People v. Conlon

Decision Date24 June 1981
Citation440 N.Y.S.2d 831,109 Misc.2d 729
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Raymond J. CONLON, Defendant.
CourtNew York District Court

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, Mineola, for the People by David Lazer and Dan O'Brien, Mineola.

Raymond J. Conlon, pro se.

Decision

JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN, Judge.

The defendant is charged with having violated Section 1180 subd. d of the Vehicle and Traffic Law in that, on November 29, 1980, it is alleged that he was traveling at a rate of 73 miles per hour on the Long Island Expressway in violation of the stated speed limit of 55 miles per hour.

The police officer testified that he was operating a police department vehicle which, among other things, contained a radar device with an antenna affixed to the rear side window of the car and the electronic console affixed to the forward part of the vehicle within his view. The officer further testified that he followed the defendant's vehicle, "pacing him", and subsequently directed the defendant to pull to the side of the road at which time the defendant was handed a simplified traffic information, charging him with speeding.

While this fact pattern does not appear unusual on its face, it raises a point of law which apparently is one of first impression in this state. The officer testified that, after getting behind the defendant's vehicle and maintaining his distance from that vehicle, he then placed the radar device in a "verify mode". The officer testified that upon his doing this, the console indicated a speed which the police officer claims was the speed of his own moving police car and this was so, notwithstanding the fact that the radar antenna pointed out of the rear side window and had within its zone of influence moving scenery and perhaps other moving vehicles.

The officer acknowledged that while he had the usual training that officers of the Nassau County Police Department are provided, as well as several years' experience in highway motor patrol, he was not a scientific expert and could not explain the technical aspects of the operation of the radar device while it was used in a moving police car.

The facts of this case present this Court with a most interesting question and one of first impression in this state: can a radar speed meter, a device traditionally used--and judicially accepted in this state as reliable if properly tested--in a stationary mode, be used to determine the speed of a moving patrol car relative to the scenery it is passing?

Radar, a device on which research was begun in the United States as early as 1922 and which was refined during World War II, was not recognized in New York State as a proper means of detecting the speed of motor vehicles until 1958, People v. Magri, 3 N.Y.2d 562, 170 N.Y.S.2d 335, 147 N.E.2d 728. Until the Magri decision, in each case of an alleged speed violation that had been detected by a radar device, it was necessary to produce expert testimony as to the nature, function and scientific principles underlying radar speed meters so that its reliability as a speed-measuring device could be determined.

In the Magri case, the patrol car was parked on the parkway's divider and the stationary radar unit measured the speed of the defendant's vehicle as it passed through the radar's beam, People v. Magri, 3 N.Y.2d 562, 170 N.Y.S.2d 335, 147 N.E.2d 728. The Magri court took judicial notice of the application of the Doppler effect as a reliable means of measuring the speed of motor vehicles passing through the beam of a stationary radar unit used in a stationary mode (emphasis supplied by this Court). Today, in light of Magri, where a speed violator has been detected by a stationary radar unit, it is only necessary for the People to establish the reliability of the particular radar unit involved. The instant case is distinguishable from Magri. This case is not one of a moving vehicle passing through a radar beam emitted from a stationary source, but rather involves a moving radar unit emitting a beam that purportedly was reflecting back from the scenery or the roadway over which the patrol car was passing.

Officer Vonnes testified that he had tested the MR-9 radar unit he was using and found it to be accurate. However, the tests were performed while the radar unit was stationary. He further testified that if the police vehicle was moving while the unit was being operated, it would have no effect on the accuracy or the reliability of the unit and there would be no additional tests to be performed on the unit if it was to be operated in a moving police car. Officer Vonnes, though, is a police officer who is qualified in the use of radar but is not an expert as to the principles underlying radar speed meters or the principles of the use of this radar unit as it moves along the roadway. There was no expert testimony as to whether the radar antenna was measuring speed by reflection of passing scenery or the roadway,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Correia
    • United States
    • New York Villiage Court
    • July 21, 1988
    ...equipment and not all radar or other speed measuring devices are, as yet, accepted as reliable. For example, in People v. Conlon, 109 Misc.2d 729, 731-32, 440 N.Y.S.2d 831, the Court rejected evidence of an MR-9 radar clocking made while the police officer was "in a moving or verifying mode......
  • State v. Calvert
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1984
    ...Note, Radar Speed Detection: Homing in on New Evidentiary Problems, 48 Fordham L.Rev. 1138 (1980). Contra People v. Conlon, 109 Misc.2d 729, 440 N.Y.S.2d 831 (Dist.Ct.1981). The Western District earlier upheld a speeding conviction based on a speed reading registered by a Speedgun Six, the ......

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