Has anybody had this case come up? We just had all our evidence suppressed where this case was used as the basis.

This case deals with LIDAR & our dealt with radar. This case basically says, "there was no evidence that laser device employing technology supplied probable cause for the stop".

The defense argued that we failed to provide technology to back up the radar. The judge granted the motion to suppress, even though testimony of other justification for the stop was presented.

The court cited other cases to aide in the suppression.

Do we really have to start providing a technology expert for a radar stop to be justifiable PC?

We're screwed on this case. But, we suspect the defense bar with open the flood gates especially as it pertains to this court.

Remember that you only need reasonable suspicion to stop. Depending on what's in your record with your other independent justifications, an appeal might be in order.

As for the issue you were suppressed on, point the court to the line of cases holding that radar meets the first prong of the Kelly test (See Mills 99 SW3d 200, Maysonet 91 SW3d 365). You still need the officer to testify that he used the radar correctly, but don't need any independent scientific expert (it's already accepted technology, judicial economy, etc.).

[This message was edited by EJF on 05-10-10 at .]

The problem is radar isn't lidar. We had a case when I was in Ellis County but I don't remember the outcome of it. KW might remember.

The Mills line of cases indicates that Radar, as a matter of law, is a scientifically acceptable means of determining speed. The remain two prongs of Kelly, that the user applied the technology correctly and that the instrument was working correctly at the time it was used should be all that is required for the admissiblity of radar evidence to prove speed.

But with reasonable suspicion and speed as the reason for the stop, it is important to point out what Hall did not say. Hall's facts and the record on appeal only indicated LIDAR as the sole speed evidence. The court found that unlike Radar, lidar is not an acceptable means of determining speed, yet. That is to say that it hasnt been proven up yet. So, under 702, it was stricken. Because it was the only speed evidence, the record didnt support reasonable suspicion to stop. The problem with Hall, and the result in the CCA, may have changed if there was other speed evidence.


Hall can be distinguished from most cases by making a good record. Was there a visual estimate of speed (DPS v. Hesskew and Icke v. State)? Was LIDAR simply used to confirm what the officer already knew? Was the speed unsafe given the conditions then existing? Did the officer reasonably believe the instrument was working correctly? Even if stricken under 702, the other evidence of speed should be enough for reasonable suspicion.

As the previous post notes, the court in Hall made a point of the fact that the sole basis for the officer's stop was the LIDAR reading. The state offered no other basis for the officer to have believed that Hall was speeding. If you have evidence that your defendant was violating the speed limit (ex., he was passing other vehicles, that he was pulling away from your officer who was traveling at the speed limit, etc.), that should be enough for RS to stop. I used to use DWI cases where the court threw out the radar as a basis for the stop, but still upheld the detention on the basis that the officer had other reasonable facts to support his belief the driver was speeding.

Janette A

Check out these cases:

Maysonet v. State, 91 S.W.3d 365
Wilson v. State, 328 S.W.2d 311
Masquelette v. State, 579 S.W.2d 478