Question about lasers

[badapple40]

What is the name of your state? Ohio

Your badapple got himself a ticket by the Ohio State Patrol, interstate. Written plea of not guilty, no waiver of speedy trial, so the trial date is fast approaching (they have 30 days to bring to trial in Ohio).

The officer in question got me via a laser. In the notes section, it says:

#6340 0700 + 1700 1267ft

I do not know what the make or model of the laser is. I've heard OSP uses LTI's. I would have requested it in discovery, but I don't want to toll the speedy trial limit.

Also, case law out of the relevant district indicates that the court cannot take judicial notice of the laser device until or unless it receives expert testimony at least once on the unit (police officer's don't qualify as experts), and, as far as I am aware, they have not yet done so, so that is my "angle" if you will, since I do not think the trial court has had an expert testify yet.

What I want to know is whether anyone has any information or knowledge on the operation of laser devices in general? Specifically, what tests should a reasonable officer conduct on the unit to ensure that it is in good working order? Are there legitimate margins for error or any other way to attack the laser reading? What do the annotations in the notes section mean?

[fairisfair]

I don't know if this will help or not

[url]http://members.cox.net/reconokc/radar.html[/url]

[BelizeBreeze]

Although I still don't believe you haven't dueled, check this out.

[url]http://www.k40.com/images/pdf/reviews/sml_laserwars.pdf[/url].

[badapple40]

Thanks much. Was prepared, but then the trooper didn't show up. Case dismissed.

[cepe10]

For Lasers they have to be calibrated at a lab to a nist traceable standard - simulator or pace car with calibrated speedometer, etc. I believe on a minimum 1 yr interval - I know in VA 6 months is required by statute. And that means a certificate has to be presented to have admissable evidence.

I think OH did take judicial notice State v. Lloyd, No. 2001-CO-36 (Ohio App. Dist.7 06/13/2002)

You should check out this case as well.... In both cases guilty verdicts were reversed...

State v. Saphire, No. 2000 CA 39 (Ohio App. Dist.2 12/08/2000)

[1] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT


[2] C.A. CASE No. 2000 CA 39


[3] 2000.OH.0048094 <http://www.versuslaw.com>


[4] December 8, 2000


[5] STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
V.
DAVID A. SAPHIRE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT


[6] T.C. CASE NO. 99 TRD 09968-1-1


[7] Thomas R. Stafford, Atty. Reg. No. 0034027, 101 North Detroit Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee Konrad Kuczak, Atty. Reg. No. 0011186, 130 West Second Street, Suite 1010, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant


[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wolff, J.


[9] OPINION


[10] Rendered on the 8th day of December, 2000.


[11] David A. Saphire appeals from a judgment of the Xenia Municipal Court, Traffic Division, which found him guilty of operating a motor vehicle at fifty-five miles per hour ("m.p.h.") in an area with a forty m.p.h. posted speed limit.

[33] It is not entirely clear, based upon the record, what type of laser device was used to measure Saphire's speed. In a "Laser Statement to Court" filled out by Williams, the device is described as a "Laser LTI 20-20 UltraLyte[.]" Williams called the device an "Ultralite 20/20 Model 200 laser" during his testimony at trial. Prior to the start of the trial and on the record, Saphire's attorney raised an issue about whether the device was an "LTI 2020" or an "LTI 2020 Model 200." In response, the prosecutor stated that the LTI 2020 and LTI 2020 Model 200 were the same device. In his post-trial brief, the prosecutor referred to the device as an "LTI 20/20 Laser[.]" In Saphire's post-trial brief, his attorney states that Williams "originally misidentified the model of the laser unit to the Court and the Defendant by filing a written document claiming that he had used an LTI 20/20 laser unit when the truth was that he used an Ultralite 20/20 laser unit." The trial court referred to the device as an "Ultralight 20/20 Model 200" laser in its judgment entry.


[34] Although the accurate name of the laser device used by Williams is unclear, it appears that neither our court nor the supreme court has taken judicial notice of any laser device with one of the names listed supra. Further, there was no indication in the record or in the trial court's entry that it had previously heard expert testimony regarding this particular laser device.


[35] Because there is nothing in the record to show that the trial court has ever received expert evidence on and determined that the laser device used in this case is dependable and accurate, and because it appears that no court of binding authority upon the Xenia Municipal Court has ever taken judicial notice of this laser device, we conclude that Saphire's second assignment of error is persuasive. See State v. Colby (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 291, 291-292, 470 N.E.2d 924, 925; State v. Freeman (Cty.C.1985), 24 Ohio Misc.2d 7, 9-10, 493 N.E.2d 571, 574.


