Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
  1. #1
    Street Lawyer
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    719, Colorado
    Posts
    7,108

    Default Laser - Judicial Notice UPDATED 09/16/2009

    Someone sticky this please! (and move if this is not the proper section, I put it here because it coincides with 10yrcops thread)

    I searched caseclerk.com for all the states that have judicial notice and they are as follows:

    States with Judicial Notice of Laser/Lidar

    Alaska (Alaska v Samples June 2007, blanket rule all laser)
    Conneticut (by statute),
    Colorado (State v Gamm, Moliavi, Boxer, Fargangnia 1998, Kustom I & II & People of the city of Boulder, CO vs Kathryn Judicial Notice of laser and admissibility of Kustom Pro II & III),
    Georgia -- OCGA § 40-14-17 (LAW SUPERCEEDS JUDICIAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO Van Nort v. State, Izer v State),
    Hawaii (State v. Stoa 8/7/2006),
    Idaho (5/17/2007, Idaho v Williamson, blanket rule on all laser devices),
    Illinois (People v. Sobol, No. 96-TR-5235 (Logan County ONLY and ONLY LTI 20/20 People v. CANULLI shows that Lidar is not on Judicial Notice)*,
    Maryland (Maryland v Goldstein),
    Minnesota,
    New Jersey, (State v. John Green 11/9/2010, Stalker Lidar *NOT* admissible)
    New York ( State v VERSUS GARY F. DEPASS / LTI 20/20 ONLY) People of New York v Depass, supra; People of New York v. Clemens,
    Ohio State v. Saphire(*NOT* on judicial notice, court erred in fail to require expert testimony), (must be device specific however see State V. Kincaid) and Ohio vs Dawson, LTI 20-20 accepted,
    Oregon (City of Wilsonville v. Korotin October 2007, judicial notice acceptable without expert witness testimony!),
    Texas (Texas v Sparks 5/21/2004, Pro Laser III ONLY, no wonder there's so many of those in Texas) (Phillip Jason Hall vs TEXAS, July 30, 2008 - LASER/LIDAR *NOT* ADMISSIBLE IN TEXAS - NO JUDICIAL NOTICE!) UPDATE: Hall vs State reversed in part, Kelly Gatekeeper hearing not required AT suppression hearings, but affirmed judgement as no probable cause!) 2009 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1205,*;297 S.W.3d 294,
    Virginia (by statute),
    Wisconsin (City of Stoughton v Storey 01/17/2003 Pro Laser III),

    Any states without comments I don't have specific information on, they were just referenced in Hawaii's State v. Stoa, I saw the cases in caseclerk.

    The states listed above HAVE judicial notice, meaning the courts have recognized laser as a form of speed measurement. The states not listed, do not have judicial notice, and therefore you can make arguements that since your jurisdiction does not have judicial notice, and the theory of operation and scientific evidence that lasers can detect speed hasn't been proven to the court, the laser evidence should be supressed.

    http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...tml#post609210 -- Easy Illinois wins

    UPDATE 01/05/2008 NEW LINK with case law cited: Radar & Laser Speed Enforcement Expert Witness

    Updated: 02/21/2009 with Colorado info.

    Updated: 09/16/2009 with new illinois info from Suf Daddy

    Updated 11/13/2010 with New Jersey info.

    Updated 11/16/2010 New Ohio & Texas info
    Last edited by Lucky225; 11-17-2010 at 12:09 AM. Reason: Updated New Jersey

  2. #2
    Good Citizen
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    170

    Default Re: Laser - Judicial Notice

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucky225
    Someone sticky this please! (and move if this is not the proper section, I put it here because it coincides with 10yrcops thread)

    I searched caseclerk.com for all the states that have judicial notice and they are as follows:

    States with Judicial Notice of Laser/Lidar

    Hawaii State v. Stoa 8/7/2006
    New Jersey,
    Maryland,
    Minnesota,
    Ohio (must be device specific however see State V. Kincaid)
    Georgia -- OCGA 40-14-17 (LAW SUPERCEEDS JUDICIAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO Van Nort v. State!),
    New York,
    Conneticut (also by statute),
    Virginia (by statute)

    Any states without comments I don't have specific information on, they were just referenced in Hawaii's State v. Stoa, I saw the cases in caseclerk.

