People v. Lynch
| Decision Date | 05 November 1969 |
| Citation | 304 N.Y.S.2d 985,61 Misc.2d 117 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent v. Jean F. LYNCH, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
This is an appeal of a speeding conviction in the Court of Special Sessions of the Village of Cayuga Heights whereby defendant was found guilty of violating Section 1180(d) of the Vehicle & Traffic Law in that she was operating her automobile at a rate of 50 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. zone.
Defendant's affidavit of appeal contends various errors entitling her to a reversal which are all mainly concerned with the one principal point that it was not established that the radar unit was operating accurately since no vehicle test runs were made after the radar equipment was set up.
The return shows that the defendant was operating her automobile in a southerly direction on Triphammer Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights in a 30 m.p.h. zone between the Triphammer Shopping Center and the Corners Community Center and that an officer attached to the police division of the said Village was parked on the west side of the road in a police vehicle which contained radar equipment. The officer testified that his patrol car was facing south and he first observed the defendant's vehicle in his rear view mirror. Upon the radar meter's needle holding at 50 m.p.h. and the buzzer sounding he gave immediate pursuit right after the defendant's vehicle passed the patrol car and apprehended her within a distance of approximately one city block.
The proof showed that the radar equipment used consisted of a main box or meter located on the front seat and an antenna clamped outside on the left rear window of the police vehicle. The officer testified as to his training in the operation of the radar unit and estimated he had operated it between 130 and 140 hours. He testified that after warming the radar up he tested it in three ways. The first test was by means of an internal switch, the second by means of a 50 m.p.h. turning fork and the third by means of a 30 m.p.h. tuning fork. The testimony shows that there were no other tests made, no test vehicle was used to pass through the radar's field of influence (set at 45 m.p.h. or faster for more than three seconds), and there was no opinion testimony or other independent testimony of the speed of the defendant.
Convictions for speeding have many times been upheld based upon evidence of tested radar equipment. (People v. Magri, 3 N.Y.2d 562, 170 N.Y.S.2d 335, 147 N.E.2d 728; People v. Dusing, 5 N.Y.2d 126, 181 N.Y.S.2d 493, 155 N.E.2d 393). However, all the cases that have come to the attention of this court have required that some independent test as to the accuracy of the radar equipment must be proven such as driving a police test car through the radar zone, or if only a tuning fork test was made, that there must be at minimum independent opinion testimony of the speed of the defendant or some other independent testimony corroborating the speed as determined by the radar. The accuracy of the radar unit in order for such radar unit to be considered tested and '* * * for it to alone support a conviction for speeding beyond a reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Whynaught
...People v. Abdallah, supra; the use of an internal checking mechanism combined with two tuning fork tests, People v. Lynch, 61 Misc.2d 117, 304 N.Y.S.2d 985 (N.Y.County Ct.1969); and a single tuning fork test coupled with comparison to a speedometer, State v. Shimon, 243 N.W.2d 571 (Iowa, 19......
-
People v. Correia
...police vehicle or the testing officer's own vehicle. Maniscalco, supra, 94 Misc.2d at 916, 405 N.Y.S.2d 888; People v. Lynch, 61 Misc.2d 117, 119, 304 N.Y.S.2d 985; People v. Stephens, 52 Misc.2d 1070, 1072, 277 N.Y.S.2d 567. See also: Mtr. of Lovenheim v. Foschio, 93 A.D.2d 986, 987, 461 N......
-
Myatt v. Com.
...radar was working properly, there was sufficient proof of the accuracy of the unit to find the defendant guilty); People v. Lynch, 61 Misc.2d 117, 304 N.Y.S.2d 985 (1969) (holding that the accuracy of a radar unit was established by internal test calibration in the machine itself, and by me......
-
State v. Primm
...799; State v. McDonough, 302 Minn. 468, 470, 225 N.W.2d 259 (1975); Kansas City v. Hill, 442 S.W.2d at 92; People v. Lynch, 61 Misc.2d 117, 120, 304 N.Y.S.2d 985 (1969). We are of the opinion there was sufficient evidence of the radar unit's accuracy at the time of the alleged offense to es......