People v. MacLaird
| Decision Date | 16 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 7259 |
| Citation | 71 Cal.Rptr. 191,264 Cal.App.2d 972 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Peter Jackson MacLAIRD, Defendant and Respondent. |
Kiernan Hyland, Dist. Atty., Harold G. Spaulding, Deputy Dist. Atty., Santa Rosa, for appellant.
Robert Y. Bell, James A. Kealey, Vartkes Yeghiayan, California Rural Legal Assistance, Santa Rosa, for respondent.
The People of the State of California appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court for the Central Judicial District, County of Sonoma, State of California, dismissing a complaint issued on a traffic citation for violation of section 22350 of the California Vehicle Code.
This judgment was reversed by the Appellate Department of the Superior Court for Sonoma County. We accepted certification under rules 62 and 63 of the California Rules of Court.
The agreed statement on this appeal shows that the defendant was cited for violation of section 22350 of the California Vehicle Code. The complaint issued thereon charged that defendant exceeded the prima facie speed limit as established by posted speed limit signs and that said violation was determined by and through the use of a radar device.
At the trial, the prosecuting attorney advised the court that this was a 'radar' case and that he intended to prove the installation, operation and accuracy of the radar machine through the testimony of the arresting officer. The court then inquired whether the People proposed to present an expert witness to establish the validity and accuracy of radar devices. The prosecuting attorney replied that they would not produce such a witness, whereupon the court, upon its own motion, dismissed the action, stating that the court would refuse to take judicial notice of the use, validity and accuracy of radar devices.
The sole issue presented is whether the trial court erred in refusing to take judicial notice of the use, validity and accuracy of radar devices.
In weighing whether the trial court committed error in refusing to take judicial notice of the 'use, validity and accuracy of radar devices,' we interpret this to mean taking judicial notice of the principle of radar as an electronic device which scientifically and accurately measures speed of a moving object. This is altogether different from judicially noticing the accuracy and operating efficiency of the particular radar device used to measure the speed of the defendant's vehicle in the case before the court.
It is common and general knowledge that radar was developed in England in the late 1930's. In its most elementary conception, it consists of a microwave transmitter sending out a directional signal which is reflected back to the transmission site by an object in its path. The reflected signal is received back by an antenna into a receiving unit in the radar, and basically the time between transmission and reception is measured electronically. Based upon the known speed of the signal, the time and speed factors provide the basis for an exact calculation of the distance between the radar and the reflecting object.
Radar has developed many uses since its introduction in the 1930's, not the least of which is the highly simple, precise and accurate radar device for measuring the speed of a moving vehicle.
Although the legal issue presented to this court stands as a case of first impression in California, the precise question has been litigated in a number of other jurisdictions. While there is some conflict of authority on whether the principle of radar should be judicially noticed, the better-reasoned cases hold that it should.
In June 1955, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in State v. Dantonio, 18 N.J. 570, at page 578, 115 A.2d 35, at pages 39--40, 49 A.L.R.2d 460, stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. King
...take judicial notice of this fact and it is not necessary to call an expert witness to validate this fact (Radar). (People v. MacLaird, 264 A.C.A. 1110, 71 Cal.Rptr. 191.) ...
-
State v. Hanson
...N.Y.S.2d 335, 337, 147 N.E.2d 728 (1958).2 Ark. Everight v. Little Rock, 230 Ark. 695, 326 S.W.2d 796 (1959); Cal. People v. MacLaird, 264 Cal.App.2d 972, 71 Cal.Rptr. 191 (1968); Conn. State v. Tomanelli, 153 Conn. 365, 216 A.2d 625 (1966); Ill. People v. Abdallah, 82 Ill.App.2d 312, 226 N......
-
State v. Stoa
...of radar speedmeters as recorders of speed. See State v. Gerdes, 291 Minn. 353, 191 N.W.2d 428 (1971); People v. MacLaird, 264 Cal. App.2d 972, 71 Cal.Rptr. 191 (1968); State v. Tomanelli, 153 Conn. 365, 216 A.2d 625 (1966); and Annotation, Proof, by Radar or Other Mechanical or Electronic ......
-
State v. Assaye
...of radar speedmeters as recorders of speed. See State v. Gerdes, 291 Minn. 353, 191 N.W.2d 428 (1971); People v. MacLaird, 264 Cal. App.2d 972, 71 Cal.Rptr. 191 (1968); State v. Tomanelli, 153 Conn. 365, 216 A.2d 625 (1966); and Annotation, Proof, by Radar or Other Mechanical or Electronic ......