State v. Jackson

Under ORS 810.420(2), an officer must be trained on the type of speed measuring device used.

Defendant appealed a municipal court’s decision to uphold a citation for speeding.  On appeal, Defendant asserted that the State failed to establish (1) the issuing officer had taken a training course in the specific make and model of speed measuring device he used and (2) the officer had passed the course.  In response, the State argued that ORS 810.420(2) requires an officer “be trained on the type of speed measuring device used”—i.e. lidar versus radar—“not the particular make and model of the device.”  Further, the State claimed that the trial court could infer that the officer had passed the course.  Under ORS 810.420(2), an officer must be trained on the type of speed measuring device used.  The Court found, after examination of the text, context, and legislative history of ORS 810.420(2), that the legislature intended for officers to be trained on speed measuring equipment in a cost-effective, practical manner.  The Court held that this goal would not be accomplished by requiring training on every make and model of device.  Further, the Court held that “the municipal court could reasonably infer” that the officer had passed the training course based on the evidence that he “went through” the course and was permitted to use the device by the police department.  Affirmed.