    The states listed above HAVE judicial notice, meaning the courts have recognized laser as a form of speed measurement. The states not listed, do not have judicial notice, and therefore you can make arguements that since your jurisdiction does not have judicial notice, and the theory of operation and scientific evidence that lasers can detect speed hasn't been proven to the court, the laser evidence should be supressed.

    Yes and no...just because the state does not have caselaw does not mean an officer cannot testify in court about speed..time on, specialties and the judge play a crucial role in getting your point or in this case,,, points in court..Be sensible about your speed in the first place... drive with due care in congested areas...use jammers...know how to use them..have a backup plan and be nice to the officer..he will run the show for the few minutes encounter.. be polite but dont kiss ass...admit he may have caught you...but that you are cognizent of your surroundings and saw him thus reducing your speed..This helps more than you think...ELVIS

  3. #3
    Street Lawyer
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    719, Colorado
    Posts
    7,108

    Default Re: Laser - Judicial Notice

    Quote Originally Posted by Elvis
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucky225
    Someone sticky this please! (and move if this is not the proper section, I put it here because it coincides with 10yrcops thread)

    I searched caseclerk.com for all the states that have judicial notice and they are as follows:

    States with Judicial Notice of Laser/Lidar

    Hawaii State v. Stoa 8/7/2006
    New Jersey,
    Maryland,
    Minnesota,
    Ohio (must be device specific however see State V. Kincaid)
    Georgia -- OCGA 40-14-17 (LAW SUPERCEEDS JUDICIAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO Van Nort v. State!),
    New York,
    Conneticut (also by statute),
    Virginia (by statute)

    Any states without comments I don't have specific information on, they were just referenced in Hawaii's State v. Stoa, I saw the cases in caseclerk.

    The states listed above HAVE judicial notice, meaning the courts have recognized laser as a form of speed measurement. The states not listed, do not have judicial notice, and therefore you can make arguements that since your jurisdiction does not have judicial notice, and the theory of operation and scientific evidence that lasers can detect speed hasn't been proven to the court, the laser evidence should be supressed.

    Yes and no...just because the state does not have caselaw does not mean an officer cannot testify in court about speed..time on, specialties and the judge play a crucial role in getting your point or in this case,,, points in court..Be sensible about your speed in the first place... drive with due care in congested areas...use jammers...know how to use them..have a backup plan and be nice to the officer..he will run the show for the few minutes encounter.. be polite but dont kiss ass...admit he may have caught you...but that you are cognizent of your surroundings and saw him thus reducing your speed..This helps more than you think...ELVIS
    Admitting guilt does not help anything, anything you say can and will be used against you. Judicial Notice is required for any new scientific evidence trying to be entered in court against you. If there's no Judicial Notice, there's no foundation for the evidence, if there's no evidence of you speeding, there's no conviction

  4. #4
    Radar Fanatic
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    North Bay, CA
    Posts
    1,705

    Default

    can you recheck again for me on the state of california please?

    They just upgraded withen this last month CHP to lidar, so I want to know if it changed or not.

    This might help a good amount if phrased right. 8)

  5. #5
    Street Lawyer
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    719, Colorado
    Posts
    7,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bunny
    can you recheck again for me on the state of california please?

    They just upgraded withen this last month CHP to lidar, so I want to know if it changed or not.

    This might help a good amount if phrased right. 8)
    Haven't seen anything yet, I'll recheck later though

  6. #6
    Newcomer
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1

    Default laser - judicial notice in California

    Yeah, I would be interested in this as well.

    Please confirm whether or not judicial notice is in effect for laser use in California.

    Thanks. 8)

  7. #7
    Lead Foot
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    466

    Default

    damnit i didnt see michigan and i been laser twice and had to pay fines twice. I wish i would of known this before. And has anyone tried this in courts to see what they say/happens?

  8. #8
    Street Lawyer
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    719, Colorado
    Posts
    7,108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by muledoe1
    *beep* i didnt see michigan and i been laser twice and had to pay fines twice. I wish i would of known this before. And has anyone tried this in courts to see what they say/happens?
    Just researched all the state courts today, don't see michigan, but did see new york and idaho updated above.


