PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN V RICKERD DAVID STRAWCUTTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CITY OF ADRIAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
October 21, 2003
9:05 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 241098
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 01-000613-AR
RICKERD DAVID STRAWCUTTER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Updated Copy
December 19, 2003
Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Jansen and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The city of Adrian appeals by leave granted the circuit court order reversing the district
court's finding that defendant Rickerd Strawcutter was responsible for a speeding ticket. We
reverse.
I. Basic Facts And Procedural History
Deputy Sheriff Carl Polan cited Strawcutter on October 23, 2001, for traveling forty
miles an hour in a thirty-mile-an-hour zone. At a formal hearing, Strawcutter elicited testimony
from Officer Polan, who had been certified as an expert, indicating that the radar speedmeter had
not been serviced for approximately thirteen months and that he was not aware of any
manufacturer servicing guidelines. On appeal, the circuit court reversed on the ground that
Officer Polan did not know what the manufacturer's service requirements were and therefore
failed to comply with the requirements of People v Ferency.1 The circuit court denied
reconsideration, and this Court granted leave to appeal.
1
People v Ferency, 133 Mich App 526; 351 NW2d 225 (1984).
-1-
II. Meeting The Ferency Requirements
A. Standard Of Review
This appeal concerns interpretation of a guideline that this Court set forth in Ferency, as
well as certain conclusions of law based on essentially uncontested facts. All issues on appeal
are, therefore, legal in nature and we review them de novo.2
B. Servicing The Speedmeter
Ferency imposes certain requirements on the admission of radar speedmeter readings into
evidence. One of those requirements is that "the speedmeter be serviced by the manufacturer or
other professional as recommended."3 The district court concluded that, because Officer Polan
had followed the recommendations of the Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force, this
requirement was met. However, the circuit court disagreed. Because Officer Polan did not know
what the manufacturer's requirements were, the circuit court reversed the district court's finding
of responsibility.
Unlike other requirements imposed by Ferency, the requirement at issue here does not
mandate any specific actions. For example, Ferency also requires "that the speedmeter be
retested at the end of the shift in the same manner that it was tested prior to the shift."4 That is an
affirmative requirement. The requirement at issue here only mandates service as recommended.
This does not preclude the possibility that no service may be recommended. Further, servicing
recommendations are not limited to those of the manufacturer. We explained in Ferency that
these guidelines
can be met by a showing that the issuing officer followed the recommendations
contained in the Interim Guidelines and other recommendations issued by the
Office of Highway Safety Planning. We recognize, also, that there may exist
other agencies or organizations with a demonstrable expertise in this area which
promulgate similar guidelines that may be used to show that the above guidelines
have been met.[5]
The Michigan Speed Measurement Task Force is an agency with demonstrable expertise.
Officer Polan testified that, on the basis of his training and instruction, the Michigan Speed
Measurement Task Force did not recommend any servicing for the speedmeter unit. Therefore,
2
People v Watkins, 468 Mich 233, 238; 661 NW2d 553 (2003).
3
Ferency, supra at 544.
4
Id.
5
Id.
-2-
we conclude that Officer Polan complied with the relevant servicing requirements under
Ferency: no servicing was recommended and no servicing was performed.
Reversed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.