01/22/93 HARDAWAY v. STATE
[1] COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA
[2] No. A92A2233
[3] 1993.GA.186 <http://www.versuslaw.com>, 427 S.E.2d 527, 207 Ga. App. 150
[4] January 22, 1993
[5] HARDAWAY
v.
THE STATE
[6] Speeding. Troup State Court. Before Judge Little.
[7] James R. Jester, for appellant.
[8] Daniel W. Lee, Solicitor, for appellee.
[9] Blackburn, Judge. McMurray, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.
[10] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blackburn
[11] On May 17, 1992, the appellant, Roosevelt Hardaway, was charged with
speeding by a Georgia State Patrol officer when a radar device clocked the
speed of Hardaway's vehicle at 72 mph in a 55 mph zone. During a bench
trial, the state introduced into evidence, over objection, the reading of
the radar device utilized by the state patrolman. On appeal, Hardaway
contends that the admission of that radar evidence was erroneous, because
the state failed to show all the foundational requirements delineated in
Wiggins v. State, 249 Ga. 302 (290 S.E.2d 427) (1982).
[12] In Wiggins, the Supreme Court reviewed the conditions imposed by the
General Assembly upon the admissibility of evidence of speed gained through
use of a radar device. The Court concluded that "vidence of speed obtained
by a state officer by use of a radar speed detector is admissible if: (1)
the device was 'marketed under the name "Vascar," or (is) any similar device
operating under the same or similar principle which is approved by the
Department of Public Safety for the measurement of speed, including any
devices for the measurement of speed or velocity based on the principle of
radar,' (2) the state law enforcement agency 'possesses a license in
compliance with the applicable parts of 47 CFR, Part 89 of the Federal
Communications Commission rules,' (3) the device 'before being placed in
service and annually after being placed in service, is certified for
compliance by a technician possessing at least a Second Class Radiotelephone
License from the Federal Communications Commission,' (4) the device has
passed tests 'for accuracy' conducted 'in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommended procedure' by the officer or officers using the device, these
tests having been conducted 'at the beginning and ending of each duty tour'
and the results of the tests having been recorded and maintained, and (5)
the vehicle from which the device was being operated at the time of its use
was 'visible to approaching motorists for a distance of at least 500 feet.'
[Cit.] Failure of proof as to any one of those elements results in the
evidence of speed gained by use of the speed detection device being
inadmissible." Wiggins v. State, (supra) at 304-305.
[13] As noted by this court in Carver v. State, 199 Ga. App. 842 (406 S.E.2d
236) (1991), the fifth requirement listed in Wiggins no longer applies to
state law enforcement officers, pursuant to a 1989 amendment of OCGA §
40-14-7. The third requirement also was modified somewhat by the 1989
amendment of OCGA § 40-14-4, eliminating the need to show the certifying
technician's Second Class Radiotelephone License from the Federal
Communications Commission and instead requiring that the technician is
certified by the Department of Public Safety.
[14] In the instant case, the state satisfied the first, second, and fourth
requirements in Wiggins. Specifically, the state produced a certification by
the Department of Public Safety of its approval of the Decatur MVR-724 radar
device, which was the type of unit used by the state patrolman who arrested
Hardaway; the state presented an authenticated copy of the Federal
Communications Commission license issued to the Georgia Department of Public
Safety, authorizing transmission and receipt of certain radio frequencies,
including radar; and the state presented the testimony of the arresting
officer concerning his daily testing of the radar device for accuracy, and
his register of the results of that daily testing. However, it is
uncontroverted that the state did not strictly satisfy the third
requirement, i.e., showing that before the radar device was placed in
service, it was certified for compliance by a technician "possessing a
certification as required by the Department of Public Safety." OCGA §
40-14-4.
[15] The radar device had only been in service for about four months prior
to Hardaway's arrest, and the requirement of an annual certification for
compliance was inapplicable. As evidence of the required certification for
compliance prior to placement of the device in service, the state submitted
a certification from the manufacturer stating that the device had been
checked for accuracy and correctness of operation. This certification was
signed by a Vincent B. Read, but it fails to indicate his capacity with the
manufacturer or whether he possesses the requisite certification from the
Georgia Department of Public Safety.
[16] The trial court found that this manufacturer's certification
substantially complied with the third foundational requirement. This court
has held that less than "total literal compliance" with OCGA § 40-14-6
(requiring warning signs regarding the use of speed detection devices) does
not require exclusion of the evidence of speed gathered by a radar device.
Royston v. State, 166 Ga. App. 386 (304 S.E.2d 732) (1983); Ferguson v.
State, 163 Ga. App. 171 (1) (292 S.E.2d 87) (1982). However, that
requirement of warning signs is not one of the foundational requisites
delineated in Wiggins.
[17] In Wiggins, in response to a motion to suppress the radar evidence, the
state submitted a manufacturer's certification similar to the one at issue
here, as compliance with the third requirement. The Supreme Court accepted
that certification as "part of requirement no. 3," but later emphasized that
"the state's proof on the motion . . . fell far short of the proof required
on trial of the issue. Evidence of speed gained by a state patrolman by use
of a radar speed detection device is admissible only if the state introduces
evidence establishing its compliance with each of the conditions of
admissibility imposed upon such evidence by the General Assembly." Wiggins
v. State, (supra) at 305-306.
[18] In the instant case, the manufacturer's certification of accuracy and
correctness of operation satisfied part of the third foundational
requirement, but it failed to show that the compliance check was done by a
technician possessing a certification as required by the Department of
Public Safety. We do not consider insignificant the requirement of showing
that the radar equipment was checked for compliance by someone who is
properly qualified. For that reason, we find that the state failed to show
compliance with the third foundational requirement contained in Wiggins, and
the admission of the radar evidence of speed was error.
[19] The arresting officer testified that based upon his experience,
Hardaway's vehicle appeared to be exceeding the speed limit, but he was
unable to estimate the appellant's speed. Such evidence is insufficient to
support the conviction. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 S. Ct. 2781,
61 L. Ed. 2d 560) (1979). The erroneous admission of the radar evidence
requires reversal of the trial court's finding of guilty, and a new trial is
necessary.
[20] Judgment reversed.
19930122
