This officer is either the laziest I've had to deal with, or the cleverest. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and call him clever. He obviously believes that "less is more". So little information is presented. I'm guessing this officer believes that the court will ASSUME the details that are missing -- and there are a LOT of them -- favor the officer. Personally, if I were a judge, I'd find this insulting.
Let's start:
1) The officer gives no indication of his location.
2) The officer gives no indication of whether he was moving or stationary.
3) The officer gives no indication of whether the RADAR was in "moving" or "stationary" mode.
4) The officer gives no indication of which antenna was in use.
5) If the RADAR was in "moving" mode, was the target vehicle approaching from the rear or the front?
6) If the RADAR was in "moving" mode, did the speed shown in the "patrol" window agree with the vehicle's speedometer?
7) Why didn't the officer note the serial numbers of the tuning forks? Were BOTH antennas tested in both stationary and moving modes?
8) The officer received training. When? Yesterday? There is no experience listed.
9) The device was checked. By whom? Did the officer test it himself or did someone else? There may be an
ER 602 issue. I don't see any evidence "sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter."
As I said, I think this officer just assumes that by NOT putting in this information,
there is no way to actually question it. If you can't question the evidence, the defendant HAS to found guilty, right? He thinks the court will simply assume that the missing information isn't really necessary. After all, the guy MUST be guilty, right? Why muddy the waters with facts.