SML has been deemed as an “expert witness” by the courts in radar and laser speed enforcement systems. SML was called in a recent laser gun admissibility case by a southern state. The state had not accepted by “judicial notice” the use of police laser guns as an acceptable speed enforcement system in a class action lawsuit brought by several defendants. After SML testimony, the court ruled laser gun speed readings were reliable in assessing speeds in enforcing the state’s speed laws. SML has appeared on many occasions in this manner. However, SML will not serve as an expert witness for those defendants challenging speeding tickets. Contact SML at 817/291-2396 for assistance or use speed@speedinglimits by e mail to schedule a court appearance.
August saw SML appearing as an “expert witness”, so designated by the court, in a laser gun trial in a major mid-western state. Here again, the jurisdiction had not issued “judicial notice” on the acceptability of laser guns as a speed enforcement system. SML had the opportunity of demonstrating the laser gun’s accuracy to the judge and the defendant. As a result of SML’s appearance, judicial notice was given by the court and the defendant found guilty. SML presented a summary of laser case law from Ohio and other states where state or local jurisdictions had issued “judicial notice” for the use of laser speed enforcement systems. SML also presented the court approvals of the laser for sale and use appearing on the International Association of Chiefs of Police, CPL list, www.theiacp.org and confirmation of meeting the USDOT, NHTSA Standards as itemized in HS 809 812, June 2004. Find itemized below a partial list of court precedents.

Judicial Notice And Laser Case Law Of Laser Gun Use
12/2007 rev./Speed Measurement Laboratories Inc.

Ohio

City of Dayton v. Robert Kane - 9/23/91-In the municipal court of Dayton, Ohio, Traffic Division, Judge Dennis J. Greany presiding, “...the court at this time will take judicial notice with regard to the accuracy and the determination of the speed by the instrument involved here.” Laser Technologies Inc, LTI 20-20 laser speed device.

State of Ohio v. Branda Gegg - 9/23/91-In the municipal court of the City of Vandalia, Ohio, Traffic Division, Judge Cynthia Heck presiding, “This Court will take judicial notice of the LTI 20-20 measuring the velocity of a motor vehicle and its accuracy and reliability in the velocity.”

State v McGuire, County of Miami, Troy, Ohio 92-TRD-6962S-SHER 6/16/92-Judicial notice taken of acceptance of laser speed reading of Kustom Pro Laser.

City of Columbus v. Barton - 9/16/94-In the municipal court of the City of Columbus, Ohio, Traffic Division, Judge Anne Taylor presiding, “Laser speed detector is reliable and accurate as a scientific measure of the speed of a moving object which can be used by law enforcement personnel to measure vehicle speed provided that (1) laser must be pointed so that the red dot on the scope is aligned with a reflective areas such as a license plate, on the target vehicle; (2) target vehicle must be moving in a line directly moving toward or away from the laser; and (3) laser must be properly calibrated prior to use. 733 N 2d, 326.

Ohio v Dawson - Ohio App. Dist 12, 1998-found that it is proper for a trail court judge who heard expert testimony in a prior case concerning the reliability of the LTI 20/20 laser device to take “judicial notice” of that finding in subsequent cases.

Texas

Texas v Sparks - 5/21/2004, Case #PD381435-1, Judge Daniel A Florence presiding- “The Court finds that the speed measurement of the Kustom Pro Laser III device is admissible and scientifically reliable. The Court finds that the State of Texas has provided clear and convincing evidence that (1) the underlying scientific theory of the lidar is valid, (2) the technique used by the Pro Laser III applying lidar is valid, and the technique was properly applied on the occasion in question. In this case the Court finds the proper foundation exists for admitting the Pro Laser III results at trail.”

Colorado

State v Gamm, Moliavi, Boxer, Fargangnia - Municipal Court of Boulder, CO-2/19/1998- “Court takes judicial notice that the Kustom I and II laser/lidar devices are accurate for determining vehicular speeds subject to proof at trial of essential facts: (1) Court received from manufacturer certification the device to be in proper working condition, (2) proof of the training of the operator or the device, (3) proof of calibration of the clock, (4) proof of accuracy of device by an adequate number of distance checks.

