Ferguson v. State, A03A0824.
| Decision Date | 03 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. A03A0824.,A03A0824. |
| Citation | 587 S.E.2d 195,263 Ga. App. 40 |
| Parties | FERGUSON v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Tara D. Dickerson, Kevin J. Jones, Atlanta, for appellant.
Joseph J. Drolet, Solicitor-General, Richard R. Burris, III, Asst. Solicitor-General, for appellee.
Harvey Ferguson was found guilty of speeding and now appeals, bringing several enumerations of error. After reviewing the record, we conclude there was no reversible error, and affirm.
Ferguson was charged with driving 50 mph in a 35-mph zone and pled not guilty. He represented himself at a bench trial in city court. The evidence at trial was that on the day in question, the arresting City of Atlanta police officer was stationed at an approved location for operating stationary speed detection devices. The officer said that he was using a ProLaser II, he was visible at a distance of more than 500 feet, and the street had a grade of less than seven percent. The officer stated that before he activated the radar, he visually estimated Ferguson's speed at approximately 50 mph. The officer testified that the road was level at the point where the radar was used to measure Ferguson's speed.
1. In his first enumeration of error, Ferguson claims the court erred when it found the grade of the road at issue to be below seven percent. OCGA § 40-14-9 provides that "[n]o speed detection device shall be employed by county, municipal, or campus law enforcement officers on any portion of any highway which has a grade in excess of 7 percent." The burden of proof on this issue is on the State. Carver v. State, 199 Ga.App. 842, 406 S.E.2d 236 (1991).
Ferguson testified that he measured the angle of the street in the area where he was stopped with a bubble protractor. He stated that the protractor showed a 10 degree inclination, which is a 17.6 percent grade.
But, even if Ferguson were able to show that measuring a few inches of the road in question is an acceptable method to determine grade, the officer's unrebutted testimony was that the area where he used the radar was level. Moreover, assuming without deciding that any of Ferguson's arguments concerning the use of the speed detection device have any merit, the admission of the radar results in this case is cumulative of the officer's visual estimation of Ferguson's speed and is sufficient to support the conviction for speeding. Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50, 51-52, 567 S.E.2d 706 (2002). Accordingly, the court could find that Ferguson was speeding beyond a reasonable doubt. See also Stone v. State, 257 Ga.App. 492, 493, 571 S.E.2d 488 (2002) ().
2. Next, Ferguson claims the court erred in admitting an uncertified copy of a municipal ordinance. The ordinance in question gave a list of locations approved by the Department of Public Safety for the use of speed detection devices. Ferguson did not object to the admission of this evidence at trial, and therefore this enumeration provides nothing for our review. See, e.g., Salazar, supra at 53, 567 S.E.2d 706.
3. Ferguson also claims there was no evidence showing that the public was put on notice that speed detection devices were in use near that location.
OCGA § 40-14-6(a) provides:
Each county, municipality, college, and university using speed detection devices shall erect signs on every highway which comprises a part of the state highway system at that point on the highway which intersects the corporate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Sowards
...margin of error). 10. Other state courts have also expressed similar views in the conviction context. See e.g., Ferguson v. State, 263 Ga.App. 40, 587 S.E.2d 195, 196 (2003) (holding that an officer's visual estimation of a vehicle's speed is sufficient to support a conviction for speeding)......
-
Frasard v. State
...compliance with this statute does not mandate that evidence obtained by the speed detection device be excluded. Ferguson v. State, 263 Ga.App. 40, 41(3), 587 S.E.2d 195 (2003); Royston v. State, 166 Ga.App. 386, 304 S.E.2d 732 (1983); Ferguson v. State, 163 Ga.App. 171, 172(1), 292 S.E.2d 8......
-
State v. Estes
...Appeals held, without analysis of case specifics, that an officer's visual estimate of speed is sufficient proof. Ferguson v. State, 263 Ga.App. 40, 587 S.E.2d 195, 196 (2003). Three of the twelve appellate districts of the Ohio Court of Appeals are of the view that an officer's estimate of......
-
In re BDS, A04A1492.
...the prosecution of a violation of any municipal ordinance, county ordinance, or state law regulating speed." 5. Ferguson v. State, 263 Ga.App. 40, 41(1), 587 S.E.2d 195 (2003), citing Salazar v. State, 256 Ga.App. 50, 51-52, 567 S.E.2d 706 (2002). Accord Stone, 6. Odum v. State, 255 Ga.App.......