducted was far from perfect, it was adequate, and I
am satisfied from the totality of the evidence presented to me that the
laser speed detector produces reasonably uniform and reasonably
measurements of the speed of motor vehicles under conditions likely to
be present on New Jersey highways when the detector is used for law
enforcement purposes. The error trapping programs and mechanisms built
into the detector are fully adequate to prevent unreliable speed
measurements when used for law enforcement purposes. Accordingly, under
the broad teaching of cases such as Romano V. Kimmelman, 96 N.J. 66, 474
A.2d 1 (1984), and State v. Wojtkowiak, 170 N.J. Super. 44, 405 A.2d
477 (Law Div. 1979), reversed on other grounds, 174 N.J. Super. 460, 416
A.2d 975 (App. Div. 1980), speed readings produced by the laser speed
detector should be received as evidence of the speed of motor vehicles
without the need for expert testimony in individual prosecutions arising
under the motor vehicle laws. The Law Division held admissibility of such readings shall be subject to the rules set forth below: 1. Expert testimony in support of admissibility shall not be required, except as specifically set forth below. 2. Appropriate training of the law enforcement officer operating the laser speed detector shall be shown in each case. 3. Pre-operational checking procedures recommended by the manufacturer
of the laser speed detector shall be shown to have been made in each
case. 4. Speed measurements shall be admitted whether made in
daylight or at night and within any temperature range likely to be found
in New Jersey, even if made under conditions of light or moderately
heavy rainfall, but speed measurements taken during heavy rain or while
snow is falling shall not be admitted without the support of adequate
expert testimony in the individual case. 5. Speed measurements
made at any distance up to 1,000 feet shall be admitted, but
measurements made at any distance in excess of 1,000 feet shall be
admitted only with the support of adequate expert testimony in the
individual case. This case was affirmed State v. Abeskaron (In
re Admissibility Hearing of the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection
Sys.), 326 N.J. Super. 110. November 24, 1999 Conclusion It is no defense to argue unlawful arrest, selective enforcement,
custom and usage, non-ownership of car driven, ignorance or mistake of
law, lack of precise speed proved, defective speedometer or cruise
control. Obey the law, follow speed limits and you will have no need to
know about Radar. About the Author Kenneth A. Vercammen is a trial attorney in Edison, Middlesex County, New Jersey. He has lectured on traffic and criminal law for the New
Jersey State Bar Association, New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal
Education and Middlesex County College. He often lectures for the
New Jersey State Bar Association on personal injury, criminal /
municipal court law and drunk driving. He has published 55 articles in
national and New Jersey publications on municipal court and litigation
topics. He has served as a Special Acting Prosecutor in seven different
cities and towns in New Jersey and also successfully defended hundreds
of individuals facing Municipal Court and Criminal Court charges. In his private practice, he has devoted a substantial portion of his
professional time to the preparation and trial of litigated matters. He
has appeared in Courts throughout New Jersey several times each week on
many personal injury matters, Municipal Court trials, matrimonial
hearings and contested administrative law hearings. Since 1985,
his primary concentration has been on litigation matters. Mr.
Vercammen gained other legal experiences as the Confidential Law Clerk
to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (Supreme Court),with the Delaware
County, PA District Attorney Office handling Probable Cause Hearings,
Middlesex County Probation Dept as a Probation Officer, and an Executive
Assistant to Scranton District Magistrate Thomas Hart in Scranton, PA.
US Sports Network News! Having fun and helping the peeps'. Using Sports as a platform to Inform, Educate, Inspire, While Entertaining you with the best of sports, talk, music, and fun. Be on the lookout for our frequent 'Teachable Moments' This will be a sports and media experience like you never expected. We always welcome your feedback. If you like us or even if you don't, we are always going to love you! Thanks for stopping by!