Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND RELEASED
NOTICE
APRIL 2, 1996
A party may file with the Supreme Court                                                This opinion is subject to further editing.
a petition to review an adverse decision                                               If  published,  the  official  version  will
by the Court of Appeals.  See § 808.10 and                                             appear  in  the  bound  volume  of  the
RULE 809.62(1), STATS.                                                                 Official Reports.
No. 95-3339
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                     IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
COUNTY OF EAU CLAIRE,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
FRITZ ALBERT MEILI,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL  from  a  judgment  of  the  circuit  court  for  Eau  Claire
County:  GREGORY A. PETERSON, Judge.  Affirmed.
CANE, P.J.      Fritz Meili appeals his conviction for operating a
vehicle at forty-eight miles per hour on a road with a posted speed limit of
thirty-five miles per hour, a county forfeiture.  The arresting officer used a radar
device to measure Meili's speed and testified that he had used a tuning fork to
test the radar unit's accuracy.   However, he had no idea if the tuning fork used
for the testing was itself accurate.    Meili's sole contention on appeal is that
because there was no showing that the tuning fork used to test the radar unit's
accuracy was itself accurate and reliable, it was error to admit the radar's
evidence  of  speeding.    This  court  rejects  this  contention  and  affirms  the
conviction.




No.   95-3339
The supreme court in State v. Hanson, 85 Wis.2d 233, 245, 270
N.W.2d 212, 218-19 (1978), held that a rebuttable presumption of the accuracy of
moving  radar,  capable  of  supporting  a  speeding  conviction,  exists  upon
testimony by a competent operating police officer as follows:
1.                                                                                 The  officer  operating  the  device  has  adequate
training and experience in its operation.
2.                                                                                 That  the  radar  device  was  in  proper  working
condition  at  the  time  of  the  arrest.    This  will  be
established  by  proof  that  suggested  methods  of
testing  the proper functioning  of  the  device  were
followed.
3.                                                                                 That the device was used in an area where road
conditions  are  such  that  there  is  a  minimum
possibility of distortion.
4.                                                                                 That  the  input  speed  of  the  patrol  car  must  be
verified, this being especially important where there
is  a  reasonable  dispute  that  road  conditions  may
have  distorted  the  accuracy  of  the  reading                                   (i.e.,
presence of large trucks, congested traffic and the
roadside being heavily covered with trees and signs.)
5.                                                                                 That the speedmeter should be expertly tested within
a reasonable proximity following the arrest and that
such testing be done by means which do not rely on
the radar device's own internal calibrations.
In State v. Kramer, 99 Wis.2d 700, 703-04, 299 N.W.2d 882, 884
(1981), the supreme court rejected an argument identical to Meile's argument
when it specifically held that:
To require proof of accuracy of a tuning fork by still some other
testing device would create a sequence of tests to
verify tests which raises the same proof problem at
each level.   There must be a point in the sequence at
which the accuracy of a test device is accepted.   The
-2-




No.   95-3339
presumption  of  accuracy  which  Hanson  accords
radar speed detection devices does not require proof
of the accuracy of a tuning fork used to test them.
Id. at 706, 299 N.W.2d at 885-86.
Here, Meili's only contention is that because the arresting officer
had no idea when or even if the tuning forks had been recently tested for
accuracy,  the  radar  evidence  is  inadmissible.    Because  there  is  no  such
requirement for proof of testing the tuning fork's accuracy, the contention is
rejected and the conviction is therefore affirmed.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published.  RULE 809.23(1)(b)4, STATS.
-3-

Download 10051.pdf

Wisconsin Law