Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, May T., 1968, No. 76, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Donald Corbett.
John J. Krafsig, Jr., for appellant.
Ervin S. Fennell, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, with him John K. Reilly, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Montgomery, J.
[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 301]
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Concurring Opinion by Montgomery, J.:
Appellant was convicted in the Quarter Sessions Court of Clearfield County of driving his automobile 68 miles per hour in a zone wherein the limit was established at 55 miles per hour for passenger cars and 45 miles per hour for trucks. His speed had been determined
[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 302]
by a Model S5 radar speed measuring device manufactured by Eastern Industries Corporation.
Appellant asserts four reasons for overturning his conviction. First, he contends that there is no evidence to establish the effective range of the device or its location at the time the reading was taken. The authority offered in support of this argument is the case of Higbee License, 33 Pa. D. & C. 2d 724, decided in 1964 by Hon. Herman Rodgers, President Judge (now retired), of Mercer County. In my opinion, the record in the present appeal discloses ample evidence to establish the location and position of the equipment, contrary to the appellant's contention. The device was in a car parked along the south berm of Pennsylvania Route 410, nine tenths of a mile west of the village of Rockton with the front of the car facing east, and was directed at appellant's approaching car traveling west from that village. Although there is no testimony as to the zone of influence of the radar equipment, the evidence does establish that the reading was taken as appellant's car passed the radar vehicle. Since radar is an instantaneous electronic timing device, ...