J-A09022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

RONALD D. OLANDER, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 705 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 13, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-22-SA-0000026-2022

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: AUGUST 14, 2023

Appellant, Ronald D. Olander, Jr., appeals pro se from the judgment of 

sentence entered on April 13, 2022, following a trial de novo for exceeding 

maximum speed limits, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3362(a)(3). We vacate the judgment 

of sentence and grant judgment of acquittal.

The trial court briefly set forth the facts of this case as follows:

On November 6, 2021, Corporal [Richard] Wilson, a 20-year 

veteran of the Susquehanna Township Police Department and 

[two]-year member of the Traffic Safety Unit, was conducting 

speed enforcement in the 3500 block of Union Deposit Road. 

[Corporal] Wilson was using a Robic Accutrac (hereinafter 

“Accutrac”), stopwatch-like device which[, he testified,] is 

approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 

[Corporal] Wilson testified that the Accutrac had just been 

calibrated one day earlier, on November 5, 2021. Upon inquiry 

by [the trial c]ourt, [Corporal] Wilson explained the operation of 

the Accutrac as follows:

[T]he Robic Accutrac is basically a stopwatch where we input 

the distance of the known space. In the 3500 block of Union 

Deposit Road, we have two white[] lines. Those white lines 

are measured to be .023 miles apart.
J-A09022-23

- 2 -

So you enter the distance into the stopwatch and then you 

hit the start button when the vehicle hits the first line. You 

hit the same button to stop the time when the vehicle hits 

the second line, and that will compute the average speed 

between the two.

So it’s basically distance divided by [travel] time [multiplied 

by] 3600, that’s the seconds in an hour, which will give you 

the miles per hour average. 

At around 12:00 p.m., on November 6, 2021, operating the 

Accutrac as described above, Corporal Wilson clocked a black 

BMW 3 traveling 74 miles per hour in a 35 mile[] per hour zone. 

[Corporal] Wilson explained that he could hear and see the vehicle 

accelerating quickly down the road before he clocked it using the 

Accutrac and testified that he had an unobstructed view of the two 

lines on the road that he used as the reference points to start and 

stop the time on the Accutrac. [Corporal] Wilson also stated that 

to cut some leeway to the driver, he started the Accutrac timer 

slightly before the vehicle reached the start line and stopped the 

timer shortly after the vehicle had passed the stop line, so that 

the speed calculated in miles per hour would have been slightly 

lower than the actual traveling speed of the vehicle. [Corporal] 

Wilson testified that a citation for traveling 74 miles per hour in a 

35 mile[] per hour zone is a significant charge that would carry a 

possible [license] suspension. Therefore, because he ”likes to give 

breaks where he can,” [Corporal] Wilson elected to cite Appellant 

for traveling 51 miles per hour in a 35 mile[] per hour zone, which 

carries a less significant penalty.

On cross-examination, Appellant asked Corporal Wilson about the 

“calibration documents,” or [c]ertificate of [a]ccuracy for the 

Accutrac he used on the day in question. Appellant objected to 

the fact that during [Corporal] Wilson’s testimony, [Corporal] 

Wilson merely had photocopies of the [c]ertificate of [a]ccuracy, 

but the Commonwealth had not produced the original certificate 

of accuracy. Corporal Wilson testified that when each individual 

Accutrac device goes through the appropriate certification 

process, the original [c]ertificate of [a]ccuracy for each device is 

maintained by the Susquehanna Township Police Department’s 

Traffic Safety Unit. [Corporal] Wilson stated that officers carry 

copies of the [c]ertificate with them so that the original 

[c]ertificate of [a]ccuracy can be kept at the Department, and 

there is no risk of losing the official certificate for each Accutrac 

device. Based on this alleged failure to present the original 
J-A09022-23

- 3 -

[c]ertificate of [a]ccuracy, Appellant moved for dismissal of the 

charge against him, but [the trial c]ourt denied the motion and 

accepted the copy of the [c]ertificate of [a]ccuracy. 

After the conclusion of Corporal Wilson’s testimony, Appellant 

chose to testify on his own behalf. Appellant testified that he 

never had a speeding ticket prior to the instant incident and that 

he is a commercial driver who has driven millions of miles. 

Appellant testified that[,] in his estimation and based upon 

pictures he took of the area where he was clocked, Corporal 

Wilson could not have seen Appellant’s vehicle coming from an 

adequate distance to start the Accutrac timer before Appellant had 

reached the first line of reference.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/2022, at 2-4 (record citations omitted).

On January 28, 2022, a magisterial district judge found Appellant guilty 

of the aforementioned offense and sentenced Appellant to pay a $57.00 fine 

and court costs. Appellant appealed that determination. The trial court held 

a summary appeal hearing on April 13, 2022, wherein the above-mentioned 

testimony and evidence was presented. By order entered on April 13, 2022,

the trial court found Appellant guilty of exceeding maximum speed limits, 

determining that he had surpassed the posted speed limit by 16 miles per 

hour. The trial court imposed the same sentence as the magisterial district 

judge. This timely pro se appeal resulted.

1

On appeal pro se, Appellant presents the following issues for our review:

1. Was the [trial c]ourt in error when it found [Appellant] guilty 

of speeding, 75 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 3362(a)(3), where the 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on May 10, 2022. On May 23, 2022, 

the trial court directed Appellant to file a concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant timely 

complied pro se on June 10, 2022. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant 

to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on July 11, 2022.
J-A09022-23

- 4 -

Commonwealth failed to submit into evidence an original 

certificate of [a]ccuracy for the speed timing device used in the 

charge against [Appellant], and where the Commonwealth 

further failed to introduce any competent evidence, 

independent of the original [c]ertificate of [a]ccuracy, to show 

that the speed timing device used by the police officer was 

approved for use by the Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation, and further that a testing facility appointed and 

approved by the Commonwealth, tested the device in 

accordance with the requirements of 75 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 3368(d) 

of the [Motor V]ehicle [C]ode?

2. Was the [trial c]ourt in error when it accepted as evidence of 

the accuracy for the speed timing device used in the charge 

against [Appellant], a photocopy reproduction of the original 

[c]ertificate of [a]ccuracy?

3. Was the [trial c]ourt in error when it accepted the testimony of 

witness for the Commonwealth[, Corporal] Richard B. Wilson in 

place of the certificates required by the [Pennsylvania] 

Legislature and Supreme Court preceden[t], and furthermore, 

was the acceptance of that testimony, the inaccuracies 

presented, and the erroneous description of the regulations

governing electronic speed control device approval, and 

accuracy testing protocol, a violation of [Appellant’s] right to a 

fair trial?

Appellant’s Pro Se Brief, at 4-5 (superfluous commentary omitted).

We shall confine our analysis to Appellant’s sufficiency challenges, as 

we find that they are dispositive of the matter. Appellant generally challenges 

the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for exceeding 

maximum speed limits. Id. at 30-58. More specifically, Appellant argues that 

the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof because it needed to 

produce original documents “that the timing device used to measure the speed 

of [Appellant’s] vehicle was [] certified for accuracy, [] approved for use by 

the Department of Transportation, [and] tested for accuracy at a facility 
J-A09022-23

- 5 -

appointed by the Department of Transportation[.]” Id. at 31 (superfluous 

capitalization omitted). Moreover, Appellant asserts that the Commonwealth 

could not rely on the testimony of Corporal Wilson to make up for its failure 

to introduce at trial certificates showing the Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation (“PennDOT”) approval of the speed timing device and the 

testing station, as required by the relevant statutes and caselaw.

Bound by our prior decision in Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 849 A.2d 

1258 (Pa. Super. 2004), we agree with Appellant’s contentions. In particular, 

we agree with his argument that the Commonwealth did not establish, by way 

of official certificates or through judicial notice, that the Accutrak stopwatch 

was an approved state speed timing device and that it was properly tested 

and calibrated at an official testing station.

In Kaufman, a panel of this Court previously determined:

Where the trial court has heard a case de novo, we must 

determine whether the findings of fact are supported by 

competent evidence or any error of law has occurred. 

[...Moreover,] when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of 

the evidence, this [C]ourt must view the evidence presented in a 

light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the verdict winner, 

and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom. We must then 

determine whether the evidence was sufficient to permit the 

fact-finder to conclude that each and every element of the crimes 

charged was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Any question of 

doubt is for the fact-finder, unless the evidence is so weak and 

inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact can be 

drawn from the combined circumstances. 

To sustain a conviction for speeding, the Commonwealth must 

show beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) an accused was driving 

in excess of the speed limit; (2) the speed timing device used by 

the officer was approved by the Department of Transportation; 
J-A09022-23

- 6 -

and (3) the device was calibrated and tested for accuracy within 

the prescribed time period by a station which has been approved 

by the department. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3362(a) and § 3368(a)-(e); 

Commonwealth v. Kittelberger, 616 A.2d 1, 3 (Pa. Super. 

1992). 

* * *

This [C]ourt previously set forth the requirements of § 3368(d) in 

Commonwealth v. Gernsheimer, 419 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 

1980):

[I]n prosecuting speeding cases where a radar or other 

electronic device is used to calibrate a defendant's speed 

that in order to introduce the results of such into evidence 

the Commonwealth must offer a Certificate, certified by the 

Secretary of Transportation or his designee certifying the 

agency which performs the tests on the device as an official 

testing station, and must introduce a Certificate of 

Electronic Device (radar) Accuracy into evidence. The 

Certificate of Electronic Device (radar) Accuracy must be 

signed by the person who performed the tests and the 

engineer in charge of the testing station, must show that 

the device was accurate when tested by stating the various 

speeds at which it was tested and the results thereof, and 

must show, on its face, that the particular device was tested 

within sixty (60) days of the date it was used to calibrate 

the particular defendant's speed.

Id. at 530 (emphasis added).

Kaufman, 849 A.2d at 1259; see also 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3362(a)(3) (“[N]o 

person shall drive a vehicle at a speed in excess of [... a]ny [] maximum speed 

limit established under this subchapter.”). 

The Kaufman Court further recognized that:

Kittelberger clearly established the Commonwealth's burden of 

proof in a speeding prosecution: the accused was driving in excess 

of the speed limit; the speed timing device used was approved by 

[PennDOT]; and the device was calibrated and tested for accuracy 

within the prescribed time period by a station which has been 

approved by [PennDOT]. While the Kittelberger court found the 
J-A09022-23

- 7 -

issue of the testing station certification waived, the court stated 

in a footnote that it agreed with the analysis that the 

Commonwealth's evidence regarding [PennDOT’s] approval of the 

testing station was insufficient as the trial transcript “[wa]s devoid 

of any indication that the station which performed the accuracy 

and calibration tests had been approved by [PennDOT].

Kaufman, 849 A.2d at 1260–1261 (citations omitted). 

The inclusion within the Pennsylvania Bulletin of PennDot’s approval of 

the speed timing device or the service facility that performs accuracy and

calibration tests does not salvage an otherwise deficient trial record. “[The] 

Commonwealth fail[s] to meet its burden [] when the prosecution d[oes] not 

request the trial court to take judicial notice of the fact that the approval 

appeared in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.” Id. at 1261. “It [is] of no import that 

the approval was actually published, as the court [can]not take judicial notice 

of something that was neither noticed below nor supported by the evidence.” 

Id. “There must be at least some reference to the authoritative source for 

the court to take judicial notice.” Id.

Moreover, the Kaufman Court examined our Court’s prior decision in 

Commonwealth v. Denny, 539 A.2d 814 (Pa. Super. 1987) “wherein the 

Commonwealth [] introduced a certificate of accuracy but failed to introduce 

evidence that the issuer of this certificate was a testing station approved by 

[PennDOT] at the time it tested the device at issue.” Kaufman, 849 A.2d at 

1260. In Kaufman, we decided that:

in order for results of a radar device to be properly admissible at 

trial, the Commonwealth must offer evidence, independent of the 

certificate of accuracy, to show that the testing facility has been 

[approved] by [PennDOT] as an official testing station pursuant to 
J-A09022-23

- 8 -

the statutory requirements in the Vehicle Code. This independent 

evidence may consist of either a separate document from the 

Secretary of Transportation under seal or a citation to the 

Pennsylvania Bulletin which lists the station as an official testing 

station.

Id. (emphasis in original), citing Denny, 539 A.2d at 816.

Ultimately, in Kaufman, the investigating police officer “testified that 

on October 21, 2002, he was conducting surveillance of vehicles for speed and 

was operating a Robic Acutrak.” Id. at 1260. Therein, we further noted:

The Commonwealth asked the court to take judicial notice of 

“Pennsylvania Bulletin, Volume 32, Number 52, dated December 

28, 2002, which does indicate that Acutrak is an approved state 

speed timing device.” The Commonwealth, however, failed to 

demonstrate that the testing station which determined the 

accuracy of the Acutrak device was also approved by [PennDOT]. 

In particular, the Commonwealth did not ask the trial court to take 

judicial notice of the Bulletin for this purpose. At the close of the 

evidence, [Kaufman] made a motion for judgment of acquittal 

based on the Commonwealth's failure to present such evidence. 

The [trial] court denied the motion.

We agree[d] with [Kaufman] that the evidence [wa]s insufficient 

as the trial transcript [wa]s devoid of any indication that the radar 

testing station that performed the accuracy and calibration tests 

had been approved by [PennDOT]. Rather, the Commonwealth 

only [established] that the radar unit used was of a type approved 

by the Secretary of Transportation by seeking judicial notice of the 

contents of the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

Id. Moreover, the Kaufman Court determined that “Denny clearly holds 

that evidence independent of the [accuracy] certificate itself is necessary to 

prove that the testing station had been approved by [PennDOT].” Id., citing

Denny, 539 A.2d at 816. We further stated that “[t]here [i]s no need for 

[an] appellant to object that the certificate of accuracy was not enough to 
J-A09022-23

- 9 -

prove the Commonwealth's burden; rather, it [i]s the Commonwealth's duty 

to provide this evidence.” Id.

Here, the trial court determined there was sufficient evidence to support 

Appellant’s conviction for exceeding maximum speed limits:

Corporal Wilson, whose view was unobstructed, saw and heard 

Appellant’s vehicle accelerating down the road before he clocked 

Appellant’s vehicle traveling 74 miles per hour in a 35 mile[] per 

hour zone. [Corporal] Wilson stated that he cited Appellant with 

exceeding the speed limit by only 16 miles per hour rather than

39 miles per hour because he wanted to [“]cut Appellant a 

break[”] regarding the potential consequences that he faced for 

his violation. [Corporal] Wilson conveyed that as an additional 

benefit to Appellant, he started the Accutrac timer slightly before 

and after the respective reference lines, and, therefore, 

Appellant’s actual speed would have been higher than what the 

Accutrac clocked. [Corporal] Wilson, a 20-year veteran of the 

Susquehanna Township Police Department who had been part of 

the Traffic Safety Unit for [two] years, testified that he had ample 

experience using the Accutrac speed clocking device, and he 

provided a detailed explanation to the court as to precisely how 

the Accutrac is operated. Finally, [Corporal] Wilson testified that 

the Accutrac had been calibrated just one day prior to Appellant’s 

traffic stop. Taking all this into consideration, the most reasonable 

conclusion is that Corporal Wilson properly operated the Accutrac, 

that the Accutrac was properly calibrated, and that Corporal 

Wilson accurately clocked Appellant’s speed as he was traveling 

between the two lines of reference on the road. Consequently, 

Appellant’s claim of insufficient evidence is without merit.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/11/2022, at 5.

As such, the trial court concluded:

When asked about the Accutrac certification process, Corporal 

Wilson testified that when each individual Accutrac device goes 

through the appropriate certification process, the original 

certificate of accuracy for each device is maintained by the 

Susquehanna Township Police Department’s Traffic Safety Unit. 

[Corporal] Wilson stated that the officers carry copies of the 

certificate with them so that the original certificate can be kept at 
J-A09022-23

- 10 -

the Department, and there is no risk of losing the official certificate 

for each Accutrac device. [The trial court] found [Corporal] 

Wilson’s representative to be a reasonable explanation as to why 

he had a copy of the certificate in court rather than the original, 

and [the trial court] accepted the copy of the certificate as 

presented. Taking this into consideration, and considering the 

ample evidence against Appellant[,] it was reasonable for [the 

trial court] to find that the Commonwealth had no burden to 

produce the original certificate of accuracy as it pertains to this 

case, and Appellant has not established that the failure to do so 

warrants a reversal of his summary conviction.

