## Facts

- Harold Finkle was charged with speeding on U.S. Route 322 on May 5, 1973, alleged at 75.3 mph in a 55 mph zone.
- The State’s proof of speed rested on a reading from a VASCAR speed-measuring device operated by a New Jersey state trooper.
- Prior New Jersey proceedings had received expert evidence about VASCAR’s operation and reliability in other cases.
- At Finkle’s trial, evidence was introduced concerning the accuracy of the particular VASCAR unit used and the trooper’s training and operation of it.
- Finkle argued that the VASCAR reading should not be admitted without live expert testimony establishing the device’s scientific reliability in his case.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may take judicial notice of the general scientific reliability of VASCAR and admit VASCAR readings without expert testimony on reliability in each prosecution.
2. Whether, absent such expert testimony, the State must still prove case-specific accuracy and proper operation as a foundation for admitting a VASCAR reading.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the speeding conviction.
- The court held it could take judicial notice of VASCAR’s general reliability based on prior judicial acceptance and expert-based evaluations reflected in earlier cases and testing.
- The court ruled that the State need not present expert testimony on VASCAR’s general scientific reliability in every case.
- The court required, however, proof that the specific instrument was accurate and that the operator was qualified and used the device properly in the particular case.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey later affirmed per curiam substantially for the reasons given by the Appellate Division.

## Legal Principles

- A court may judicially notice the general reliability of a scientific speed-measuring device once that reliability has been sufficiently established through prior expert proof, reported decisions, and recognized evaluations.
- When general reliability is judicially noticed, the prosecution is not required to reintroduce expert testimony on scientific reliability in each prosecution.
- Admissibility still depends on a proper foundation showing (1) accuracy of the specific device used and (2) the officer’s qualification and proper operation in the particular case.
- General scientific reliability is distinct from case-specific accuracy; the former may be judicially noticed, while the latter must be proven with evidence in the individual prosecution.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a speeding conviction based solely on a VASCAR reading, holding that VASCAR’s general reliability could be judicially noticed and that expert testimony on reliability is unnecessary in each case so long as the State proves the instrument’s accuracy and the officer’s qualified, proper operation in the specific incident.


State v. Finkle, 319 A.2d 733 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1974)