How Up To Date Is Your RADAR Training?

Technology continues to evolve at a tremendous pace, but how well has your training kept up? If your department is like most, its RADAR training is based on some predecessor’s work. That too was probably based on some other predecessor’s work. How many times have you cranked up the same PowerPoint presentation to teach the next generation of RADAR operators? You know the presentation by heart, but have you ever gone back to research and verify that what it contains is accurate, technically correct and up to date?

Many training programs have been passed on for so long that the origin of the information has been lost. Before your next instructing session, take some time to go through and research what is actually in your department’s RADAR training material. Look at other departments’ RADAR courses if possible, but understand that their training is probably suffering from the same problem. Comparing against commercially available training may be a better option if you can ensure the provider has continually updated their material. Les Langford of Law Enforcement Services, LLC offers an excellent course that can serve as a yard stick for your training and others are available, too.

The importance of updating training information

The internet has enabled anyone to publish and share information. Included in this trove of information are many sites dedicated to trying to show people how to beat a speeding ticket. On these sites you will find entire checklists of questions defendants can use to attempt to destroy an officer’s credibility and create reasonable doubt in the judge or jury. You will also find the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s RADAR training—the core of many department’s RADAR training programs—and even the actual training used by some departments. This means that defendants have the opportunity to see the inner workings of police RADAR training programs, discover their flaws and find ways to exploit the unsuspecting RADAR operator on the stand.

According to Honeycutt v. Commonwealth 408 S.W.2d 421 (1966), a RADAR operator need only know how to “set up, test and operate” the equipment. The internet’s checklists of questions have been designed to cast doubt on an operator’s ability to do just that. Most of these are identical across the various sites, but they are also based upon outdated RADAR curriculum. Even defense attorneys are using these same lists. Fortunately, since they are based on outdated information, a modernized RADAR training program will enable officers to easily embarrass any internet sleuth or lawyer while on the stand.

Certainly, some of what is taught in any RADAR training is trivia that no operator is really going to need to know. However, this kind of information lends credibility to your training. Perhaps the most common error in RADAR training has to do with the central story of the Doppler Principle. The vast majority of training refers to the man who conceived the Doppler Principle as “Christian Johann Doppler,” or “Johann Christian Doppler,” and state that his theory was developed while studying sound waves. In reality, the discoverer of the Doppler Principle is “Christian Andreas Doppler” and his 1842 theory was described in his paper dealing with the colored light coming from binary stars, not sound.

Three years after Doppler’s original paper in 1845, Dutch Physicist Christopher Henricus Diedericus Buys Ballot (C.H.D. Buys Ballot or Buys Ballot) confirmed the principle against sound waves. In 1848 French physicist Hippolyte Fizeau determined the principle also applied to electromagnetic waves. While mentioning Doppler effect you can still conceptualize it by using sound as an example; however, saying Doppler developed the principle from studying sound waves is incorrect.

Errors abound

Recently while training a new cadre of instructors, I found that nearly 79 percent of the class had no idea how to properly hold the tuning forks in front of the RADAR antenna. These were seasoned RADAR operators, some with decades of experience in RADAR. They had been training other new operators using the same incorrect technique for years. This highlights how long-standing training deficiencies have a ripple effect that can contaminate an entire department. Imagine the damage a defense attorney could do if he showed an operator did not even know how to properly test his RADAR. He would have just destroyed one of the pillars of “set up, test and operate.”

A book published in 1983 by MPH Industries, written by Thomas H. Stahl, called “Legal Basis for Use of Police RADAR” is an excellent resource for anyone looking to understand the history of where some long-taught RADAR effects originated. This book describes many of these conditions, where they came from, and how the defense attorneys that created these issues used the naivety and ignorance of the courts at the time to fool judges and juries.

