City of East Cleveland v. Ferell
| Decision Date | 26 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 35411,35411 |
| Citation | 168 Ohio St. 298,154 N.E.2d 630,7 O.O.2d 6 |
| Parties | , 7 O.O.2d 6 CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND, Appellee, v. FERELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
In a prosecution on a charge of speeding based on a reading taken by one police officer from a radar speed meter and radioed to another officer who thereupon arrested the offender, it is sufficient to show that the meter was properly set up and tested by a technician trained by experience to do so, and that at the time it was functioning properly; and it is not essential to the admissibility of such evidence to show, by independent expert testimony, the nature and function of or the scientific principles underlying such speed meter.
Defendant was arrested by a member of the police department of the city of East Cleveland and charged with operating a motor vehicle at a speed of 42 miles an hour in a 25-mile-an-hour zone.
On March 7, 1956, a police officer of the city of East Cleveland, using a radar speed meter, obtained a reading indicating that the defendant was operating his automobile at a speed of 42 miles an hour. By radio, the officer called the speed ahead to a second officer who, in turn, stopped the defendant and gave him a ticket for speeding. On this evidence and certain other testimony which will be discussed later, the defendant was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine of $15. The defendant offered no evidence in his own behalf.
Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, the judgment of conviction was affirmed.
The cause is before this court upon the allowance of defendant's motion to certify the record.
Woodle & Watchel, Cleveland, for appellant.
Stanley G. Webster, Director of Law, Cleveland, for appellee.
The trial court found as a matter of fact that the neighborhood where the violation occurred was a congested one, and that 42 miles an hour was an unreasonable speed. It found also that the signs erected as a warning that a speed meter was being operated were in compliance with Section 4511.091, Revised Code.
We are satisfied that the court was justified in those findings.
We are left, then, with the sole question of whether the evidence of speed is sufficient to warrant the conviction. The question may be stated thus: May a defendant be convicted of speeding solely upon evidence obtained from a radar speed meter, in the absence of expert testimony with respect to the construction of the meter and its method of operation?
Radar devices, as they are used today, are of two general types. That which is used by the military, commonly known as the 'pulse' type radar, operates by sending forth at regular intervals a beam of radio microwaves which, when they come in contact with the object to be detected, are reflected or bounced back to the receiver. The waves move in both directions at the speed of light. Thus, by computing the time interval between sending and receiving, the distance of the detected object may be determined, and, by computing distance changes over two or more time intervals, the speed of movement of the object can be learned.
The radar speed-detecting devices commonly used in traffic control operate on what is known as the Doppler effect and utilize a continuous beam of microwaves sent out at a fixed frequency. The operation depends upon the physical law that when such waves are intercepted by a moving object the frequency changes in such a ratio to the speed of the intercepted object that, by measuring the change of frequency, the speed may be determined. See The Scientific Reliability of Radar Speedmeters, by Dr. John M. Kopper, 33 North Carolina Law Review, 343.
The Doppler effect, which has been used for over a century in determining the speed of stars and for over a decade in measuring the speed of airplanes and their height above the ground, has been experienced by probably every motorist when driving past a car whose horn is being sounded. The pitch or frequency of the sound falls suddenly just as the vehicle is passed.
In operation, the radar device, which, according to 1 Underhill's Criminal Evidence (5 Ed.), 280, Section 154, is now used in 43 states, the District of Columbia and Hawaii, is set up along the side of a road or street, usually in or upon a parked police car, with the beam being played along the highway. When a moving vehicle crosses that beam, the speed of the vehicle is registered on a graph or calibrated dial on the meter device. The speed, if it is excessive, is then transmitted by radio by the officer reading the graph or dial, along with a description of the vehicle, to another officer stationed some distance farther on, and the vehicle is intercepted by this officer.
That is the procedure which resulted in the arrest in this case and which presents the question presented by this appeal.
Professor Wigmore, in The Science of Judicial Proof, at page 450, said:
Does the evidence in this case comply with these fundamental principles?
Although the question is one of first impression in Ohio, there is no lack of authority in other jurisdictions.
As might be expected, in the earlier cases there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hallmark v. Eldridge
...115 A.2d 35, 39-40 (1955); People v. Magri, 3 N.Y.2d 562, 170 N.Y.S.2d 335, 147 N.E.2d 728, 730 (1958); City of East Cleveland v. Ferell, 168 Ohio St. 298, 154 N.E.2d 630, 633 (1958). This is not yet the case, however, with biomechanical 28. See, e.g., Shaffer v. Amada America, Inc., 335 F.......
-
City of Brook Park v. Rodojev
...affirmed Rodojev's conviction. 2018-Ohio-5028, 117 N.E.3d 175 , ¶ 1, 10, 25. Citing this court's decision in E. Cleveland v. Ferell , 168 Ohio St. 298, 154 N.E.2d 630 (1958), the Eighth District determined that expert testimony establishing the reliability of the scientific principles unde......
-
City of Brookpark v. Rodojev
...¶¶ 14-27 (providing an in-depth review of the history of radar speed measuring devices in the law), citing E. Cleveland v. Ferell , 168 Ohio St. 298, 154 N.E.2d 630 (1958). As the Ferell standard evolved, Ohio courts began considering expert evidence or judicial notice of the scientific rel......
-
Parton v. Weilnau
...without the guidance of expert testimony, should not be permitted to speculate as to its significance. Cf. City of East Cleveland v. Ferell, 168 Ohio St. 298, 301, 154 N.E.2d 630. There is no evidence of anything that decedent did or failed to do either before or after the time of the colli......