People v. Offermann
| Decision Date | 21 October 1953 |
| Citation | 204 Misc. 769 |
| Parties | The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>Anna K. Offermann, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Alexander C. Cordes and Francis J. Offerman for appellant.
Fred C. Maloney, Corporation Counsel (Clarence Wertheimer of counsel), for respondent.
This is an appeal, pursuant to the provisions of section 76 of the Buffalo City Court Act, from a judgment rendered by the Hon. MICHAEL E. ZIMMER, a Judge of the City Court of Buffalo, convicting Anna K. Offermann, appellant herein, of a violation of subdivision 3 of section 14 of chapter LX of the ordinances of the City of Buffalo and fining her $25. The offense charged is that the defendant-appellant drove her automobile at a rate of speed in the city of Buffalo greater than that permitted by the ordinances.
Upon arraignment, the defendant appeared by counsel and a plea of not guilty was entered on her behalf. The People attempted to prove her guilt by the testimony of three members of the Buffalo police department. The defendant rested upon the conclusion of the People's case and counsel for defendant moved for dismissal and the discharge of the defendant upon the ground that there was no competent evidence of a violation of the ordinance charged in the summons. The motion was denied and the defendant found guilty. A trial was held without a jury.
The only question involved in this appeal is whether the defendant was convicted upon competent evidence.
This is a case of first impression in an appellate court of this State, insofar as I can determine from the reported cases. This appeal concerns the admissibility in evidence of the reading of an electrical device purporting to record the speed of the defendant's automobile. Similar devices are recent additions to the armory of weapons now widely used by law enforcing agencies in an effort to control high speeds on our highways and thus reduce the staggering loss of life.
From the record before me, it appears that the City of Buffalo has equipped one of the cars used by its police department with one of these devices. The use of the device is as follows: the car so equipped, hereafter called the "radar car" is placed along the edge of the roadway. Another police car is placed a distance of one quarter of a mile beyond the radar car facing in the same direction. This latter car, hereafter called the "pickup car", is equipped with a three-way radio, as is the radar car, permitting communication between these two cars. There are two police officers in each car. The electrical device in the radar car consists of three parts: a transmitter, a receiver and a recording dial. The transmitter in some manner casts out a beam of electrical energy diagonally to the rear and side of the radar car. When a car approaching the radar car from the rear passes through this beam, a part of the energy of the beam is reflected back from the passing car to the receiver in the radar car, which energy in turn actuates a needle on the dial and, as claimed by the People, accurately records the speed of the passing car. This reading is observed by one of the officers in the radar car who communicates this reading and a description of the passing car to the pickup car by radio. An officer in the pickup car then stops the motorist, hands him a summons with the speed noted, charging him with violating section 14 of chapter LX of the ordinances of the City of Buffalo.
The ultimate fact to be proved herein is the speed of the defendant. It is charged here that this defendant was traveling forty-one miles an hour in a thirty mile-an-hour zone. In an effort to prove this fact, the People relied entirely on the reading of the dial. If this defendant were to be found guilty, the burden rested upon the People to establish the accuracy of this reading. In an effort to do so, officer Chaplin testified that several times earlier that day the pickup car had been driven through the beam cast out by the radar car. At these times he had reported by radio to officer Kelly in the radar car the speed of the pickup car as recorded by the speedometer of the pickup car. He also testified over objection that the speed of the pickup car agreed with the reading on the dial of the radar car. Then officer Kelly testified that he observed the dial on the radar car at these times and found in each instance that the reading on the dial agreed with the reading of the speedometer of the pickup car as reported to him by officer Chaplin. Counsel for defendant objected to this testimony on the ground that it was hearsay, arguing that officer Kelly could not know the reading on the speedometer of the pickup car except as told to him by officer Chaplin, and that officer Chaplin could not know the reading on the dial of the radar car except as told to him by officer Kelly. Although the People claim that a record was made at the time of these transactions, no such record was offered in evidence as provided by section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act. It seems clear that when officer Kelly testified that the reading on the dial in the radar car corresponded to the reading of the speedometer in the pickup car he was relying upon what officer Chaplin had told him over the radio, and when officer Chaplin testified that the reading on the dial in the radar car corresponded with the reading on the speedometer of the pickup car, he was relying on what officer Kelly told him over the radio. Thus, the testimony of each as to the reading on the instrument of the car of the other was hearsay. As above, counsel for defendant objected to this testimony on this ground but his objection was overruled when the testimony was received. The trial court erred in receiving this testimony over objection.
The People, in a further effort to establish the accuracy of the reading on the dial of the radar car offered the testimony of the third police officer, Joel Crandall. This witness is the acting chief of the radio division of the Buffalo police department. Since 1910 he has been concerned with radio and since 1932, with the Buffalo police department. He has had no experience with radar, according to his testimony, except to install the instruments in the police car under the direction of his superior. He has had no formal training in radio, engineering, or electronics. The People attempted to qualify this witness as an expert. The trial court, under its own examination, stated repeatedly that the witness was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Graham
...the testimony of the officers in regard to the tests was hearsay, is based upon an interpretation of the holding in People v. Offermann, 204 Misc. 769, 125 N.Y.S.2d 179, which we reject. In the case before us both officers testified as to what their respective meters showed during the run-t......
-
State v. Dantonio
...presented by the use of radar speedmeters. See State v. Moffitt, Del.Super., 100 A.2d 778 (Del.Super.Ct.1953); People v. Offermann, 204 Misc. 769, 125 N.Y.S.2d 179 (Sup.Ct.1953); People of City of Rochester v. Torpey, 204 Misc. 1023, 128 N.Y.S.2d 864 (Cty.Ct.1953); People v. Katz, 205 Misc.......
-
People v. Koenig
...an adjournment for the reasons stated and under the circumstances disclosed were an improvident abuse of discretion (People v. Offermann, 204 Misc. 769, 125 N.Y.S.2d 179; People v. O'Dell, 266 App.Div. 822, 41 N.Y.S.2d 774; People v. Hernandez, 15 A .D.2d 56, 222 N.Y.S.2d As to appellant Ke......
-
People v. Seger
...to the Breathalyzer as we were with respect to radar as a speed measuring device at the time of the decision in People v. Offermann, 204 Misc. 769, 125 N.Y.S.2d 179. As Justice Ward said in People v. Offermann, supra (pp. 774--775, 125 N.Y.S.2d p. 185), science 'must not bring push-button j......