[Flying Dutchman]

Actually, I did not need to subpeona them or ask for them in a discovery process. The logs are basic groundwork needed for foundation of evidence on the states part. In order for them, the state, to lay the groundwork to put radar into evidence, they must be able to lay the groundwork first. The prosecutor knew this, and knows this, but speeding tickets are 9 times out of 10 very basic. Most people either: pay the ticket or they try to argue the officer was wrong. I was not going after the officer or even implying any wrong doing or decisions on his part, I was trying to verify that the radar itself was working properly. The prosecutor figured this out immediately and knew she was caught off gaurd. As long as I, the defense, asked for the logs, or any paperwork pertaining to them, then the state must produce them. That is what the case's givin to the court stated. It is not the defenses job to make sure the prosecution brings the proper evidence. Just because the officer said he tested the equipment, and said nothing was wrong with it as far as he knew, does not mean he did or it was. That is what the logs are for. When I asked for the logs, I was not told they need to be subpeoned, I was told that according to the state, the officer does not have to have them. Not that he forgot to bring them, not that he was told they were not needed, but that he does not have to have them period. When I objected and asked for a ruling as to why, the judge simply said denied and asked me to finish up my questions. Keep in mind, this was only the second question I even asked. He did bring a certificate showing the radar was certififed in 2005. Now why would he just happen to bring that but no logs? When I asked him if he had any proof or documentation the the certicate actually belonging to the radar he used that day, he did not. It is on the log though since the serial number of the radar is listed there. Basically, the officer could have brought any certificate to any radar and presented it as evidence without having to prove it actually belonged to the radar in question. This was pointed out and overruled because according to the prosecutor, the officer testified to it's authenticity and that was good enough.
I must clarify something, the cases were not from THE Supreme court, they were from Supreme courts in other states. There is no case law in Kansas that deals specifically with radar and it's use.
Plus, the prosecutor said in court during her closing arguments that it is not important or even rellevant if the tuning forks used were damaged or in-accurate since the officer testified that the radar was working on that day. It was never mentioned that the radar was not working, only if it was accurate. Let's say that the tuning forks were damaged or in-accurate in 2005 (the last time they were apparently checked). They would give a false, or in-accurate, reading everytime since then. That then makes the radar in-accurate since it is calibrated to the tuning forks. So, every ticket issued since that time is actually in-accurate. Remember, the tickets are specific. 71 in a 55, 40 in a 30, or whatever. They do not say "speeding" or kinda speeding, or maybe going fast. That is why the radar must be accurate and the state must prove it is accurate. I knew the magistrate was going to rubber stamp this just by the way he was acting and I knew the prosecutor knew this too.
I was just wondering, since it has been awhile since I was in uniform, if things had changed in regards to logs and having the radar and forks tested. The officer stated it is every 3 years. According to the manual of the radar equipment, it is every 3 to 6 months.