Could an uncertified South Carolina police officer use radar to measure a driver's speed?

Plain-English summary

Branchville's police chief asked in 2003 whether an officer who lacked radar accreditation could operate a radar device. The Attorney General found no South Carolina statute or Department of Public Safety rule that expressly prohibited it. DPS Regulation 38-011 set qualifications for radar accreditation but did not say an unaccredited officer could not operate radar. The opinion reported that DPS nevertheless strongly discouraged the practice.

The AG also discussed whether a radar reading would be accepted as evidence. South Carolina courts had not squarely decided admissibility of readings taken by unaccredited officers. In State v. Brown, the Court of Appeals admitted a radar reading and considered the operator's certification as one factor. The opinion cited decisions from other states with different approaches. It did not declare every reading from an uncertified officer admissible or inadmissible.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did South Carolina law expressly forbid uncertified radar use in 2003? A: The AG found no statute or DPS rule that expressly did so, although DPS discouraged it.

Q: Did the radar certification rule require every operator to be accredited? A: The opinion said Regulation 38-011 specified qualifications for accreditation but did not state that unaccredited officers could not operate radar.

Q: Would an uncertified officer's reading be admitted in court? A: The AG said South Carolina courts had not explicitly resolved that issue. It noted that certification was a factor in an appellate ruling admitting a different radar reading.

Background and statutory framework

The request concerned radar operation, while much of the opinion discussed evidence in speeding cases. The AG separated the absence of an express operation ban from the unresolved evidentiary treatment of a particular reading. DPS's stated preference for certified operators was reported as agency guidance, not a statutory prohibition.

Citations and references

• DPS Regulation 38-011: operator-accreditation qualifications discussed by the AG.
• State v. Brown: the opinion's South Carolina radar evidence example.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-17-2003/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/03april17walters.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY MCMASTER
ATIDRNEY GENERAL

I

..

April 17, 2003

Q.B. Walters, Chief of Police
Branchville Police Department
P.O. Box 85
Branchville, South Carolina 29432

Re: The Use of Radar by Uncertified Officer
Dear Chief Walters:
You have requested an opinion of this Office concerning the use of radar by an officer who is not certified. The South Carolina Code of Laws does not address the use of radar by uncertified police officers. Additionally, South Carolina Department of Public Safety [DPS] regulations do not specifically address the issue. DPS Regulation 38-011 sets forth the qualifications under which law enforcement officers may be accredited as radar operators, but does not state that officers who are not accredited may not operate radar. However, I have spoken with Randy King, Professional Development Director with DPS, and Mr. King has advised that DPS strongly discourages the use of radar by uncertified law enforcement officers. In fact, DPS has developed a model policy for individual law enforcement agencies to employ in the use of radar. Mr. King advises that DPS is willing to assist agencies such as the Branchville Police Department in establishing the model policy and has provided the name of Larry Spearman as the contact point for DPS in this regard. Mr. Spearman can be reached at (803) 896-7788. Further, while South Carolina courts have not explicitly taken a stance on the issue of whether unaccredited officers may operate radar devices, case law suggests that certification plays a role in determining whether radar readings will be admitted into evidence. In State v. Brown, 344 S.C. 302, 543 S.E.2d 568 (2000), the South Carolina Court of Appeals held that an admission of a radar reading into evidence was proper. One factor that the court took into account was that the police officer in this case was a certified traffic radar operator. 543 S.E.2d at 571. Other courts appear to be split as to whether radar test results measured by uncertified officers can be admitted into evidence. The Indiana Court of Appeals has held that the state is not obligated to show that a radar speed measurement is perfonned by a certified officer before the measurement can be admitted into evidence. Marlatt v. Indiana, 715 N.E.2d 1001 (1999). The Ohio

f..

REMBERT

-t 1),,,,. / ,. . <-1

c. DENNIS BIJlll)ING • POST OFFICE Box 11549 • COLUMBIA, s.c. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE : 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

.,v~ .

Chief Walters
Page 2
April 17, 2003
Court of Appeals held in State of Ohio v. Ferrier, 105 Ohio App.3d 124, 663 N.E.2d 729 (1995), that radar evidence was admissible because an experienced radar operator personally observed a new officer handle the radar device and testified that the new officer had "done things properly." Finally, the Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled that testimony that an officer is certified to use a traffic radar device, that the officer tested the device the day of the incident, and that the device used radar waives to measure speed is sufficient for evidentiary purposes. Mills v. State of Texas, 2002 WL 31933030 (2002).

David K. Avant
Assistant Attorney General