Municipal Court of Boulder, CO - 11/27/2000-Docket #832331- “Judicial notice of the scientific principle of laser as a means of detection of vehicular speed is taken and admissible of speed reading taken from Kustom Signals Pro Laser II and Pro Laser III.

Colorado v Cooke-Municipal Court City of Boulder, CO - order 2003-1-5/30/2003- “Court takes judicial notice underlying laser technology as a method to determine speed. Fundamental elements must be met: (1) Proof of annual certification of the device by the Colorado Department of Agriculture, (2) operator was trained and certified and instruction provided by instructor certified to provide such training, (3) proof instrument was operated in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications, (4) proof instrument in proper working order on date in question and device checked for accuracy at the beginning and end of shift to include (a) proof of proper sight reticle alignment, (b) proof speed reading maintained for at least 2 seconds, (c) proof of the distance of speed reading, (d) proof that the lidar’s instrument’s internal check indicated that the instrument was in proper working condition, (e) proof that the officer made a visual estimate of the speed of the vehicle in question to correlate the speed reading indicated by the lidar instrument.”

Colorado v Guyton-Docket #832331 - The sighting window or “heads up display” of the Pro Laser III was challenged as to it being an exact representation of the laser’s beam divergence and targeting of a speeding vehicle by the defendant. Expert testimony by Scott Patterson confirmed the laser beam to be narrower than the red aiming dot of the heads up display or sight reticle. Mr. Patterson confirmed as long as the red dot is kept on a particular point of the vehicle, such as the front grill, the laser will be consistent in its reporting of speed and distance. The defendant’s conviction was confirmed and the laser was given judicial notice by the court.

Idaho

Idaho v Williamson-Court of Appeals - Docket# 33068-May 17, 2007-Judge Lansing- “We hold that laser speed detection devices are generally reliable and their results may be admitted into evidence in Idaho courts. There are three decisions from other jurisdictions that I find provide a pervasive basis to take judicial notice that laser speed devices generally provide accurate measurement of vehicle speeds:

(1) Goldstein v State, 375, MD., 1995, Goldstein 664A 3d at 379
(2) New Jersey Superior Court, 714 A 2d 381. Speed of laser devices was compared to radar guns and a fifth wheel mechanical speed measuring device at total of 1,908 times by the New Jersey State Police. In only 16 instances, .08%, did the laser speed reading vary by more than 1 mph “In the simplest terms, the basic theory underlying the use of lasers to calculate speed can not be disputed and is fundamentally valid.” Judge Stanton went on to say, “Speed readings at distances up to 1,000 feet are admissible. Past 1,000 feet expert testimony must be given prior to admissibility.” 20 March 1998
(3) State v Stoa, Hawaii Court of Appeals, 2006, 145 P 3d 803- “It is appropriate to join the other states that have taken judicial notice of the scientific acceptance and reliability of laser speed measuring devices. A brand by brand approval of particular laser devices should not be necessary to a finding of the general reliability of the overall scientific principle.

Wisconsin

City of Stoughton v Storey - Case #021933-January 17, 2003-Court initially held the city had not demonstrated the Kustom Pro III laser gun had demonstrated a presumption of accuracy and the conviction of Mr. Storey could not be sustained. State Trooper Melvin J. Yasick, Wisconsin State Patrol, who teaches radar and laser at the state police academy, tested the accuracy of the Kustom Pro Laser III extensively against the Falcon handheld radar gun. He testified that at no time did the speed of the laser vary from the speed displayed by the radar gun by more than 1 mph which is within the federal standard as set by NHTSA/USDOT DOT HS 809 812, June 2004: Model Minimum Speed Measuring Device Performance Specifications: Radar Module. He noted the Falcon radar gun is accurate pursuant to State v Hanson. He further testified (1) the laser operator should be trained in its use, (2) the laser should be tested for accuracy before its use, (3) the operator must insure the laser beam is hitting the target, and (4) insure the target is in the range of the laser. As a result of Trooper Yasick’s testimony, the Model Minimum specifications, and its testing and acceptance by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Municipal Judge Jonathan M. Hajny ruled, 27 May 2003, “judicial notice is given of the use of laser for prima facie accuracy. The defendant is found guilty.”

Virginia

Virginia Code Annotated - 46.2-882 - Speed of any motor vehicle may be determined by the use of a laser speed determination device.

