Village of Moreland Hills v. Gazdak
Decision Date | 27 June 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 54516,54516 |
Citation | 550 N.E.2d 203,49 Ohio App.3d 22 |
Parties | VILLAGE OF MORELAND HILLS, Appellee, v. GAZDAK, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The taking of judicial notice in one jurisdiction cannot serve as proper judicial notice in another jurisdiction.
2. Judicial notice of the accuracy of a specific model of radar device cannot automatically be extended to warrant judicial notice of the accuracy of another model of radar device in another case.
Robert L. Musser, Cleveland, for appellee.
James G. Dawson, Richmond Heights, for appellant.
Defendant-appellant, Matthew J. Gazdak, appeals from his conviction for the offense of speeding.
On May 17, 1987, the appellant was stopped and cited by patrol officer Janet Boehler, on State Route 91 in the village of Moreland Hills, for exceeding the posted speed limit. The appellant was allegedly traveling at the rate of sixty m.p.h. in a forty m.p.h. zone. The speed was determined solely by operation of a moving radar unit.
On August 24, 1987, the appellant was tried without a jury in the Bedford Municipal Court. The appellant was found guilty and fined $40 plus court costs.
Thereafter, the appellant timely brought this appeal.
The appellant's first assignment of error is that:
"The trial court committed error by taking judicial notice of the accuracy of an alleged speed measuring device in the absence of expert testimony with respect to the construction of the device, its method of operation and its reliability."
This court, in Cleveland Heights v. Bartell (Feb. 19, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 51719, unreported, 1987 WL 6815, held that:
In the case sub judice, however, the radar unit involved in the determination of the appellant's speed was a moving radar unit, the model S-80.
A review of Ohio case law reveals that judicial notice has been taken by other courts of the reliability of a particular model of moving radar where an expert has specifically testified as to the construction, operation, and accuracy of that model of moving radar. However, the taking of judicial notice by a foreign jurisdiction cannot serve as proper judicial notice in another jurisdiction:
State v. Doles (1980), 70 Ohio App.2d 35, 38, 24 O.O.3d 25, 27, 433 N.E.2d 1290, 1292.
In addition, the record herein fails to indicate that the trial court has ever received expert testimony concerning the construction, operation, and accuracy of the model S-80 moving radar unit. Although the record does reveal that the trial court has taken judicial notice of the model K-55 moving radar unit vis-a-vis the village of Chagrin Falls in a 1981 case in the Bedford Municipal Court, No. 81TRD1757, unreported, that judicial notice cannot be automatically extended to other models of moving radar. Kirtland Hills v. Logan (1984), 21 Ohio App.3d 67, 21 OBR 71, 486 N.E.2d 231; State v. Doles, supra.
Therefore, the trial court herein erred in taking judicial notice of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Brookpark v. Rodojev
...taken judicial notice of the scientific reliability of radar-based speed measuring devices. Id., citing Moreland Hills v. Gazdak , 49 Ohio App.3d 22, 550 N.E.2d 203 (8th Dist.1988), paragraph two of the syllabus ("Judicial notice of the accuracy of a specific model of radar device cannot au......
-
State v. James R. Kirkland, 98-LW-0979
...of that particular device in future cases within that jurisdiction. State v. Colby (1984), 14 Ohio App.3d 291; See, also, Moreland Hills, 49 Ohio App.3d at 22; Doles, 70 Ohio App.2d at 38; Wilcox, Ohio App.2d at 384. In the present case, the trial court took judicial notice of the K-55 rada......
-
State v. Kincaid
...laser); State v. Kirkland (Mar. 2, 1998), 3d Dist. No. 8-97-22, 1998 WL 126849 (K-55 radar—moving mode); Moreland Hills v. Gazdak (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 22, 23, 550 N.E.2d 203 (Model S-80 moving radar); State v. Saphire (Dec. 8, 2002), 2d Dist. No. 2000 CA 39, 2000 WL 1803852 (Ultralite 20/......
-
City of Cleveland v. Craig
...(Sept. 8, 1995), 11th Dist. No. 95-G-1907, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 3910 (addressing the LTI 20/20 laser); Moreland Hills v. Gazdak (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 22, 550 N.E.2d 203(addressing the Model S-80 moving radar). This movement, however, has evolved into a device- and jurisdiction-specific inq......