Whether the affected person was liable for negligent exceeding of the permitted speed limit.
The affected person was liable for negligent speeding.
The court convicted her of the traffic offence and imposed the fine stated in the operative part.
6 OWi-267 Js 2376/16-334/16•Speed-measurement training and the PoliscanSpeed presumption
Speed-measurement training and the PoliscanSpeed presumptionAI generated
6 OWi-267 Js 2376/16-334/16Court of First InstanceFeb 3, 2017Criminal lawOther
Extracted by Omnilex
Omnilex summary AI generated
Castrop-Rauxel District Court convicted the affected person of negligently exceeding the permitted speed limit and imposed an €80 fine. It held that, in a standardized measurement procedure, it need not pursue an evidence request alleging that measurement officers lacked training on the device’s current software version where the request did not specify how the software changes affected operation. The court further stated that training extends to later software versions and that compliance of the PoliscanSpeed design with essential requirements is irrebuttably presumed through 31 December 2024. The affected person must bear the procedural costs and her necessary expenses.
Omnilex headnote
Sections 6(2) and 62(2), sentence 1, MessEG; standardized speed measurement and operator training; a request for evidence that measurement officers were not trained on the current software version need not be pursued where it does not explain what operational changes the new version introduced. Training in operating a speed-measuring device extends to subsequent software versions. For PoliscanSpeed, § 62(2), sentence 1, MessEG irrebuttably presumes that the device’s design meets the applicable essential requirements under § 6(2) MessEG until 31 December 2024.
Full text
Amtsgericht Castrop-Rauxel — 6 OWi-267 Js 2376/16-334/16 — Urteil
Entscheidungsdatum: 2017-02-03
Aktenzeichen: 6 OWi-267 Js 2376/16-334/16
ECLI: ECLI:DE:AGCAS:2017:0203.6OWI267JS2376.16.00
Dokumenttyp: Urteil
Spruchkörper: Einzelrichter
Leitsätze
Einem Beweisantrag gerichtet auf die Feststellung, dass die Messbeamten nicht in der aktuellen Softwareversion des Geschwindigkeitsmessgerätes geschult sind muss das Gericht im Rahmen eines standardisierten Messverfahrens nicht nachgehen, wenn der Beweisantrag keine Angaben darüber enthält, welche Änderungen aus der neuen Software sich für die Bedienung des Messgerätes ergeben.
Sind Messbeamte einmal in der Bedienung eines Geschwindigkeitsmessgerätes geschult, so gilt die Schulung auch für nachfolgende Änderungen der Softwareversionen des Messgerätes.
Für das Messgerät PoliscanSpeed wird nach § 62 Abs. 2 S. 1 MessEG unwiderleglich vermutet, dass Bauart die für diese Messgeräte geltenden wesentlichen Anforderungen im Sinne des § 6 Abs. 2 MessEG bis spätestens 31.12.2024 einhält.
Tenor
Die Betroffene wird wegen fahrlässiger Überschreitung der zulässigen Höchstgeschwindigkeit zu einer Geldbuße von 80,00 EUR verurteilt. Die Kosten des Verfahrens und ihre notwendigen Auslagen trägt die Betroffene selbst (41 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Anlage 2, 49 StVO, 24 StVG, 11.3.5 BKat).
Keywords
speedingstandardized measurement procedureevidence requestmeasurement-device trainingsoftware versiontype approval
Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex
Whether the court had to pursue a defense evidence request alleging that the measurement officers were not trained on the current software version.
The court was not required to pursue the request as framed.
For a standardized measurement procedure, the request did not identify what changes in the new software meant for operation of the device.
Whether prior training in operating a speed-measuring device extends to later software versions.
Prior training also applies to subsequent software-version changes.
The court stated that training in operation of the device remains applicable to later software versions.
Whether the essential requirements for the PoliscanSpeed device's type approval are presumed to be met under § 62(2) sentence 1 MessEG.
Compliance is irrebuttably presumed until 31 December 2024.
Section 62(2) sentence 1 MessEG provides an irrebuttable presumption that the device's design meets the applicable essential requirements under § 6(2) MessEG through that date.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.