Challenging Radar Evidence in Georgia Speeding Tickets: Reliability Issues and Key Attack Points

As a seasoned Georgia traffic citation attorney with over 25 years of experience fighting speeding tickets across the state, I’ve seen countless cases where radar evidence forms the backbone of the prosecution’s argument. But here’s the truth: radar guns aren’t infallible magic boxes. They’re tools prone to errors, misuse, and environmental interference. A landmark Michigan case, People v. Ferency 133 Mich. App. 526, 351 N.W.2d 225

(1984), underscores these vulnerabilities and offers valuable insights for Georgia drivers. While Michigan law isn’t binding here, its principles on radar reliability are persuasive and align with Georgia’s evidentiary standards. In this post, I’ll break down radar’s reliability issues and the best points to attack it in court—potentially getting your ticket dismissed or reduced.

The People v. Ferency Case: A Wake-Up Call On Radar Flaws

In Ferency, a driver was cited for speeding based on moving radar (where the police vehicle is in motion). The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, ruling the radar evidence inadmissible because it didn’t meet strict accuracy guidelines. The court highlighted how radar operates on the Doppler effect—a frequency shift in waves reflected off moving objects—but can produce unreliable readings due to factors like beam distortion, improper calibration, and operator error.

Key takeaways from Ferency:

• Radar can suffer from “cosine error” (misalignment reducing accuracy), “batching error” (from sudden patrol speed changes), “shadow error” (locking onto large objects instead of terrain), and “ghost readings” (false signals from interference like fans or neon lights).
• The court mandated seven guidelines for admissibility, including independent calibration of the patrol car’s speedometer, confirmation the target vehicle was in the beam, and proper officer training.
• In that case, math proved the driver’s car wasn’t even in the radar’s path, and the lack of independent calibration doomed the evidence.

This case reminds us that radar isn’t “guilty until proven innocent”—the state must prove its reliability beyond doubt. In Georgia, similar challenges can turn the tide in your favor.

Radar Reliability: Not As Rock-Solid As You Think

Radar guns (like K-band or Ka-band devices) are widely used by Georgia State Patrol, local police, and sheriffs to measure speed. They’re generally accurate when operated perfectly, but real-world conditions introduce errors. Studies and court rulings (including *Ferency*) show radar can be off by 5-10 mph or more due to:

• Environmental Factors: Rain, terrain, or traffic clusters can distort signals. Moving radar is especially tricky, as it must subtract the patrol car’s speed—any glitch here inflates readings.
• Device Limitations: Older units might not filter out interference from power lines, CB radios, or even the officer’s A/C fan.
• Human Error: Officers might not follow protocols, leading to “ghost” or false readings.

In Georgia, radar evidence is governed by OCGA § 40-14-1 et seq. (Use of Speed Detection Devices). The law requires strict oversight to ensure fairness, but violations are common fodder for defense attorneys like me.

Top Points Of Attack On Radar Evidence In Georgia Courts

If you’re facing a speeding ticket based on radar, don’t just pay the fine—it could hike your insurance and add points to your license (3-6 points for 15+ mph over, risking suspension). Instead, challenge the evidence. Here are the most effective attack points, inspired by Ferency and tailored to Georgia law:

1. Lack of Proper Calibration and Testing (OCGA § 40-14-4): Georgia requires radar devices to be tested for accuracy at least once a year by a certified technician, with daily checks using tuning forks. Demand the calibration records in discovery—if they’re missing, outdated, or show errors, the evidence could be excluded. *Ferency* stressed independent testing; in Georgia, “bootstrapping” (relying on the device’s internal calibration) won’t cut it.
2. Officer Certification and Training (OCGA § 40-14-3): The officer must hold a valid POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) certification for radar operation. Cross-examine them on their training hours, experience with the specific device, and adherence to protocols. If they lack classroom training or can’t explain Doppler basics (as challenged in Ferency), their testimony crumbles.
3. Permit Requirements (OCGA § 40-14-2): Local jurisdictions must have a state-issued permit to use radar. If the ticket was issued in a city or county without one (or an expired one), the evidence is inadmissible. This is a classic “speed trap” defense—I’ve used it to dismiss tickets in rural areas.
4. Location Restrictions (OCGA § 40-14-9): Radar evidence is invalid if obtained within 300 feet of a speed limit reduction sign inside a municipality (or 500 feet outside). Also, no radar within 500 feet of a “Welcome to [City]” sign without proper signage. If the officer was hiding in a prohibited zone, argue suppression—like the beam placement issue in Ferency.
5. Visual Estimate Requirement: Georgia courts often require officers to visually estimate your speed before confirming with radar (to avoid over-reliance on tech). If their estimate doesn’t match the radar or seems implausible, poke holes in it. Interference from weather, traffic, or nearby vehicles (echoing *Ferency*’s distortion concerns) can further undermine reliability.
6. Device Approval and Maintenance (OCGA § 40-14-5): The radar model must be on the Department of Public Safety’s approved list. Check for recalls, maintenance logs, or known defects. Moving radar? Demand proof the patrol speed was independently verified (no relying on the radar itself, per *Ferency*).
7. Chain of Custody and Documentation: Subpoena the full radar log from the officer’s shift. Gaps, inconsistencies, or failure to retest at shift’s end (as required in Ferency) can lead to exclusion.

In court, these challenges often force prosecutors to negotiate—reducing charges to non-moving violations or dismissing outright. Remember, radar detectors are legal in Georgia for passenger cars and you can also use apps like Waze to avoid speed traps.

Final Thoughts: Don’t Face Radar Alone

Radar evidence might seem ironclad, but cases like *People v. Ferency* prove it’s full of cracks. In Georgia, with our strict statutes, a skilled attorney can exploit these to your advantage. If you’ve got a speeding ticket, contact me, George Creal, at [contact info] for a free consultation. I’ve beaten hundreds of these in courts from Atlanta to Savannah. Fight back—your license and wallet depend on it!

Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and not legal advice. Outcomes vary by case.