Georgia

Georgia Code Annotated - 40-14-17-Evidence of speed based on a laser detection device is considered scientifically reliable and admissible.

Hawaii

Hawaii v Stoa - 145 P 3d 803, 809, 11, 2006, Hawaii Court of Appeals, Judge ruled the State of Hawaii would accept laser speed readings as “judicial notice” saying “Laser speed device results are premised on well understood scientific principles.” Further the court said, “It was appropriate to join the other states that have taken judicial notice of the scientific acceptance and reliability of laser speed measuring devices.
A brand by brand approval of particularized laser devices should not be necessary to a finding of the general reliability of the over-all scientific principle.”

Maryland

Maryland v Goldstein - 664, A., 2d 375, 381, 1995, Judge ruled results of laser speed device were admissible as they are premised on reliable, well understood scientific principles.

New Jersey

New Jersey Superior Court - March 30, 1998, Judge Reginald Stanton ruled, after a eighteen months of testing laser speed measurements against other speed measuring devices including MPH X band K55 radar guns used by the state police and mechanical devices towed behind vehicles as to the acceptance with judicial notice of laser speed measurement readings. He said, “I am satisfied from the totality of evidence presented to me that the laser speed detector products produce reasonably uniform and reasonably reliable measurement of speed of motor vehicles under conditions likely to be present in New Jersey when the detector is used for law enforcement purposes.” He further said certain conditions must be met for admissibility of laser speed readings including: 1) Officers must be properly trained in the use of lidarand the training must be documented, 2) Speed reading made at distances up to 1,000 feet are admissible. Readings obtained in excess of 1,000 feet shall be admitted only with supporting evidence and expert testimony.

New Jersey v Abeskaron - 740 A., 2d, 690, 694, New Jersey Superior Court App. Div., 1999. The court ruled affirming the lower court’s determination that laser devices, subject to listed restrictions, are an appropriate tool to speed measurement.

Alaska

Alaska v Samples - Alaska Court of Appeals, #A-9719, Trial Court #3AN-06-15707MO, Opinion #2107, June 2007. Chief Judge Coats ruled on this appealed decision from Anchorage. The defendant, Samples, cross-examined Officer Dykstra on the various technical aspects of the LIDAR, laser, and its proper use including checking for accuracy daily prior to use, cosine error, sweep error, and the officer’s training and who gave the training. “Officer Dykstra testified that the angle of the laser beam actually benefited Samples. Officer Dykstra also stated that his visual observation, visual tracking history, was more important than the laser reading; the laser reading of 88 mph simply corroborated his visual observation.” The Court found; “there was nothing to indicate that the laser was not functioning properly in this case. Officer Dykstra testified that he checks the alignment of the laser before and after each shift and does not ‘sweep’ cars with the speedmeter.” Chief Judge Coats went on to say, “Many courts have recognized the general reliability of laser speed-detection devices and have deemed their results admissible in court. (State v Williamson, WL 1438128, Idaho App. Court, May 17, 2007, collecting authorities from other states holding that laser speed detection devices are generally reliable and their results admissible in court) The Court held by “judicial notice” of the acceptance of laser speed readings.

California

California v Kruger, Pantos, Payne-Municipal Court of Sacramento California, 887092, DP44339, DP54571. The court ruled, “The lack of adequate training by the Sacramento Police Department has caused this court to conclude that there should be a presumption against the admissibility of radar readings when presented by an officer of that department. This court urges the Sacramento Police Department to immediately embark on a training program in accordance with NHTSA standards. The training program should be conducted by highly qualified radar operators and not by manufacturer’s representatives.”

Oregon

City of Wilsonville v. Korotin - October 19, 2007, Judge Gleeson ruled, “The scientific principle of light beam pulses of radiation used to measure the speed of a moving vehicle is admissible without the requirement of supporting expert testimony. The court further noted the acceptance of “judicial notice” from previous decisions of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah, Judge Cheryl Albrecht, February 2007, whereby the Court ruled on the admissibility of evidence from Lidar device or Laser saying, “this court finds that the evidence regarding the vehicle speeds from the device is admissible scientific evidence. Further, I find that laser meets the standard for scientific evidence as set out in O’Key, supra, Dauber, supra, and Brown, supra.