Opinion
Cr. A. No. K00-06-04081
Submitted: November 3, 2000
Decided: December 8, 2000
Upon the State's Motion in Limine
GRANTED.
April Collins Betts, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware, for the State.
Imad Jarwan, pro Se.
OPINION
Defendant Imad Jarwan is charged with speeding in violation of 21 Del. C. § 4169(b). Before the Court is the State's Motion in Limine to admit at trial the results of a new speed measuring device called the Stalker Lidar as reliable scientific evidence. For the following reasons the motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The matter is before this Court pursuant to an Information filed by the Attorney General. The Information was filed in this Court because the Superior Court has not yet ruled on the admissibility of evidence from the Stalker Lidar device. The State has moved in limine to admit evidence from the device and an evidentiary hearing was held on the motion.
At the hearing, the State presented the testimony of Officer David Minor of the Dover Police Department and Robert S. Gammenthaler of Applied Concepts, Inc. as an expert witness in the scientific principles of laser technology, Light Detection and Ranging ("lidar") technology, and the Stalker Lidar device. Mr. Gammenthaler holds a Bachelor of Science and a Master's Degree in electrical engineering. He has been employed for 16 years as the Chief Engineer with Applied Concepts Inc., the manufacturer of the Stalker Lidar device. He is the principal designer for the Stalker Lidar device and, as such, is familiar with the device's construction, design, functions, and reliability. Additionally, he is familiar with various tests that have been performed to measure its reliability. Based on Mr. Gammenthaler's educational and vocational experience, the Court accepts Mr. Gammenthaler as a qualified expert in laser technology, lidar technology, and the Stalker Lidar device.
II. FACTS
On August 21, 1999, the defendant, Imad Jarwan, was driving northbound on U.S. Route 13 in Kent County, Delaware, when he was stopped for allegedly traveling at a speed of 40 miles per hour in a 35 miles per hour zone. Officer Minor used a laser speed detection device known as Stalker Lidar to determine the defendant's speed. Because the device indicated the defendant was exceeding the posted speed limit, Officer Minor issued the defendant a traffic citation.
The Stalker Lidar device and all other laser speed detection devices operate using the same two processes. The first process is lidar, which uses laser pulses to measure distance by beaming a series of laser pulses at a target. When a laser pulse strikes the target, a portion of the light is reflected back and detected. Because the speed of light is a known constant, the device is able to calculate the distance between the device and the target by measuring the time it takes for a laser pulse to travel to the target and back.
The second process is an algorithm known as the "Least-Squares Curve Fit" which calculates the speed of the target using the information gathered by the lidar process. With a moving target, the Stalker Lidar device calculates the difference between a series of distance measurements and then computes the velocity or speed of the target from the changes in distance divided by the lapsed time.
Two independent performance tests completed on the Stalker Lidar device show the device's reliability. Both performance tests utilized the generally accepted accuracy requirement of plus one mile per hour and minus two miles per hour. The first set of performance tests was the Model Minimum Performance Specifications for Lidar Speed Measurement Devices, which is the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration's (NHTSA) performance test. The Stalker Lidar device passed the test, within the generally accepted accuracy requirement, and as a result, the device was placed on the International Association of Chiefs of Police's Consumer Products List. The second test was performed by the Carl Fors of Speed Measurement Laboratories in conjunction with the Texas Department of Public Safety. Again, the Stalker Lidar device passed the performance test, within the generally accepted accuracy requirements.
Each Stalker Lidar unit is tested by Applied Concepts, Inc., according to a NHTSA test, and is issued a certificate of accuracy. This certificate of accuracy does not expire, although it is recommended that the unit be tested periodically by the manufacturer.
One internal and two external tests also are to be completed by the operator of the unit on a day-to-day basis. The internal self test occurs when the unit is turned on to confirm the accuracy of the internal programs. If the internal programs are working correctly, the operator receives a tone and a "pass" indication on the unit. One of the external tests is conducted by measuring two known distances with the unit to confirm the distance-measuring accuracy of the unit. The other external test is conducted by scanning the unit in a cross figuration to test the sight alignment of the unit.
Mr. Gammenthaler opined that laser-based devices in general, and the Stalker Lidar device specifically, do provide accurate and reliable measurements of the speed of moving vehicles. He bases his opinion regarding the Stalker Lidar device upon his scientific and engineering knowledge of laser technology, his personal observations of the Stalker Lidar device, and the tests conducted on the Stalker Lidar device by Applied Concepts Inc. and by third parties.
Officer David Minor of the Dover Police Department testified regarding his training and experience with the Stalker Lidar device. Officer Minor received approximately two hours of classroom training on the device from a representative of Applied Concepts, Inc. This training included the basic principles of how the device works, how to properly operate the device, and how to perform the necessary daily internal and external tests on the unit to ensure it is working properly so that an accurate result is achieved. Additionally, he received approximately one half of an hour of field training. At the conclusion of that training, he received a certificate of completion and competency in lidar operation.
Officer Minor performed the appropriate internal and external tests on the specific unit at the beginning and end of his shift on August 21, 1999. Those tests indicated that the device was functioning properly. When Officer Minor used the Stalker Lidar unit to determine the speed of the defendant's vehicle, he was stationary, as he was trained to be when using the unit. He visually observed the defendant's vehicle, pointed the Stalker Lidar unit at the vehicle, and measured its speed consistent with the training he received for the proper operation of the unit.
III. ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue before the Court is the admissibility of testimony regarding the results of the Stalker Lidar device as scientifically reliable evidence. Although this Court has previously held that devices using the principles of Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation ("laser") "provide accurate and reliable measurements of the speed of moving vehicles," this is the first case to address the admissibility of the Stalker Lidar device.
State v. Butcher, Del. Super., Cr. A. No. IN92-11-1267, Cooch, J. (May 20, 1993), Order at 7. See also, Goldstein v. State, Md. Ct. App., 664 A.2d 375 (1995); People v. Clemens, N.Y. Crint Ct., 642 N.Y.S.2d 760 (1995); In the Matter of the Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Speed Readings Produced by the LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection System, N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., 714 A.2d 381 (1998).
IV. DISCUSSION
Scientific evidence is admissible where (1) the expert being offered is qualified; (2) the evidence offered is otherwise admissible, relevant, and reliable; (3) the specialized knowledge being offered will assist the trier-of-fact in understanding the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (4) the basis for the expert's opinions are those reasonably relied upon by experts in the field; and (5) such evidence would not create unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or would be misleading to the fact-finder."
Nelson v. State, Del. Supr., 628 A.2d 69, 74 (1993). See also Butcher at 6 (citing State v. Pennell, Del. Super., 584 A.2d 513, 515 (1989) and D.R.E. Rules 403, 702, 703, and 901(b)(3)).
The Court accepts Mr. Gammenthaler's expert testimony and finds that the speed measurement of the Stalker Lidar device is admissible, relevant, and scientifically reliable. The results gathered using the Stalker Lidar device certainly will assist the fact-finder in determining the ultimate factual issue in this case, which is the speed of the defendant's vehicle. In addition, the Court is satisfied that laserbased devices, and the processes that they employ, are reasonably relied upon by experts in the engineering and scientific communities. Furthermore, such evidence will not create unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or mislead the fact finder.
See, e.g., Goldstein, 664 A.2d at 380 (finding that the use of lasers to measure speed is generally accepted in the scientific community, and an inquiry into the LTI 20-20 device itself was unnecessary because the Frye test was designed to test theories and processes and should not be applied to each individual brand-name product).
Testimony is admissible regarding the results of the Stalker Lidar device provided a trained and certified operator establishes the proper foundation which I describe below for the admissibility of the test results. Consistent with State v. Butcher, it is not necessary for the operator of this speed detection device to understand the scientific principles or scientific operations of the device. As long as the officer is properly trained to operate and read the unit, his testimony alone may be the basis to admit the results since this Court has found the device to be scientifically reliable. The minimum proper foundation that must be established before the operator can testify as to the results of the device is as follows:
Butcher at 8 n. 4.
Id.
1. the operator must state his or her qualifications and training in the use of the device;
2. internal tests must have been performed to check the operational integrity of the unit;
3. external tests must have been conducted to test the operational integrity of the unit; and
4. the operator must be able to identify the vehicle as the tracked vehicle
Id.
In this case the Court finds that the proper foundation exists for admitting the Stalker Lidar results at trial.
V. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes, as a matter of law, that testimony regarding the results gathered by the Stalker Lidar device is admissible at trial with proper foundation testimony from a trained operator. Accordingly, the State's Motion in Limine to admit results from the Stalker Lidar device is
As in State v. Butcher, the Court's ruling "is based on the uncontroverted evidence [offered by] the State which, due to the lack of any true adversarial process (not the fault of the State), was not challenged by cross-examination or by other evidence." Butcher at 8 n. 3. Therefore, "this holding does not necessarily preclude a future defendant from challenging the reliability, relevance or admissibility" of this device through evidence not introduced here. Id.
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.