Has anyone addressed the issue of whether or not expert testimony is required for lasers? The laser read out was the sole basis for the stop.

Any input would be appreciated!

First, I think that you can argue that the laser does not have to be shown to be accurate to justify an officer's belief that there was reasonable suspicion. Chavez v. State, 2006 WL 2516974 (Tex.App. -- El Paso August 31, 2006, pet. ref'd) (not published) ("even if the radar reading is ultimately shown to be inaccurate or false at the time of the stop, Officer Arevalo had developed a reasonable suspicion Appellant was speeding. Icke, 36 S.W.3d at 916 (a stop that meets the test for reasonable suspicion is lawful even if the facts supporting the stop are ultimately shown to be inaccurate or false);"). After all, reasonable suspicion obtained from an informant doesn't have to pass a Kelly test. See U.S. v. Morales, 489 F.Supp.2d 1250 (D.N.M. 2007)(probable cause exists where train drug dog alerts -- questions about the dog's history go to the dog's credibility).

Second, lots of courts have held that the scientific principle of radar is reliable as a matter of law. Masquelette v. State, 579 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Mills v. State, 99 S.W.3d 200 (Tex.App. -- Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd). I would assume that lasers work on the same principle. See generally State v. Williamson, 166 P.3d 387, 389-90 (Idaho App. 2007) (collecting authorities from other states holding that laser speed detection devices are generally reliable and their results admissible in court).