Officers often testify that they tested their radar unit before a stop and got a "perfect reading." That sounds like it should settle the question of accuracy — but a 1966 Westchester County Court case shows that how a radar unit was tested can matter just as much as whether it was tested at all.
The Facts of the Case
Edith J. Martirano was convicted in the Court of Special Sessions of the Village of Bronxville for driving 44 mph in a 30 mph zone. The only evidence of her speed was a radar reading. Two Bronxville patrolmen, McCann and Cussisi, testified about how the unit had been set up and tested that day: they hooked it to their ignition, and then struck a tuning fork against a piece of metal or concrete and held it in front of the radar's receiver. If the unit was accurate, it would register 40 mph — the fork's rated speed — and that morning, it had.
Martirano appealed to the County Court, Westchester County, raising several claimed errors. The court found it only needed to reach one of them: whether the radar unit's accuracy had actually been established.
The Question on Appeal
When a radar reading is the only evidence of a defendant's speed, how much proof of the unit's accuracy is enough to sustain a conviction?
Case on Point
The County Court held that where a radar reading is the only evidence of speed, that reading must come from a tested unit, and the unit's accuracy must be established by clear, convincing, and unequivocal proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found the single tuning-fork test in the record didn't meet that standard, since there was no proof the fork itself was accurate — and it wasn't inconceivable that the radar unit and the fork were off by the same degree, in the same direction, canceling each other out.
People ex rel. McCann v. Martirano, 52 Misc.2d 64 (1966)
Why a Single Tuning Fork Fell Short
The court's reasoning was narrow and specific. It wasn't ruling that tuning-fork testing can never establish accuracy — it explicitly declined to set a rigid checklist. The problem was that the fork itself was never shown to be accurate. A tuning fork can drift out of true just like the radar unit it's meant to test, and if both happened to be off by the same amount, the "perfect reading" the officer described would look perfect for the wrong reason.
Key Takeaway: "We tested it and it read correctly" isn't automatically enough when the radar reading is the only evidence in the case. The prosecution has to show the testing method itself was trustworthy — not just that the numbers on test day happened to line up.
What This Means for a Defense
This case is most useful in a specific situation: a ticket where radar is the only evidence, with no visual estimate or other corroboration from the officer. In that setting, it's worth asking:
- What method was used to test the unit, and was that method itself verified? A single tuning fork, without any proof the fork was accurate, may not clear the bar.
- Is there anything beyond the radar reading? If the officer also formed an independent visual estimate of speed, that corroboration can carry a case even where the radar testing is shaky — this case only reversed because the radar reading stood alone.
Was Your Radar Ticket Based on a Reliable Test?
Not every "the radar was tested" claim actually holds up. Find out whether the testing behind your ticket meets New York's standard.
Get Your Free Case Evaluation