    This defense worked in Illinois in Illinois v MICHAEL D. CANULLI (792 N.E.2d 438, 341 Ill.App.3d 361, 275 Ill.Dec. 207, 2003.IL.0000531)

    (PLEASE NOT THIS IS *NOT* PUBLISHED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW, DO *NOT* CITE IT IN COURT AS IT IS *NOT* PUBLISHED)

    [42] No reported cases in Illinois address the admissibility of Lidar laser evidence to measure the speed of vehicles. Where the question of the general acceptance of a new scientific theory is raised, the court is oftentimes asked to establish the law of the jurisdiction for future cases. People v. Dalcollo, 282 Ill. App. 3d 944, 955, 669 N.E.2d 378, 385 (1996). The formulation of the law is a "quintessentially appellate function." Dalcollo, 282 Ill. App. 3d at 955, 669 N.E.2d at 385. In the present case, however, the trial court took judicial notice of a Frye hearing that was conducted on the acceptance in the scientific community of the use of laser technology to measure the speed of vehicles in another case in the circuit court. Courts are not bound to follow decisions of equal or inferior courts. Village of Northbrook v. Cannon, 61 Ill. App. 3d 315, 322, 377 N.E.2d 1208, 1213 (1978). Moreover, the Frye hearing in the Sobol case occurred in 1996, was conducted at the sentencing hearing after defendant pleaded guilty, involved different parties, and the testimony centered on the reliability of the LTI 2020 (a laser- based speed-detection system manufactured by Laser Technology, Inc.), rather than the Lidar laser unit used here. In addition, the record indicates that defendant was not aware that a Frye hearing was going to be conducted prior to the sentencing hearing and, therefore, did not present any evidence or have an expert present. When the trial court asked defense counsel if he had any further questions of the expert witness, defense counsel stated:

    [43] "Well, I don't have any scientific expert obviously because I just got the notice, and I was[,] as I explained earlier to the court[,] somewhat surprised to find out that the lasers have been far from accepted in the legal community. I think the witness' own testimony is that there has [sic] been ten out of fifty states that have accepted them so far. I have not been able to find other than one decision in New York that has accepted it as an appellate case obviously because it is a speeding device[;] maybe not all that many cases get to the appellate court that quickly.

    [44] I believe at least with the LTI 2020 it is far from being an accepted device, and I think where there is no knowledge, the laser itself tests distances, we don't know the calibrations that go into [sic] get the numbers. My client has plead[ed] guilty. I'm not here to belabor the issue, but there are certainly questions in my mind about its accuracy."

    [45] Based on the transcript from the Frye hearing conducted in Sobol, we find that the issue of scientific acceptance of laser technology to measure the speed of vehicles has not been adequately litigated. See Donaldson, 199 Ill. 2d at 84, 767 N.E.2d at 328 (relying exclusively upon prior judicial decisions to establish general scientific acceptance can be a "hollow ritual" if the underlying issue of scientific acceptance has not been adequately litigated).

    [46] We find the use of Lidar laser technology to measure the speed of an automobile constitutes "new" or "novel" evidence. Therefore, a Frye evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine whether these instruments were admissible as a matter of law. The trial court erred in admitting the results of the Lidar laser unit without conducting a Frye hearing. Because the only evidence of the speed of defendant's vehicle was obtained through the use of a Lidar laser unit, whose general acceptance has not been thoroughly litigated in precedential cases, defendant was denied a fair trial. Moreover, because the State did not present the speed of defendant's vehicle through any other evidence, no fact finder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was traveling 80 miles per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour zone. Double jeopardy considerations, therefore, prevent retrial.

    [47] III. CONCLUSION

    [48] For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court's judgment without remand.

    [49] Reversed.

    [50] KNECHT and COOK, JJ., concur.

  9. #9
    Street Lawyer
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    719, Colorado
    Posts
    7,108

    Default Re: laser - judicial notice in California

    Quote Originally Posted by jazzmaster
    Yeah, I would be interested in this as well.

    Please confirm whether or not judicial notice is in effect for laser use in California.

    Thanks. 8)
    Don't see any judicial notice for California yet...

  10. #10
    Lead Foot
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    466

    Default

    i didnt understand if you were talking to me or not. You said do NOT try this in court cause it is not public?

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Lidar Judicial Notice TX 09/16/2009
    By Lucky225 in forum News Stories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-25-2009, 02:52 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •