Applied Concepts Inc ACMI006 User Manual

23 

This device is approved as an intentional radiator under FCC Part 15 with FCC identifier IBQACMI006. 

No additional licensing is required to operate this device. 

Operation is subject to the following two conditions: 

(1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and 

(2) This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired 
operation. 

Legal precedent has clearly established the accuracy, and admissibility of Doppler speed radar evidence.  This section on 
case law is included so the radar operator can familiarize himself with the more important legal cases involving the use of 
Doppler speed radar, and be aware of the guidelines concerning admissibility established by these cases.  Much of the 
referenced material may be obtained at your local law library or prosecutor's office. 

Reference A -- State v. Dantonio (N.J.), 115 A2d 35, 49 ALR 2d 460   The landmark case on the use of traffic radar.  This 
case sets precedent of the following: 

1.  Judicial notice has been taken of accuracy of radar. 

2.  A few hours training is sufficient to qualify an operator. 

3.  The operator need not understand or be able to explain internal workings of the radar. 

Reference B -- Everight v. Little Rock, ARK., 326 SW2d 796:   Establishes that the court may take judicial notice of the 
reliability of radar. 

Reference C -- State v. Graham (Mo.), 322 SW2d 188:   Establishes that the court may take judicial notice of the ability of 
radar to measure speed. 

Reference D -- State v. Tomanelli (Conn.), 216 A2d 625:   Reviews the matter of judicial notice; recognizes the ability of 
Doppler radar to measure the speed of a motor vehicle; and acknowledges that the tuning fork is a reliable accuracy test. 

Reference E -- Honeycut v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 408 SW2d 421:   In this appeal, the court rejects, one by one, the 
arguments of the appellant that the evidence should not have been admitted; and again establishes the following: 
(1) A properly constructed, and operated radar device is capable of measuring accurately the speed of a motor vehicle.  
(2) The tuning fork test is an accurate method of determining accuracy of the radar.  (3) It is sufficient to qualify an 
operator that has such knowledge, and training that enables him to properly set up, test, and read the radar.  (4) The 
operator is not required to understand the scientific principles of radar, nor explain its inner workings; in addition, the 
operator may be qualified to operate the radar after receiving a few hours of instruction.  (5) The officer's estimate of 
excessive speed, from visual observation, when confirmed by the reading of the radar device and when the offending 
vehicle is out-front, by itself, nearest the unit, is sufficient to identify the vehicle, if the officer's visual observations support 
the radar evidence. 

From the case law above, a successful prosecution may depend on the officer's ability to testify to the following points: 

1.  The qualifications and training of the officer. 

2.  The time, place and location of the radar device at the time the offense occurred. 

3.  The location of the offending vehicle at the time the offense occurred. 

4.  The identification of the offending person as the operator of the vehicle. 

5.  The identification of the offending person's vehicle. 

6.  The visual observation of its apparent, excessive speed. 

7.  The vehicle was out-front, by itself, nearest the radar when the reading was obtained.