Dismissal of the appeal against a conviction for simple violation of traffic rules

Facts

The appellant [X.] drove a Ducati motorcycle on the main road in Trun (GR) in the direction of Disentis (GR) on August 22, 2011, and was measured at a speed of 77 km/h during a speed check, although the signaled maximum speed was 50 km/h. The Public Prosecutor's Office of Graubünden found [X.] guilty of simple violation of traffic rules by penal order of November 28, 2011, and fined him CHF 600.--. [X.] lodged an objection against this penal order, and the District Court of Surselva convicted him on April 24, 2012, of simple violation of traffic rules and fined him CHF 600.--. The appeal by [X.] was dismissed by the Cantonal Court of Graubünden on September 27, 2012.

[X.] filed a criminal appeal and requested that the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Graubünden be set aside and that he be acquitted of guilt and penalty. He complained of a violation of Art. 2 para. 3 lit. b of the Ordinance of May 22, 2008, of the FEDRO on the Road Traffic Control Ordinance (RTCO-FEDRO) and Art. 141 para. 2 CrimPC, as the speed check on August 22, 2011, was not carried out in accordance with the law.

Considerations

The Federal Court examined the appellant's complaint that the speed check on August 22, 2011, was not carried out in accordance with the law, as there was no explicit authorization from the competent authority within the meaning of Art. 2 para. 3 lit. b RTCO-FEDRO. The Court found that the lower court had correctly recognized that both an authorization in individual cases and a general authorization can be covered by the text in principle.

The Court interpreted Art. 2 para. 3 lit. b RTCO-FEDRO and came to the conclusion that an authorization of the competent authority must actually exist, but not necessarily for each individual case. The internal organization of a police operation is the…