For information on Missouri DWI click here

For indepth information about Missouri DWI please visit www.missouridwihelp.com or click here.

Missouri speeding tickets seem to be as unavoidable as death and taxes. Everyone eventually seems to get a Missouri speeding ticket once in their life. Many people choose to pay these tickets and take the points on their license rather then contact an attorney because they believe that hiring a Missouri speeding ticket attorney will be too expensive and Missouri speeding tickets are unfixable anyway.  

This is simply not the case. Our law firm’s prices are very reasonable for Missouri traffic tickets and these cases can be won.

If your Traffic Ticket is in Mid-Missouri, our office recommends Attorney Thomas Ellis of Columbia Missouri. His website can be reached at www.thomasellislaw.com

To win a Missouri speeding ticket the attorney must attack the evidentiary foundation of the radar. If the foundation for the radar can be beaten then the evidence cannot come in.

In “State of Missouri v. Graham”, the Missouri Appeals Court for the Southern District established that radar is a scientific principle that is sufficiently established to be accepted by the courts; and set out the foundation requirements for the use for radar. See. State of Missouri v. Graham, 322 S.W.2d 188 (Mo.App.1959)
In Graham, the defendant was convicted of driving and automobile transport upon a highway at a speed in excess of 50 miles per hour.
Radar, as a device for detecting speed, is a scientific principle so soundly established as to be accepted by the courts.Id. at 195. “The radar speedmeter is a device which, within a reasonable engineering tolerance, and when properly functioning and properly operated, accurately measures speed in terms of miles per hour.” Id.
The Court first found that the troopers were qualified to use the device because “the intelligent use of this device does not require that the operator understand all of the intricate steps in its manufacture or its process of operation.” Id.at 196. Furthermore, the Trooper “testified that he had attended a short school of instruction.” Id.
The Court next found that the machine was properly tested and functional at the time of the occurrence. Id.at 197. “All the authorities seem to agree that the character of the device is such that, to be acceptable as correctly indicating speed, it must be carefully tested and found to be correct at or near the time of its use in traffic regulation. Id. In this case the radar was tested shortly before the defendant’s arrest and at the point where the arrest occurred by another patrolman driving thru the set up radar and by later checking with tuning forks. Id. “It is the obligation of the proponent who uses it to establish prima facie that the machine was properly functioning, we think the dual tests made almost immediately before the occasion establish the fact.” Id.
Later the Missouri Supreme Court held that in a prosecution for speeding; testimony of an experienced police officer concerning certification of the speed gun used, his testing of the unit with tuning forks, internal calibration, and against the certified speedometer of the patrol car and the officer’s training to determine the accuracy of the unit, including recognition and correction for the spurious readings, was a sufficient foundation for the admission of the results of the gun even without an on-site test. See. State v. Calvert, 682 S.W.2d 474, 478 (Mo. 1984).
Lastly it must be noted that the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District notes a distinction between stationary radar and moving radar. See. State v. Rawlins, 932 S.W.2d 449, 452 (Mo.App.1996) The Court in Rawlins cite  “…City of St. Louis v. Boecker, 370 S.W.2d 731, 737 (Mo.App.1967); State v. Weatherwax, 635 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Mo.App.1982), and City of Jackson v. Langford, 648 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Mo.App.1983), which hold that a speeding conviction cannot be based upon a radar device reading without proof that the device was tested and found to be functioning properly at the site of the alleged violation and reasonably close to the time it occurred.” However, the Court in Rawlins differentiates these cases with Calver, and says that a site test is of questionable utility in the case of a moving radar device, and therefore when moving radar is at issue, the controlling principle is that the State must prove the operational accuracy of the radar device at the time, not site, of its use in the stop at issue. Rawlins, 932 S.W.2d 451-452.  “With respect to the requirement that the radar device be shown to be operating accurately at the time of its use relative to the violation, the Calvert court looked to the facts of the case.” Id.at 452.
In City of St. Louis v. Martin, the Court held that where the city sought to base a speeding conviction on evidence obtained by the use of a “VASCAR” unit; a device which derives the average speed of vehicle from the measurement of time it took the vehicle to travel a certain distance, the city still had the burden to establish that the device was accurate. Martin, 548 S.W.2d 622, 622-623 (Mo.App.1977). “... [T]he value of the VASCAR evidence depends upon the accuracy of the measuring device against which it is checked, and the particular measuring device must be shown to be accurate.” Id.at
623.
Testing the radar with tuning forks calibrated to produce speed readings of 30 M.P.H. and 70 M.P.H. before starting his shift at 7:00 a.m. and again “right after” the defendant’s arrest satisfied the State’s burden of proving the radar unit was checked for accuracy reasonably close to the time of its use. State v. Moore, 700 S.W.2d 880, 881 (Mo.App.1985).
Testing the tuning forks to check the accuracy of the forks in question eight months prior to defendant’s arrest was also sufficient to insure their accuracy. Id. at 882. “We recognize the scientific evidence supporting defendant’s conviction is not as conclusive as it could have been.” Id.

Conclusion
Stationary Radar must be check for accuracy at the site, and reasonably close in time to the arrest. State v. Weatherwax, 635 S.W.2d 34, 35-36 (Mo.App.1982). In cases that deal with moving radar the State must prove the operational accuracy of the radar device at the time, not site, of its use in the stop at issue. Rawlins, 932 S.W.2d 451-452. Lastly the value of any speed testing device evidence “depends upon the accuracy of the measuring device against which it is checked, and the particular measuring device must be shown to be accurate.” Martin, 548 S.W.2d 622, 622-623 (Mo.App.1977).

For information on Missouri DWI please click here

To visit Missouri DWI Help click here.

Click to learn more about Kansas City speeding tickets.

Click to visit our Missouri Attorney Profiles.

Click to read our legal disclaimer.

For Information on Estate Planning click here.

Click to return to our home page.

The Paulus Law Firm practices areas Parkville Missouri Attorney, Gladstone Missouri Attorney, Kearney Missouri Attorney, Excelsior Springs Missouri Attorney, Mosby Missouri Attorney, Prathersville Missouri Attorney, Missouri City Missouri Attorney, Liberty Missour Attorneyi, Glenaire Missouri Attorney, Pleasant Valley Missouri Attorney, Claycomo Missouri Attorney, Weatherby Lake Missouri Attorney, Platte Woods Missouri Attorney, Lake Waukomis Missouri Attorney, Northmoor Missouri Attorney, Riverside Missouri Attorney, North Kansas City Missouri Attorney, Platte City MissouriAttorney, Weston Missouri Attorney, Independence Missouri Attorney, Blue Springs Missouri Attorney, Grain Valley Missouri Attorney, Raytown Missouri Attorney, Lees Summit Missouri Attorney, Grandview Missouri Attorney, Greenwood Missouri Attorney, Pleasant Hill Missouri Attorney, Raymore Missouri Attorney, Belton Missouri Attorney, Peculiar Missouri Attorney, Columbia Missouri Attorney, Booneville Missouri Attorney, Jackson County Missouri Attorney, Clay County Missouri Attorney, Cass County Missouri Attorney, Boone County Missouri Attorney, Clinton County Missouri Attorney, Platte County Missouri Attorney, Kansas City Metro Attorney.