One such example is a condition known as “panning”—the theory that a RADAR antenna swept back and forth can generate a false reading. Allegedly, changes in relative distance as the RADAR is moved back and forth can cause erroneous speed readings. The book describes in detail the testimony of an “expert” named Lee Nichols who was hired by Electroalert Inc. (makers of the original Fuzzbuster) to act as an expert witness for the defense in a speeding case in Miami. It also describes how later this “expert witness” admitted in a subsequent case in Kentucky that he had never been able to reproduce this error either in a laboratory or on the street. Despite the later admission that “panning” doesn’t exit, the original case has set a precedent whose effects have lasted to this day. Being able to counter attorneys using this bogus defense will help ensure officers’ testimony leads to solid convictions in court.

Other errors like “Turn On Power Surge” are taught, yet have no foundation in modern RADAR. This condition originated from the early days when RADARs were not equipped with “Hold” buttons. In an attempt to defeat being detected by RADAR detectors, operators would get a visual on a car then plug the RADAR in. This momentary surge of power could sometimes cause erroneous readings. Modern RADARs do not suffer from this as they will all undergo a testing cycle upon being plugged into a power source. This testing cycle prevents the operator from obtaining a reading before the RADAR has consistent power and makes “Turn On Power Surge” impossible. It will not prevent defense attorneys from tricking officers into testifying that this is a current problem.

Another item in the defense’s bag of tricks is the 1979 story of a TV Station in Miami who filmed a palm tree moving 86 MPH and a house at 28 MPH. This “fake news” story was brought up during the case of State of Florida v. Aquilera (1979) which caused the court to raise reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of RADAR. What was conveniently left out in this story was how off-camera, a person with a high-powered CB Radio, placed in close proximity to the RADAR, was whistling while transmitting on a specific frequency. This deliberate radio interference induced an erroneous reading in the RADAR they were using. However, this deception was excluded from court testimony. Errors like this are also one of the reasons that modern RADARs have radio frequency interference (RFI) detection circuits making this condition virtually impossible. Defense attorneys to this day still bring up this infamous case.

Another tactic that defense attorneys like to use is to argue that interference from aircraft RADAR could have caused a problem with your RADAR’s reading. It is important to emphasize in your training that RADAR is merely a name for a method of using radio waves to detect objects. Just like the music radio in your car has different stations, so too does RADAR have different frequencies. These frequencies are tightly controlled by the Federal Communications Commission and your dash-mounted RADAR is no more likely to pick up airport RADAR than your music radio is to pick up the local TV station. Yet defense attorneys will still try to argue this is a problem.

Defense attorneys will also attempt to trick officers into admitting that street signs vibrating in the wind, or fans within the vehicle could have caused an erroneous reading on the RADAR. A good training program will teach RADAR operators that vehicle mounted fans are picked up by the RADAR’s zones of influence and would easily be overpowered by an actual target.

The “vibrating street sign” defense is equally dubious. Aside from the fact that a street sign is going to reflect a very small amount of energy compared to a car, there’s the issue of just how fast a sign would have to vibrate to generate a reading on a police RADAR. To cause a reading of 70 MPH on a K-Band RADAR, in a police car moving at 55 MPH, a street sign would have to vibrate 9,016.6 times every second. Again, proper training will ensure your officers are prepared to counter these defense strategies.

Tip of the iceberg

Many other issues in RADAR training need addressing, particularly with respect to the various RADAR effects—far more than can be covered in this limited space. Many of them have foundations from an earlier time when RADARs were strictly analog, or were susceptible to interference or operating conditions that have long since been corrected. It is important to know which of these are plausible, and which are merely tricks that defense attorneys use.

Your RADAR training program should be a living document that receives regular updates. Make sure it is researched, updated, verified and implemented for operators needing re-certification. The defense attorneys are continuing to expand their strategies and knowledge base, don’t let stagnant training place your RADAR operators at a disadvantage.

About the Author

Christopher Ihara is a law enforcement officer with more than 14-years on the job, and a previous career of more than a decade in IT. He wears many hats as a certified RADAR and LIDAR instructor, a professional automotive journalist, photographer, inventor and an instructor of high performance and EVOC driving.