State v. Simaitis., 10 TRD 03754.

Citation951 N.E.2d 833,164 Ohio Misc.2d 32
Decision Date20 October 2010
Docket NumberNo. 10 TRD 03754.,10 TRD 03754.
PartiesThe STATE of Ohio,v.SIMAITIS.
CourtCourt of Common Pleas of Ohio

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Stanley E. Flegm, Crawford County Prosecuting Attorney and Jack Felgenhauer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for plaintiff the state of Ohio.SEAN E. LEUTHOLD, Judge.

[Ohio Misc.2d 33] {¶ 1} This matter came before the court for a bench trial on October 20, 2010. Present on behalf of the state of Ohio was Assistant Prosecutor Jack Felgenhauer, Trooper Robert Jones, and expert Richard McCreary. The defendant, Evaldas Simaitis, was present but not represented by counsel.

{¶ 2} The court finds as follows:

{¶ 3} At approximately 4:00 p.m. on September 14, 2010, Trooper Robert Jones of the State Highway Patrol observed the defendant's tractor trailer westbound on U.S. 30 at mile post 11, in Crawford County, Ohio, and made a visual estimation that defendant was traveling in excess of the posted prima facie speed limit of 55 m.p.h. This initial estimate was then verified through the use of Jones's Python II radar speed-detection device. Jones checked defendant's speed at 65 m.p.h.

{¶ 4} Jones testified that he had received six months of training at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy. This training included one week of training on speed-detection devices and visual estimation. Jones testified that he received training on how to operate and verify the proper working condition of the Python II Radar. Jones testified that in addition to the one-week class, he received 60 days of field training with a senior officer to ensure that he was capable of using the radar properly. Jones testified that he received certification for the operation of the Python II Radar and that his certification is up to date.

{¶ 5} Jones testified that at the beginning of his shift, he made sure that the Python II Radar in his patrol car was working properly. He testified that first he powered on the unit and allowed the unit to perform its internal checks, all of which were operating properly. He then placed the unit into stationary mode and took out the 80–m.p.h and 35–m.p.h. tuning forks. First, he struck the 35–m.p.h. tuning fork on a nonmetallic object and held it in front of the antenna, which resulted in a reading of 35 m.p.h in the target window. Second, he struck the 80–m.p.h. tuning fork on a nonmetallic object and held it in front of the antenna, which resulted in a 80–m.p.h reading in the target window. Next, he placed the unit into moving mode and struck both tuning forks on a nonmetallic object. As a result, he received a patrol-car speed reading of 35 m.p.h and a target speed reading of 45 m.p.h. Both tests that Jones performed demonstrated [Ohio Misc.2d 34] that the unit was in proper working condition. After performing all the checks, Jones testified that he turned the unit off and it was ready for service.

{¶ 6} Jones testified that the tractor trailer that defendant was operating was a commercial unit and weighed well in excess of 8,000 pounds. In fact, Jones testified that he had experience with vehicles of this nature and that when empty, the vehicle weighed in excess of 8,000 pounds.

{¶ 7} The court heard the testimony of Richard McCreary of Ohio Calibration Laboratories, who was duly qualified as an expert witness in the operation of the K–55, the Python, the Python II, and the Python III radar speed detectors.

{¶ 8} McCreary testified that the K–55, Python I, Python II, and Python III operated on the scientific Doppler shift principle and that the only difference between the Python I, II, and III was the digital signal processor. McCreary testified that the manufacturer of the units manufactured them to become obsolete after a period of time, similar to the home-computer industry. He testified that the digital signal processors are improved and a new and improved unit is placed into the market.

{¶ 9} McCreary testified that in addition to the visual reading on the radar unit, the unit emits an audio tone. He testified that the tone frequency is directly proportional to the velocity of the target vehicle. The higher the speed of the target vehicle, the higher the tone. He further testified that the Python radars process only the strongest reflected signal, which is normally the closest vehicle. McCreary testified that the audio tone will enable the officer to verify that the proper vehicle was checked, because as the checked vehicle passes the patrol car, the tone will go down and eventually disappear.

{¶ 10} McCreary testified...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT