Court Opinion

ID: 9555609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 16:07:35.392069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:07.557275
License: Public Domain

J-A09022-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
              v.                           :
                                           :
                                           :
 RONALD D. OLANDER, JR.                    :
                                           :
                   Appellant               :   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

        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

                                     -2-
J-A09022-23

       [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.

                                           -3-
J-A09022-23

         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

                                      -4-
J-A09022-23

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;

                                       -5-
J-A09022-23

      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

                                     -6-
J-A09022-23

      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

                                      -7-
J-A09022-23

      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

                                      -8-
J-A09022-23

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

                                     -9-
J-A09022-23

      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.

                                      - 10 -
J-A09022-23

        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.”).

                                     - 11 -
J-A09022-23

       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.

                                          - 12 -
J-A09022-23

     Judgment of sentence vacated. Judgment of acquittal granted.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 8/14/2023

                                 - 13 -