Subject: [legal_self_representation_resources] Hirschfeld Motion Beats Moving Radar Charge Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:29:11 -0700 (MST) From: BobHirschfeldJD@nolawyer.com Reply-To: legal_self_representation_resources-owner@egroups.com Friends and Family: I've waited many years for the right situation, to defeat the use of radar from a moving patrol car. I am pleased to say that that success finally occurred yesterday, 10/31/00, in traffic court in Gila Bend, Arizona, a small desert truckstop town 60 miles Southwest of Phoenix at Interstate 8 and AZ Highway 85. You may have heard of Gila Bend on national weather reports, as it, on some days, has the hottest summer temperature in the United States. I had been ticketed by the highway patrol in September, by use of a "Talon" radar speed meter in an oncoming, moving patrol car. I was not followed, and the officer had therefore no visual estimate of my speed. Radar was the entire source of the charge. Based on my years of trial experience, I prepared but withheld the below-quoted trial memorandum regarding the special steps necessary to calibrate moving radar (simultaneous use of two tuning forks, held in front of the meter). I let the officer present his testimony, in which he routinely claimed to have used two tuning forks but did not state that they were used together (to test the "subtraction" necessary to take into account the patrol vehicle's road speed.) I cross-examined him, and he was unable to state the "speeds" of the two tuning forks, nor his own vehicle's road speed at the time of the measurement. When he rested his case, I moved the court to dismiss, and handed the judge and the officer copies of my motion, including appendices A and B, the complete texts of the two New Jersey decisions I've been saving for such use for two decades. (Omitted below; may be read online on my Nolawyer site at http://www.nolawyer.com/radarwj1.txt (that's numeral one, not letter L) ) My case had been third and last on the docket. In the preceding two cases, where the same officer was complainant, the defendants tried to excuse their speed because they wanted to safely pass big semis which clog two-lane undivided Highway 85; they had both lost, of course.) The judge remarked to one of them that the "Talon Radar is very reliable". But when he was handed my brief, he fell silent. I offered to give him time, to take my 33 page document under advisement, so he could later make his ruling by mail. "No, I'll read it now," he said. Half an hour of silence followed, all recorded on the court's courtroom cassette. Then, a moment for which I've waited for twenty years. "Mr. Hirschfeld, I've heard the officer's testimony, your cross examination, and read your brief. The motion to dismiss is granted." After the hearing, we were off record. The judge thanked me for educating him, and asked for an extra copy of the brief for himself, since the original must stay in the case file. The officer congratulated me. Both the judge and officer recognized that I had expected the motion to be denied, because the quality of my work indicated an intent to take this up to a higher court, where it could become binding Arizona case law against moving radar. They were right, but there will be another day, another officer... and perhaps someone who reads this can use my work in their own moving radar defense. As I left the courtroom, the clerk, who had been sitting in the back, asked me for a copy for herself. I celebrated with a hamburger and a Root Beer at Gila Bend's ancient, orginal vintage, A & W Root Beer Stand. Read. Enjoy. Bob Hirschfeld, JD (and BSEE) Legal Educator and Strfategist http://www.nolawyer.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert A. Hirschfeld, BSEE, JD PO Box 36563 Phoenix AZ 85067 (602) 274-8276 In Propria Persona IN THE GILA BEND JUSTICE COURT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Citation No. 1506569 Plaintiff, ) (Citation dated 9/18/00) -v- ) Case No. TR00-04145 ROBERT A. HIRSCHFELD ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM RE: ) MOVING RADAR ________________________) Defendant ROBERT A. HIRSCHFELD, In Propria Persona submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, incorporated by reference, regarding the use of "Moving Radar" in the above-captioned traffic matter. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this October 31, 2000. _________________________ Robert A. Hirschfeld PO Box 36563 Phoenix AZ 85067 (602) 274 8276 In Propria Persona MEMORANDUM This Memorandum, prepared in advance, will become pertinent to a Motion to Dismiss in the event the State fails to properly introduce evidence of the calibration required when a police radar unit is used for evidentiary purposes while the police vehicle is in motion, rather than stationary. By way of introduction, Defendant Robert Hirschfeld holds a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering (BSEE, 1963) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and a Doctorate of Law (JD, 1984) from Arizona State University. He has testified, many years ago, as an expert witness on operation of radar speed meters, in a Scottsdale traffic trial before the Hon. Harry Schoolitz. To pass the requirement of scientific accuracy in the "moving radar" mode, the speed meter must be contemporaneously calibrated by use of an accurate external standard. State v. Wojtkowiak, 170 N.J. Super. 44, 405 A.2d 477 (1979) (APPENDIX A hereto); State v. Wojtkowiak, 174 N.J. Super. 460, 416 A.2d 975 (1980) (APPENDIX B). As outlined in the two still-valid appendices, radar speed meters send out a microwave signal, which bounces off the targeted vehicle, a portion of which returns to the speed meter. In non-moving radar, the frequency of the returning signal differs from the outgoing signal by a small amount, the "Doppler Shift", the same effect heard by the apparent change in pitch from a locomotive whistle when the train is approaching or receding from a stationary trackside listener. "Doppler Shift", whether it be train whistle sound or microwave radar, may be understood conceptually by visualizing oncoming wave-spacing as being closer together, because the wave fronts are coming faster (by the oncoming speed) than the original signal. Similarly, in a receding rather than approaching situation, the wave fronts are stretched further apart (by the receding speed). The amount of frequency difference, or "Doppler Shift", by the formula stated at the end of Appendix B, is determinative of the target vehicle's speed. A "mixer" in the speed meter extracts the difference in the single outgoing frequency, and the incoming reflected frequency, which difference is calculated and displayed in miles per hour (or kilometers per hour). The required external standard used in calibrating non moving radar is commonly a mechanical tuning fork of calibrated frequency. The stable mechanical velocity of the tuning fork "tines" reflect the outgoing microwave energy as a returning signal corresponding to a precise miles-per-hour display, depending upon the tuning fork frequency. An officer verifying accuracy of the meter may hold a tuning fork closely in front of the meter, and observe that the meter displays the exact speed reading predicted for the particular tuning fork. A succession of different tuning forks is commonly presented to determine accuracy, or readout error at low and high equivalent speeds. However, there is a substantial difference in the way "moving radar" must be calibrated, as explained in Appendices A and B. When the speed meter itself is in motion, within a patrol car driven down the road, it receives at least two returned signals. One bounces off the road and other stationary roadside objects, and is "doppler shifted" by an amount proportional to the road speed of the police vehicle. This "road speed" signal is present even when no target vehicle is within range. When a target vehicle is in range, either approaching or receding, it returns a second doppler-shifted signal, proportional to the target vehicle's speed relative, not to the road, but to the the speed of the moving speed meter. When used in moving radar mode, therefore, the speed meter must not only accurately detect the different doppler shift for each incoming frequency, but simultaneously perform an accurate subtraction to derive from the difference, the individual speed of the target vehicle. This, as decided in the two State v. Wojtkowiak cases, id., requires the simultaneous use of two different-frequency tuning forks, held at the same time in front of the speed meter. Failure to properly follow this "moving radar" calibration procedure destroys, as in State v. Wojtkowiak, the evidentiary value of the meter display. It is important to note that credible calibration, when presenting evidence of an oncoming target vehicle, cannot rely upon even the simultaneous use of two ordinary road speed tuning forks. For example, the officer may claim to have used a 50 mph equivalent fork and a 75 mph-equivalent tuning fork, both being ordinary road speeds in stationary radar calibration. They would, if used properly, together, produce a subtracted display speed of 75-50=25 mph. But with vehicles approaching in opposite lanes at highway speeds, each, for example, at 65 mph, the road-speed incoming doppler shift would be equivalent to that of a "65 mph calibration tuning fork". The oncoming target vehicle doppler shift would, however, be the sum of the vehicles' two speeds, or 130 mph. Unless a very high speed tuning fork (calibrated at 130 mph) is one of the two used for simultaneous verification of the meter's moving-mode subtraction accuracy, the meter itself could be wildly erroneous in that mode, because of the effect of even small percentage inaccuracy upon a very large, incoming target frequency, or inaccuracy in subtracting the police vehicle's road speed from a very large target vehicle pre-subtraction frequency, which is the sum of the two vehicles' speed. "In future cases involving the use of the K-55 Radar as the speed measuring device, the State should adduce evidence at the municipal court level as to (1) the specific training and extent of experience of the officer operating the radar , (2) the calibration of the machine in which at least two external tuning forks both singly and in combination should be employed, and (3) the calibration of the speedometer of the patrol car in cases where the K-55 is operated in the moving mode. We are also satisfied that the radar should be operated in the manual position at all times." ); State v. Wojtkowiak, 174 N.J. Super. 460, 416 A.2d 975 (1980) (APPENDIX B) (emphasis supplied) Any testimony to the effect that in absence of a target vehicle, the speed meter's (patrol vehicle's road speed) display agreed substantially with the patrol vehicle's mechanical speedometer, cannot be dispositive of meter accuracy in the oncoming-target-vehicle moving mode, because it fails to address accuracy of the subtraction process, and accuracy in measuring the combined-vehicle-speed return signal, which is typically double or more the frequency of the patrol vehicle's road speed signal. The Court may take judicial notice that, despite manufacturer's provision of moving radar modes, even on recent-vintage radar units, many states other than Arizona entirely prohibit the use of moving radar for evidentiary purposes. Further, the basic laws of physics have not changed, nor have the basic operational principles upon which models of microwave radar speed meters newer than the popular "K-55" changed since State v. Wojtkowiak ,(1980), id.. The pressing of an "internal calibration button" tests only electronic function, but cannot replace the requirement of actual use of physical tuning forks held in front of the unit. For the foregoing reasons, in the event this memorandum is presented to the court after the testifying officer fails to demonstrate adequate moving-radar calibration, the Court should Dismiss the above captioned traffic charge. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this October 31, 2000. _________________________ Robert A. Hirschfeld, BSEE, JD PO Box 36563, Phoenix AZ 85067 (602) 274 8276 In Propria Persona