Almost everyone has at one time or another heard of some kind of self-help type book, a magazine article, or an Internet site dealing with ways to beat traffic tickets. Beware of receiving bad information! A vast majority of this information is incorrect, or is inadmissible in the state of Colorado. As a public service, the court is providing information about speeding tickets.

If you have been written into this court for speeding, this is the wording of the city ordinance you have been charged with violating:

(Ord. 98-249; Ord. 00-112; Ord. 01-42)

Strict Liability: traffic offenses are strict liability crimes. This means that one’s intent is irrelevant. A person’s lack of intent to commit a particular offense is not a defense to a strict liability violation. All that matters is that the elements (eg: "defendant drove a vehicle Five (5) to nine (9) miles per hour over the posted speed limit" in Colorado Springs) occurred.

Radar: With a radar speeding ticket the only issue for the court to decide is the speed of the vehicle. The fact that one did not intend to speed, had a broken speedometer, or oversized tires, is not a defense to speeding. Again, speeding is a strict liability offense.

An officer writing a speeding ticket based on a radar calculation of speed does not need to be an expert in explaining Doppler effect radar and the underlying scientific principles of radar devices. It is legally sufficient that an officer is simply trained in the use of radar devices and that s/he properly checked the calibration of the radar device. The Supreme Court of Colorado came to this conclusion back in 1980 when deciding the case of People v. Walker, 199 Colo. 475, 610 P.2d 496 (1980).

The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that a tuning fork test is sufficient to check the calibration of a radar device. When tuning forks are used to check the calibration of a radar device, the Court held that the prosecution could show either: that two tuning forks have been used, or, alternately, that a single tuning fork which was certified as accurate within one year of the test was used. Upon either showing, the court may admit the radar evidence.

A common suggestion found in resources suggesting how to beat radar speeding tickets is for one to request an enormous amount of documentation from the government. These Self-help materials will often recommend that a defendant request some of the following superfluous materials: the officer’s radar training certificates; the tuning forks used to calibrate the radar unit and their calibration certificates; the radar unit that was used; quarterly/annual/inspection/calibration/maintenance/repair/service records; the list of models, makes and serial numbers of all radar units being used by that agency; etc.

Take note that in Colorado, under People v. Walker, these materials are generally considered hearsay and are of questionable value in defending a speeding case. Again, radar evidence is generally admitted if it is shown that: 1) the officer has been trained in the use of radar equipment and 2) that the equipment’s calibration was properly checked using an appropriate test. Just the oral testimony of the officer is usually sufficient to meet these requirements.