Village of Marathon City v. Jenny L. Nowak, 2010AP462, District 3, 9/30/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); Resp. Br.
¶11 The five-factor Hanson/Kramer test is used to determine the accuracy of moving radar.[4] See Washington Cnty. v. Luedtke, 135 Wis. 2d 131, 133 n.2, 399 N.W.2d 906 (1987). “If there is compliance with the Hanson/Kramer criteria, the [radar device] readout is presumptively correct and is to be admitted into evidence.” Id. at 137.
¶12 Nowak does not contest the accuracy of the radar. She also does not point to any evidence, or even assert, that the Village failed to satisfy the Hanson/Kramertest, nor does she provide support for her contention that a radar device must be licensed by the FCC as a condition precedent to the admissibility of radar evidence. Accordingly, she has not established that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting the radar evidence.
[4] The five factors are:
1. The officer operating the device has adequate training and experience in its operation.
2. That the radar device was in proper working condition at the time of the arrest. This will be established by proof that suggested methods of testing the proper functioning of the device were followed.
3. That the device was used in an area where road conditions are such that there is a minimum possibility of distortion.
4. That the input speed of the patrol car must be verified, this being especially important where there is a reasonable dispute that road conditions may have distorted the accuracy of the reading (i.e., presence of large trucks, congested traffic and the roadside being heavily covered with trees and signs).
5. That the speed meter should be expertly tested within a reasonable proximity following the arrest and that such testing be done by means which do not rely on the radar device’s own internal calibrations.
State v. Kramer, 99 Wis. 2d 700, 703, 299 N.W.2d 882 (1981) (quoting State v. Hanson, 85 Wis. 2d 233, 245, 270 N.W.2d 212 (1978)).
