State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-2070

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Ayodele Mayowa Ojo,
Appellant.

Filed August 10, 2020
Affirmed
Florey, Judge

Martin County District Court
File No. 46-VB-19-681

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Terry Viesselman, Martin County Attorney, Adam L. Hinz, Assistant County Attorney,
Fairmont, Minnesota (for respondent)

Karen V. Bryan, KB Law Firm, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Florey,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
FLOREY, Judge
In this appeal from an order finding him guilty of speeding, appellant argues that the
district court erred by admitting evidence and testimony of the accu racy of the trooper’s

2
radar and that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was traveling at 85 miles per
hour in a 70-mile-per-hour zone. We affirm.
FACTS
On May 7, 2019, appellant Ayodele Mayowa Ojo was traveling east on Interstate
90 in Martin County when he was stopped for speeding. Trooper Turitto of the Minnesota
State Patrol was traveling west on Interstate 90 when she observed Ojo’s vehicle traveling
at a high speed, passing vehicles while in the left lane.
Trooper Turitto clocked Ojo’s speed at 85 miles per hour using her squad car’s
radar. Trooper Turitto did a u-turn and caught up to Ojo’s vehicle which was still traveling
at a high speed passing a vehicle while in the left lane. The trooper again measured Ojo’s
speed at 85 miles per hour using her radar. The speed limit on that portion of Interstate 90
is 70 miles per hour. Trooper Turitto pulled Ojo over and issued him a speeding citation.
Following a court trial, the district court found Ojo guilty of the petty-misdemeanor
offense of speeding and imposed fines totaling $145. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Admission of evidence
Ojo first asserts that the district court erred by admitting: the certificate of accuracy
for the radar antennae on Trooper Turitto’s squad car, the certificates of accuracy for the
two tuning forks used to calibrate Trooper Turitto’s radar, and Trooper Turitto’s testimony
regarding her use of her radar to measure Ojo’s speed. Ojo objected to the admission of
the certificate of accuracy for the radar antennae, but did not object to the admission of any
of the other evidence or testimony.

3
Ojo objected to the admission of the certificate of accuracy for the radar antennae
on the b asis that Trooper Turitto did not p rovide sufficient foundation regarding the
authenticity of the certificate. “Evidentiary rulings rest within the sound discretion of the
district court, and [this court] will not reverse an evidentiary ruling absent a clear abuse of
discretion.” State v. Ali, 855 N.W.2d 235, 249 (Minn. 2014).
“Records of tests made of [radar speed -measuring] devices and kept in the regular
course of operations of any law enforcement agency are admissible in evidence without
further foundation as to the results of the tests.” Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 10(b) (2018).
Therefore, the district court did not err by admitting the certificate of accuracy for Trooper
Turitto’s radar antennae over Ojo’s objection.
Ojo did not object to the admission of the certificates of accuracy for the two tuning
forks used by Trooper Turitto to calibrate her radar, or her testimony regarding her radar
measurements of his speed. Plain-error review applies when a defendant fails to object to
the state’s introduction of evidence. State v. Vasquez, 912 N.W.2d 642, 650 (Minn. 2018).
“[B]efore an appellate court reviews an unobjected-to error, there must be (1) error; (2) that
is plain; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.” State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736,
740 (Minn. 1998). “An error is plain if it is clear and obvious, which is typically established
if the error contravenes case law, a rule, or a standard of conduct.” State v. Webster, 894
N.W.2d 782, 787 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
Ojo argues that the certificates of accuracy for the tuning forks also lacked
foundation, and because the supporting documents should not have been admitted, Trooper

4
Turitto’s testimony also should have been excluded.1 As discussed above, the certificates
of accuracy for the tuning forks are admissible as to the results of the radar test without
further foundation. See Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 10(b). Therefore, the district court did
not err by admitting the certificates of accuracy for the two tu ning forks. Because the
certificates were properly admitted, the district court did not err by admitting Trooper
Turitto’s testimony that she measured Ojo’s speed at 85 miles per hour using her radar.
Sufficiency of the evidence
Ojo next argues that the state did not present sufficient evidence that he was driving
85 miles per hour in a 70 -miles-per-hour zone. “When evaluating the sufficiency of the
evidence, appellate courts carefully examine the record to determine whether the facts . . .
would permit the [fact finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d
257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). When an element of an offense is support ed
by direct evidence, this court’s review is limited to a thorough analysis of the record to
determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the finding of
guilt, is sufficient to allow the fact finder to reach the verdict that they did. State v. Horst,
880 N.W.2d 24, 40 (Minn. 2016).
Evidence of the speed of a motor vehicle as measured by a radar device is admissible
when:

1 Ojo also a sserts that the admission of the certificates violated his rights under the
Confrontation Clause, but this again only goes to the admissibility of the certificates, an d
Ojo does not identify any out-of-court statements admitted by the district court at trial.

5
(1) the officer operating the device has sufficient training to
properly operate the equipment;
(2) the officer testifies as to the manner in which the device
was set up and operated;
(3) the device was operated with minimal distortion or
interference from outside sources; and
(4) the device was tested by an accurate and reliable
external mechanism, method, or system at the time it
was set up.

Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 10(a) (2018); see also State v. Dow, 352 N.W.2d 125, 126-27
(Minn. App. 1984). Here, Trooper Turitto testified to: (1) her radar training; (2) her manner
of operation of her radar; (3) the fact that even if there were interference from the vehicle
Ojo was passing when she clocked his speed, she visually observed that he was traveling
faster than the other vehicles in his immediate vicinity; and (4) her use of two external
tuning forks to calibrate her radar on the date of the incident. Therefore, the two radar
measurements of Ojo’s speed at 85 miles per hour in a 70 -mile-per-hour zone properly
supported the district court’s conclusion that Ojo was guilty of speeding.
Ojo asserts that Trooper Turitto’s radar was not tested by an accurate and reliable
external method. First, Ojo asserts that because the tuning forks’ ce rtificates of accuracy
were dated May 16, 2019 —after he was cited for speeding —and the radar antennae’s
certificate of accuracy is dated October 11, 2016—three years before his citation—the state
did not introduce sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirement that the radar was accurately
tested. However, Trooper Turitto testified that there is no expiration on the ra dar
antennae’s certificate and that she regularly calibrates the radar unit. Trooper Turitto also
testified that if the tuning forks are ever found to be inaccurate, they are disposed of, and

6
thus if the tuning forks were accurate on May 16, 2019, they were accurate on May 7 when
Ojo was cited for speeding.
Related to this argument, Ojo next contends that because the tuning forks’
certificates of accuracy should not have been admitted into evidence, there was insufficient
evidence that the radar unit was checked by an external method. See State v. Gerdes, 191
N.W.2d 428, 431 (Minn. 1971) (“To test the [radar] machine by the machine itself seems
to be bootstrapping.”) As discussed above, b ecause the certificates of accuracy were
properly admitted, the state introduced sufficient evidence that Trooper Turitto tested her
radar unit with an accurate and reliable external mechanism.
Affirmed.