Izer v. State
Decision Date | 05 February 1999 |
Docket Number | No. A98A2475.,A98A2475. |
Citation | 511 S.E.2d 625,236 Ga. App. 282 |
Parties | IZER v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Clark & Towne, David E. Clark, Jessica R. Towne, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor, Michael K. Biglow, Jeffrey P. Kwiatkowski, Assistant Solicitors, for appellee.
After a bench trial, David Izer was found guilty of speeding. He appeals from the conviction, claiming that evidence obtained from a laser speed detection device should not have been admitted because the state failed to introduce any evidence establishing the reliability of laser-based speed measuring techniques. We agree.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hubbard v. State, 207 Ga.App. 703, 704, 429 S.E.2d 123 (1993). (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. State, 250 Ga. 438, 440(4), 298 S.E.2d 482 (1983); Manley v. State, 206 Ga.App. 281, 424 S.E.2d 818 (1992).
At trial, the arresting officer testified that he was certified to operate the device, that the particular unit was approved by the Department of Public Safety, and that the device had been tested and was working properly on the date in question. However, the state did not introduce any expert testimony to establish that the technique of using laser-based devices to measure vehicle speed has reached a scientific stage of verifiable certainty. See generally Caldwell v. State, 260 Ga. 278, 286(1)(b), 393 S.E.2d 436 (1990). Nor did the state bring to the trial court's attention any exhibits, treatises or cases from other jurisdictions establishing the reliability of the technique.
Of course, as noted above, once a procedure or technology has been recognized in a substantial number of courts, or has been utilized for a significant period of time and expert testimony has been received thereon in case after case, a trial court may take judicial notice of the device's reliability and acceptance. See Hawkins v. State, 223 Ga. App. 34, 36(1), 476 S.E.2d 803 (1996). The trial court does not have to keep reinventing the wheel; a once novel technology can and does become commonplace. Id.
Surprisingly, we have not yet reached that stage regarding laser technology. While the use of radar as a technique for measuring speed and its admissibility as scientific evidence is widely accepted in Georgia and other states, see discussion in Lattarulo v. State, 261 Ga. 124, 126(3), 401 S.E.2d 516 (1991), the use and admissibility of laser evidence has apparently not been explored by the appellate courts of this state. The state has not shown the two techniques to be the same.
Only a few courts in other jurisdictions have published opinions discussing the issue of the scientific acceptability or reliability of laser-based speed detection devices. See In the Matter of the Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Speed Readings Produced by the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection System, 314 N.J.Super. 233, 714 A.2d 381 (1998) ( ); People v. Clemens, 642 N.Y.S.2d 760, 168 Misc.2d 56 (1995) ( ); People v. DePass, 629 N.Y.S.2d 367, 165 Misc.2d 217 (1995) ( ); Goldstein v. State, 664 A.2d 375, 339 Md. 563 (1995) ( ). Although these courts have accepted laser evidence, in some cases only with expert testimony, it cannot be said that a substantial number of courts have recognized the technique. See generally Hawkins, supra. Considering the dearth of authority showing the scientific certainty of the technique, as well as the absence of expert testimony on the subject, the trial court erred in admitting the evidence. See generally Gentry v. State, 213 Ga.App. 24, 25(2), 443 S.E.2d 667 (1994); compare Allison v. State, 179 Ga.App. 303, 306-308(1), 346 S.E.2d 380 (1986), rev'd on other grounds, 256 Ga. 851, 353 S.E.2d 805 (1987).
The state argues that laser evidence must be admitted because the legislature has included in its definition of acceptable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bravo v. The State
...of testing using a penile plethysmograph because the defendant failed to establish the reliability of the testing); Izer v. State, 236 Ga.App. 282, 283, 511 S.E.2d 625 (1999) (holding that trial court erred by admitting evidence of readings from a laser-based speed detection device because ......
-
Cannon v. State, A01A0862.
...failed to establish that the testing procedure used had reached a scientific stage of verifiable certainty, citing Izer v. State, 236 Ga.App. 282, 511 S.E.2d 625 (1999), and Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519, 292 S.E.2d 389 (1982). We note initially that Cannon failed to preserve this enumeratio......
-
State v. Stoa
...so as to allow evidence from such devices to be admissible without expert testimony. She cites, for example, Izer v. State, 236 Ga.App. 282, 511 S.E.2d 625, 627 (1999) (holding that although some courts have accepted laser evidence, "it cannot be said that a substantial number of courts hav......
-
Grinstead v. State
...number of years).1 In this case, the trial court relied on only one case, Cheatwood. One case is not enough. See Izer v. State, 236 Ga.App. 282, 283, 511 S.E.2d 625 (1999) ("Although [four] courts have accepted [speed-detecting] laser evidence, in some cases only with expert testimony, it c......
-
Criminal Law - Franklin J. Hogue and Laura D. Hogue
...354. 92. Id. 93. 236 Ga. App. 321, 512 S.E.2d 66 (1999). 94. Id. at 323, 512 S.E.2d at 69. 95. Id. at 322, 512 S.E.2d at 68. 96. Id. 97. 236 Ga. App. 282, 511 S.E.2d 625 (1999). 98. Id. at 283-84, 511 S.E.2d at 627-28. 99. O.C.G.A. Sec. 40-14-17 (Supp. 1999). 100. State v. Hinson, 269 Ga. 8......
-
Evidence - Mark T. Treadwell
...Ga. App. 587, 592-93, 452 S.E.2d at 159, 165 (1994)). 133. Id. at 295, 514 S.E.2d at 452. 134. Id. at 294-95, 514 S.E.2d at 752. 135. 236 Ga. App. 282, 511 S.E.2d 625 (1999). 136. Id. at 282, 511 S.E.2d at 627. 137. Id., 511 S.E.2d at 626. 138. See Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519, 292 S.E.2d 3......