Id. at 6 (unnecessary capitalization omitted; emphasis in original).

Upon review of the certified record and applicable law, we disagree with 

the trial court’s assessment. The trial court does not acknowledge that the 

Commonwealth failed to introduce a certificate showing that PennDOT

approved the speed timing device at issue and, in addition, failed to ask the 

trial court to take judicial notice of provisions within the Pennsylvania Bulletin 

in which PennDOT’s approval of the device is expressed. 

Here, we have previously recognized that the Acutrak device at issue

herein is listed in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as an approved timing device. See

Kaufman, 849 A.2d at 1260 (“Pennsylvania Bulletin, Volume 32, Number 52, 

dated December 28, 2002, [] indicate[s] that Acutrak is an approved state 

speed timing device.”). However, in the case sub judice, unlike in Kaufman, 

the Commonwealth neither asked the trial court to take judicial notice of, nor 

cited directly to, the Pennsylvania Bulletin regarding this fact. As we have 

previously decided, it is of no import that approval was actually published, as 

the trial court could not take judicial notice of something that was neither 

noticed below nor supported by evidence. 
J-A09022-23

- 11 -

Moreover, similar to the facts of Kaufman, in this case, even if the 

Commonwealth had cited the Pennsylvania Bulletin or requested that the trial 

court take judicial notice that the Acutrak was a type of device approved by 

the Secretary of Transportation, the Commonwealth failed to produce 

evidence, independent of the certificate of accuracy, to show that the testing 

facility had been appointed by the Department of Transportation as an official 

testing station pursuant to the statutory requirements in the Motor Vehicle 

Code. The Commonwealth neither cited to the Pennsylvania Bulletin nor 

provided a separate document under seal from PennDOT showing that the 

device was tested at an official testing station. Thus, the Commonwealth 

failed to meet its burden of proof. Corporal Wilson’s passing reference, 

without citation to the Pennsylvania Bulletin or upon the Commonwealth’s 

request for judicial notice, that the “speed timing device facility that was used 

is W56, which is Rabold’s Service Station, which is approved” was simply not 

enough. See N.T., 4/13/2022, at 10; see also Kaufman, 849 A.2d at 1260 

(emphasis in original) (“[I]n order for results of a radar device to be properly 

admissible at trial, the Commonwealth must offer evidence, independent of 

the certificate of accuracy, to show that the testing facility has been appointed 

by [PennDOT] as an official testing station pursuant to the statutory 

requirements in the Vehicle Code. This independent evidence may consist of 

either a separate document from the Secretary of Transportation under seal 

or a citation to the Pennsylvania Bulletin which lists the station as an official 

testing station.”). 
J-A09022-23

- 12 -

Accordingly, in sum, we conclude that the Commonwealth failed to meet 

its burden of proof in two respects. First, the Commonwealth failed to cite the 

Pennsylvania Bulletin or ask the trial court to take judicial notice that the 

stopwatch at issue was a statutorily approved speed timing device. Second, 

the Commonwealth also failed to offer evidence, independent of the copy of 

the certificate of accuracy, to show that the testing facility at issue was 

appointed by PennDOT as an official testing station either by providing a 

separate document from the Secretary of Transportation or by asking the trial 

court to take judicial notice of the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Additionally, 

Appellant was not required to object that the certificate of accuracy was not 

enough to prove the Commonwealth’s burden, because it was the 

Commonwealth’s duty to introduce the required certificates of approval. 

Accordingly, the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was simply not 

enough to establish that the stopwatch was either an approved state speed 

timing device or that it was properly tested and calibrated at an official testing 

station.2 As the Commonwealth failed to sustain its burden, there was 

insufficient evidence to support Appellant’s conviction. Therefore, bound by 

our decisions in Kaufman, Kittelberger, and Denny, we conclude that the 

trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. 

____________________________________________

2 As we have determined that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth 

was insufficient to establish a violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3362(a)(3), we need 

not address the issue of whether the Commonwealth is required to introduce 

original documents as opposed to photocopies.
J-A09022-23

- 13 -

Judgment of sentence vacated. Judgment of acquittal granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/14/2023