A Texas Court of Appeals has ruled that laser speed detection equipment (LIDAR) has not been proven to be accurate and therefore cannot be admitted as evidence in criminal cases in Texas.

The Court ruled that prior judicial decisions affirming the reliability of RADAR were irrelevant to the question of the reliability of LIDAR.

The Court of Appeals in Waco ruled that the state failed to prove the reliability of LIDAR on which the officer relied to determine that the defendant was speeding.

The entire decision is available here.

It might come in handy if you get a ticket in Texas by an officer using laser.

Ohio appeals court throws out unproven lidar speed gun evidence.

An appellate court on Monday ruled that key evidence used in Ohio speed traps was not admissible. With millions in local government revenue at stake, the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Ninth District found the accuracy of laser-based speed guns (lidar) to be unproven. The decision could inspire challenges to laser tickets throughout the state.

The present case began when Ohio State Trooper Dennis Matulin hid along the median of Interstate 71 with an LTI 20-20 laser speed gun waiting for the device to indicate that someone had exceeded the speed limit. Matulin charged that when Donald Miko’s semi truck passed his location, the lidar gun displayed a reading of 67 MPH. The limit for trucks on the road is 55 and for cars 65.

At trial in the Medina County Municipal Court, Miko objected that the trooper’s LTI 20-20 had never been proved reliable in an Ohio court of law. The prosecutor merely asserted the contrary. The magistrate quickly agreed, saying, “Yes, the court had done so by prior judgment entry.” The court imposed a $100 fine and two points against Miko’s commercial driving license. Appellate Judge Clair E. Dickinson scolded the lower court for violating the rule that a county court must publish, or report, a “judgment entry” used for the purpose of taking judicial notice.

“Nobody has brought a reported decision of the Medina Municipal Court considering the accuracy of the LTI 20-20 device to this court’s attention,” Judge Clair E. Dickinson wrote. “The trial court, therefore, was not authorized to take judicial notice of the scientific accuracy of the LTI 20-20 laser device by Rule 201(B)(1) of the Ohio Rules of Evidence.”

Dickinson went on to point out that the unreported case which the Medina court cited to convict Miko did not include any required testimony from expert witnesses. As a result, the court overturned Miko’s conviction.

Read the rest of this entry »

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania police admit they violated the law in issuing 650 lidar-based speeding tickets.

A pair of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania motorcycle police are under fire for breaking state law to issue 650 speeding tickets between October 1, 2007 and April 10, 2008. The officers hid on Route 65 near the West End Bridge and used lidar, a prohibited laser-based speed estimation device. Pittsburgh Police Chief Nate Harper admitted that the actions of his officers, who he declined to identify, violated the law.

“The officers were questioned on how many citations they have written and basically that’s when it hit our screen that officers were illegally utilizing equipment,” Harper said at a press conference yesterday. “It wasn’t authorized…. We apologize to all the public for the inconvenience, and lidar will no longer be utilized.”

KDKA-TV uncovered the fraud after being contacted by Jeff Grasha, a motorist who had received an illegal citation. Grasha said it was obvious the system was being used to raise money, not increase safety.

That was the reasoning of the state legislature forty years ago when it prohibited municipalities from using radar as a means of generating revenue (75 Pa.C.S. Section 3368). Although state police are allowed to use radar, no law enforcement agency in Pennsylvania has authorization to issue a citation with lidar. Repeated attempts to repeal the ban have failed despite pressure from insurance industry groups like AAA that support local radar and lidar use because it would lead to an increase in surcharges on automobile insurance policies.

In this case, the Pittsburgh officers were supposed to say that were “testing” lidar “along with” approved speed estimation devices. These include VASCAR — a sophisticated version of a stop watch — ESP, Accutrak and Enradd.

“It was a miscommunication between basically a supervisor and the officers,” Chief Harper said. “Out of the 24 officers, two officers misunderstood that this was only to be a test.”

Refunds will be issued and insurance companies may, on request, drop license points assessed as a result of the tickets.

Source: (KDKA-TV (PA), 4/15/2008)