215 Pa. Super. 301 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1969
Concurrence Opinion
Concurring Opinion by
Appellant was convicted in the Quarter Sessions Court of Clearfield County of driving his automobile 68 miles per hour in a zone wherein the limit was established at 55 miles per hour for passenger cars and 45 miles per hour for trucks. His speed had been de
Appellant asserts four reasons for overturning Ms conviction. First, he contends that there is no evidence to establish the effective range of the device or its location at the time the reading was taken. The authority offered in support of this argument is the case of Higbee License, 33 Pa. D. & C. 2d 724, decided in 1964 by Hon. Herman Rodgers, President Judge (now retired), of Mercer County. In my opinion, the record in the present appeal discloses ample evidence to establish the location and position of the equipment, contrary to the appellant’s contention. The device was in a car parked along the south berm of Pennsylvania Route 410, nine tenths of a mile west of the village of Rockton with the front of the car facing east, and was directed at appellant’s approaching car traveling west from that village. Although there is no testimony as to the zone of influence of the radar equipment, the evidence does establish that the reading was taken as appellant’s car passed the radar vehicle. Since radar is an instantaneous electronic timing device, Commonwealth v. Bartley, 411 Pa. 286, 191 A. 2d 673 (1963), and the evidence clearly established at what point the timing was recorded, its range of influence east or west of that point would be immaterial in this case. Thus there is no merit in appellant’s first contention.
Commonwealth v. Perdok, 411 Pa. 301, 192 A. 2d 221 (1963), support’s appellant’s second contention that there must be evidence to establish the fact that the radar device being used must have been approved by the Secretary of Revenue. However, that requirement was satisfied by the testimony of the police officer, that he was using a Model S5, No. 5124, manufactured by Automatic Signal Devices, Eastern Industries Corporation, and by Exhibit No. 1 offered in evi
Appellant next complains that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the posted signs indicating that radar was being enforced met the specifications established by the Secretary of Highways. Undoubtedly signs are a requirement for conviction. Section 1002 (d.l) (1) (iii) of The Vehicle Code, 75 P.S. §1002 (pp), provides for official warning signs and Section 1002(d.l) (3) gives the Secretary of Highways authority to establish the size, color and type of such signs. Commonwealth v. Brose, 412 Pa. 276, 194 A. 2d 322 (1963) , and Commonwealth v. Per dole, supra, confirms this. However, neither case holds that the signs must be exact in meeting the specifications for same as established by the Secretary of Highways. On the contrary, this Court in Fornwalt Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 203 Pa. Superior Ct. 411, 202 A. 2d 115 (1964),
For the foregoing reasons I concur in the order of the Court affirming the conviction and judgment thereon.
Also see Creps Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 200 Pa. Superior Ct. 17, 186 A. 2d 670 (1962), where reasonable compliance with the requirements of The Vehicle Code was approved in cases arising thereunder.
Lead Opinion
Opinion
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
