Background
A Wisconsin state trooper stopped Jeremy Pool on a rural highway with a posted 55-mph limit. The trooper testified that Pool’s van was moving quickly and pulled away from a vehicle behind it, and moving radar recorded three readings of 88 mph. Pool admitted he had exceeded the limit and said he had been driving “way too fast,” but testified that he could not imagine he had exceeded 62 mph.
The ticket initially proceeded under the statute governing a default 55-mph rural-highway limit where no limit is posted. After the State rested, Pool noted that the highway had a posted 55-mph limit. The circuit court allowed the State to amend the charge to allege violation of the posted-limit provision, found Pool guilty, and determined that he was driving 75 mph—triggering six demerit points for exceeding the limit by 20 mph or more.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the circuit court properly allowed the midtrial amendment. In a traffic forfeiture case, civil pleading rules apply, and the prosecutor’s contingent statement that the State would move to amend if the court concluded the posted-limit provision governed was a sufficient request to amend. Pool did not argue on appeal that the timing prejudiced him.
The court also held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that Pool drove at least 75 mph. The moving-radar reading could not be used because the State failed to establish all required reliability criteria, including verification of the patrol car’s input speed. Without the radar, the trooper’s vague observations and Pool’s admissions supported only that Pool drove appreciably faster than 55 mph, not that he exceeded it by 20 mph or more.
Key Takeaways
- A traffic-forfeiture charge may be amended during trial when justice requires and the State has requested the amendment.
- Moving-radar evidence cannot be used to establish speed unless all required reliability criteria are met.
- Rejecting a driver’s lower speed estimate is not affirmative proof of a particular higher speed.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves Pool’s speeding adjudication but removes the basis for the enhanced demerit-point consequence. The case was remanded so the circuit court can notify the Wisconsin Department of Transportation that the violation should not be treated as speeding 20 mph or more above the limit.
For traffic cases, the opinion underscores that proof a driver was speeding does not automatically establish the specific speed needed for enhanced penalties or license-point consequences.