[36] The second assignment of error is sustained.

[49] Williams testified that he had observed Saphire traveling "at a speed that [he] estimated to be in excess of the posted [forty m.p.h.] speed limit." [Tr.p.20] The only evidence presented to show that Saphire was traveling fifty-five m.p.h. was the reading from the laser device. As we discussed, supra, the trial court should not have admitted the reading from the laser device because there was no expert testimony regarding the reliability and accuracy of the device. Thus, there was no admissible evidence that Saphire was traveling fifty-five m.p.h. Williams' estimate that Saphire was traveling "in excess" of forty m.p.h. is not sufficient to convince a reasonable mind beyond a reasonable doubt that he was traveling fifty-five m.p.h.


[50] The fourth and fifth assignments of error are sustained.


[51] The judgment of the trial court will be reversed and the defendant will be discharged.

[cepe10]

Originally Posted by fairisfair

I don't know if this will help or not

[url]http://members.cox.net/reconokc/radar.html[/url]

I doubt it since this is on radar not lidar...

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by badapple40

Thanks much. Was prepared, but then the trooper didn't show up. Case dismissed.

I would have thrown the book at you...and then the keg, the sifter and any other bottle (except the 1998 Woodford Reserve) of fine Kentucky Whiskey I could find.

[badapple40]

If the trooper would have showed up, I had another surprise for him.

Namely the objection and inadmissibility of his laser reading. For whatever reason, the local prosecutors refuse to have an expert come in on the laser units, so it all gets thrown out.

[url]http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-3174.pdf[/url]

[url]http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2004/2004-ohio-5992.pdf[/url]

No book throwing at me. Besides, the worst the judge could have done was a $150 fine, plus $84 in costs, which is $234 total. I couldn't really care about the fine anyways.

If you plea guilty, the payout is $104. So there is a $130 difference. More fundamentally, your insurance company jacks up your rates. The last time I got a ticket (8 years ago), USAA raised my premium $210 for a 6 month period. So that makes it $420 a year X 3 years at the increased rate, or $1260.

So, if I challenge it and LOSE, it costs me an added $130. If I challenge it and WIN, I pay nothing, and I save a total of $104 + $1260, or $1364.

I spend two hours between prepping for trial and court, so in that sense, I lost out on 2 hours X $275/hr, or $550. But I don't see dollar for dollar anyways, because it gets split among my 200 some partners and divided in some magical formula, whereas I see dollar for dollar on beating the ticket.

Even assuming dollar for dollar of my own time, net gain was $1364 - $550 = $814, so it was a profitable exercise.

I was not a math major, so if it doesn't make sense, I'll just say that I enjoy fighting "the man," (it is why I take on pro bono death penalty cases and appeals) and relish every victory, major or minor.

[fairisfair]

Originally Posted by cepe10

I doubt it since this is on radar not lidar...

yeah, and I doubt you were much help either, as the case was already dismissed.

[cepe10]

LMAO on the second reference of yours apparently police specialtist AL Gober had no clue about the State v. Lloyd, No. 2001-CO-36 (Ohio App. Dist.7 06/13/2002) decision on judicial notice of the LTI device.

I am surprised OH is not considering all IACP approved Laser devices though like other states are in a similar manner to general acceptance of radar instrumentation. I'd be further surprised if the kourt and leo knew what judicial notice or foundation and admissibility of evidence means

You have provided some nice finds.

[badapple40]

Originally Posted by cepe10

LMAO on the second reference of yours apparently police specialtist AL Gober had no clue about the State v. Lloyd, No. 2001-CO-36 (Ohio App. Dist.7 06/13/2002) decision on judicial notice of the LTI device.

I am surprised OH is not considering all IACP approved Laser devices though like other states are in a similar manner to general acceptance of radar instrumentation. I'd be further surprised if the kourt and leo knew what judicial notice or foundation and admissibility of evidence means

You have provided some nice finds.

No, you don't understand. The judicial notice in the 7th District does not matter for judicial notice in the first district. Each district has to take judicial notice, and it has to be for the specific device in question (if they upgrade, they have to bring in another expert). That is what the Levine and Branch cases stand for. And in Cincinnati, the prosecutors have yet to do so.