In City of Cleveland Heights V

In City of Cleveland Heights v. Katz, a police officer observed a vehicle driven by Katz traveling at an elevated level of speed, and managed to clock him with a radar unit. A municipal court convicted Katz of speeding and he appealed, contending that the radar gun and the instruments used to calibrate the radar gun had not been shown to have been properly tested. The appellate court:

A) held that the equipment had been shown to be in good order, and it had been sufficiently calibrated to be capable of accurately detecting speed so that the conviction was affirmed.
B) held that the radar gun, once tested at the factory for accuracy, gives presumptively good evidence provided it receives the correct voltage.
C) reversed the conviction because the municipal police department did not prove that the equipment that tested the tuning forks had been properly calibrated at the appropriate time.
D) courts may not take judicial notice of the reliability of scientific testing equipment, so that the municipal court could notice that the testing of the radar gun had been done appropriately and it upheld the conviction.