Super Speeder Dismissed: Why the State Couldn't Prove Speed

Dangerous Excessive Speeding

F.S. 316.1922 | 100+ mph in a 60 zone | Porsche

Result: CHARGE DISMISSED

State dropped the case at trial rather than proceed without proper radar foundation.

Florida's New "Super Speeder" Law

Effective July 1, 2025, Florida Statute 316.1922 created a new criminal offense for "dangerous excessive speeding." Under this law, driving 50 or more mph over the posted speed limit is now a criminal traffic offense.

What Makes It Criminal?

Regular speeding tickets are civil infractions. But under F.S. 316.1922, going 50+ over transforms speeding into a criminal offense that can result in jail time, criminal record, and mandatory court appearances.

Our client was accused of driving 100+ in a 60 mph zone. That's 40+ over the limit under the super speeder threshold. The State charged him with dangerous excessive speeding under the new law.

For more on this new law and other 2025 changes, see our post on New Florida Laws July 2025.

Our Defense Strategy: Attack the Foundation

Speed is the essential element of this charge. Without proving speed, the State has no case. And how do they prove speed? With a radar or laser device. But radar evidence isn't automatically admissible. The State must lay proper foundation first.

Our strategy was straightforward: make them prove it properly, or not at all.

The Timeline

August 13, 2025 - Discovery Demand

We served the State with a formal Demand for Discovery, requesting all materials related to the radar device used in this case.

October 13, 2025 - Motion to Compel Discovery

The State failed to produce the radar documentation. We filed a Motion to Compel, demanding they provide the calibration logs, training certificates, bench test records, and maintenance history for the device.

November 10, 2025 - Motion in Limine

We filed a Motion in Limine to exclude any mention or evidence of speed. Our argument: without the foundational documents, the State cannot establish that the radar reading is reliable or admissible.

December 2, 2025 - Trial Day

The State asked for a continuance. We announced ready for trial. The judge sided with us and denied the continuance. Faced with either proceeding without proper foundation or dropping the case, the State chose to drop.

The Five Foundation Requirements for Radar Evidence

Under Florida law (F.S. 316.1906), before the State can introduce a radar or laser speed reading into evidence, they must establish proper foundation. This means proving:

Device Approval - The device was of a type approved by the Florida Department of Transportation.
Calibration - The device was tested for accuracy and properly calibrated before and after the shift.
Officer Certification - The officer operating the device was properly trained and certified to use that specific type of device.
Proper Operation - The device was operated correctly during the traffic stop.
Appropriate Conditions - Environmental and operational conditions were suitable for accurate measurement.

Why This Matters

Without documentation proving these requirements, the State cannot establish that the radar reading is reliable. A number appearing on a screen means nothing if you can't prove the device was working correctly, was properly maintained, and was operated by someone trained to use it.

What We Demanded in Discovery

Our Motion to Compel Discovery specifically requested:

CAD Notes

Computer-Aided Dispatch notes for the officer's entire shift. These show what the officer was doing before and after the stop, and can reveal inconsistencies in timing or procedure.

Calibration Logs

Complete radar/laser calibration records including pre-shift calibration, post-shift calibration, tuning fork tests, and internal calibration results. If the officer didn't calibrate the device, or can't prove they did, the reading is unreliable.

Training Certification

The officer's radar/laser operator certification, including initial training, recertification, and course completion records. An uncertified operator cannot lay foundation for the device reading.

Bench Test & Maintenance Records

Records showing the device was recently bench tested, inspected, and maintained. A device that hasn't been serviced or tested in months or years has questionable reliability.

The State failed to provide these materials. Without them, they could not establish foundation for the radar evidence. And without the radar evidence, they could not prove speed.

Motion in Limine: No Foundation, No Speed Evidence

Our Motion in Limine asked the court to preclude the State from mentioning speed at all until they could establish proper foundation. Our arguments:

Hearsay Without Foundation

A radar reading is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the defendant was traveling at a certain speed). Without foundation establishing reliability, it's inadmissible hearsay under F.S. 90.801.

Prejudicial Impact

Under F.S. 90.403, even relevant evidence can be excluded if its prejudicial impact outweighs its probative value. A radar reading carries an aura of scientific precision, but without foundation, it has zero probative value while remaining highly prejudicial.

Essential Element

Speed is an essential element of the charged offense. If the State cannot introduce admissible evidence of speed, they cannot prove the charge. The case must fail.

What Happened at Trial

The case was set for trial on December 2, 2025. When we arrived at court, the State asked the judge for a continuance - they wanted more time.

We announced ready for trial.

The judge denied the State's request for a continuance. They had a choice: proceed to trial without the radar foundation documentation, or drop the case.

The State's Decision

Rather than try a case where they couldn't properly introduce their speed evidence, the State dropped the charge.

Our client walked out of court without a criminal conviction. No jail. No criminal record. No consequences from the super speeder charge.

The Lesson: The State Must Prove Their Case Properly

This case illustrates a fundamental principle of criminal defense: the State has the burden of proof. They must prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and they must do so with admissible evidence.

Technical Defenses Matter

Many people assume that if the radar gun said you were speeding, you're guilty. But radar evidence isn't automatic. The State must establish that the device was working, was calibrated, and was operated by a trained officer. If they can't prove that, the evidence may be inadmissible.

Discovery Is Powerful

By demanding the radar documentation early and filing a motion to compel, we forced the State to either produce the records or face exclusion of their evidence. They apparently couldn't produce what they needed.

Being Ready for Trial Matters

When the State asked for more time, we said no. We were prepared to go to trial. That pressure forced a decision - and the State decided they couldn't win.

An Arrest Isn't a Conviction

Our client was accused of driving 100+ mph in a Porsche. That sounds bad. But "sounds bad" isn't the same as "provable in court." Every charge deserves scrutiny. Every piece of evidence should be challenged.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Florida's super speeder law?

F.S. 316.1922, effective July 1, 2025, makes driving 50+ mph over the posted speed limit a criminal offense called "dangerous excessive speeding." Unlike regular speeding tickets (civil infractions), this charge can result in jail time and a criminal record.

Can radar evidence be challenged?

Yes. The State must establish foundation for radar evidence by proving the device was approved, calibrated, operated by a certified officer, and functioning properly. Without this documentation, radar readings may be inadmissible.

What is a Motion in Limine?

A Motion in Limine asks the court to exclude certain evidence before trial. In speeding cases, it can be used to prevent the State from mentioning speed until they establish proper foundation for their radar or laser evidence.

Why did the State drop the case instead of proceeding?

Without the radar calibration records, training certificates, and bench test documentation, the State could not establish foundation for the radar evidence. Without admissible speed evidence, they could not prove the essential element of the charge. Rather than lose at trial, they dismissed.

Charged with Excessive Speed in Florida?

Florida's new super speeder law carries serious consequences - but the State still has to prove their case properly. Radar evidence can be challenged. Calibration records can be demanded. Technical defenses can work.

Available 24/7 | Criminal Traffic Defense | Super Speeder Cases | Radar Challenges

Call: 407-500-7000 Learn About Super Speeder Defense

Law Office of Jeff Lotter PLLC
Serving Orlando, Orange County, and Central Florida