For decades, New York courts agreed that an officer testifying to a radar test could establish a device's accuracy — without ever spelling out exactly what that testimony had to include. In 2017, a Cohoes City Court judge finally laid out the specific requirements, in a case that ended with the defendant walking free.
The Facts of the Case
New York State Trooper John Ruscitto was patrolling the northbound lanes of Interstate 787. At the start of his shift, he ran an internal test on his Stalker Dual radar system. On cross-examination, he testified that his sergeant certifies the radar unit, and that he didn't know when it had last been certified. About an hour after his internal test, the radar recorded Briana Lampman's vehicle traveling 60 mph in a 45 mph zone. He stopped her and issued a ticket under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d).
Lampman argued that without knowing whether the radar unit was properly certified, there was reasonable doubt as to her guilt.
The Question Before the Court
Exactly what does an officer have to testify to before a court can find that a radar reading accurately recorded a defendant's speed?
Case on Point
The court held that formal calibration records aren't required to establish a radar device's accuracy — but laid out four specific things the officer's testimony has to establish instead: that the officer was trained on that particular device, that the training led to certification to operate and test it, that the officer tested the device in close temporal proximity to the stop, and that — based on that training and certification — the test actually confirmed the device's accuracy at the time of the stop.
People v. Lampman, 55 Misc.3d 628 (2017)
Why the Trooper's Testimony Came Up Short
Trooper Ruscitto's testimony amounted to this: he pressed a button on the radar unit and got a positive indicator that it was working properly. The court found that wasn't enough — not because the internal test itself was necessarily inadequate, but because the trooper never testified that, based on his training, a positive indicator after that kind of test actually confirms the radar's accuracy. Without that link, the court had no basis to treat the reading as reliable.
The case didn't end there, though. Even an untested radar reading can support a conviction if it's corroborated by a trained officer's independent visual estimate of the vehicle's speed. But Trooper Ruscitto had never formed one — he relied on the radar alone.
Key Takeaway: "I tested it and it seemed fine" isn't the standard. The officer's testimony has to connect their specific training and certification to what a positive test result actually means for that device's accuracy — and if the radar can't carry the case on its own, there needs to be an independent visual estimate to back it up.
What This Means for a Defense
Lampman gives defense counsel a concrete checklist to test the officer's testimony against, rather than a vague sense that "the radar should have been tested":
- Was the officer trained specifically on that device? General radar experience isn't the same as documented training on the particular model used.
- Did the training result in certification to operate and test it? The certifying authority and the fact of certification both need to be in the record.
- Was the test close in time to the stop? A test at the start of a shift, hours before the reading in question, may not be close enough.
- Did the officer explain what a positive test result actually means? A "button press and green light" without testimony connecting that result to accuracy, based on the officer's training, is exactly the gap that sank the case here.
- Is there a visual estimate to fall back on? If the radar foundation is weak, check whether the officer ever formed an independent opinion of the vehicle's speed — if not, the case may have no fallback at all.
(Case facts and holding drawn from the published opinion in People v. Lampman, 55 Misc.3d 628 (2017).)
Was the Radar Behind Your Ticket Actually Tested Right?
Pressing a button and getting a green light isn't automatically enough anymore. Find out whether the officer's testimony in your case meets the real standard.
Get Your Free Case Evaluation