Ohio Speeding Law Update: Laser Guns & Admissibility
Great Speeding Decision from the 12th Appellate District
In State v. Starks, 2011-Ohio-2344 the Defendant was stopped for a speeding violation in a construction zone and went to trial pro se. He objected to any testimony regarding a laser gun. The trial court took judicial notice of the reliability of the laser gun and the defendant was convicted. He appealed to the 12th District Court of Appeals and his conviction was reversed. The Court ruled,
Although the underlying principles of laser technology may be the same from one device to another, generally judicial notice as to the reliability of a speed-measuring device is device specific. State v. Kincaid, 124 Ohio Misc.2d 92, 2003-Ohio-4632, ¶15. Therefore, expert testimony is necessary, “whether it be a new device or an upgrade of an existing device, before the court may take judicial notice of that particular device in future
proceedings.” Id. at ¶20.
If you need an attorney to challenge your speeding case anywhere in the Miami Valley, or throughout Ohio, contact Charles M. Rowland II at (937)318-1384 or 1-888-ROWLAND. Ohio traffic attorney Charles M. Rowland is a former city prosecutor and has defended speeding cases for over fifteen year. You can find the decision discussed above HERE.
Related articles
- Ohio Traffic Enforcement: “Click It or Ticket” (daytondui.com)
- Miami Valley Municipal Court Finder (daytondui.com)
- Arrested for DUI in Dayton, Ohio? (daytondui.com)
- Springfield DUI & The Clark County Municipal Court (daytondui.com)
