As for the CFR cite, go to http://www.law.cornell.edu and go to the federal regulations tab. the citation means title 23 of the code of federal regulations, part 630. You don't specify what section, so you may have some downloading and reading to do.
Here are your cases:
a) Honneycutt v. Kentucky, 1996, 408 SW 2d 421-this case deals with the necessity of officers understanding the physics involved with speed enforcement systems and the necessity of officer training.
b) Connecticut v. Tomanelli, 216 A2d, 625, 1996,-necessity of speed measurement systems daily calibration
c) New York v. Persons, 60 misc.2d 803, 303 N.Y.S 2d 728, 1969-admissibility of VASCAR speed readings
d) New York v. Rothstein, N.Y., 1 misc, 2d 576, 152, N.Y.S. 2d 757-necessity of calibration of VASCAR units on a daily basis
e) New York v. Sachs, 1 misc 2d 148, 154, 147 N.Y.S. 2d 801, 807-accuracy of VASCAR
f) New Jersey v. Schmiede, 289 A. 2d 281, 118 NJ Superior 576, 1972-established training requirements for operation of VASCAR by law enforcement personnel with performance
standards given of “VASCAR readings must be within the actual vehicle speed +/- 2 mph and officer must demonstrate at least 30 clocks within that tolerance.”
g) New York v. Olsen, 22 N.Y. 2d 230, 292, N.Y.S. 420, 239 N.E. 2d 354, 1968-Verified visual tracking history evidence by a trained and certified police officer is prima facia evidence of a speeding infraction and by itself sustains a speeding conviction.
2007-03-19 20:59:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by mattapan26 7
·
0⤊
0⤋