2020 Ohio 3253
Ohio2020Background
- On May 17, 2017 Brook Park police used an LTI 20/20 TruSpeed S laser device to record Joseph Rodojev traveling 15 mph over the limit; he was cited and tried in Berea Municipal Court.
- At bench trial the court admitted the laser reading without expert testimony or formal judicial notice of the device/technology and convicted Rodojev.
- Rodojev appealed to the Eighth District arguing the state needed to prove scientific reliability of laser devices via expert testimony or judicial notice; the Eighth District affirmed citing E. Cleveland v. Ferell.
- The Eighth District certified a conflict with other Ohio appellate decisions (e.g., Cleavenger, In re Z.E.N.) that required proof of device reliability; the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the certified question.
- The Ohio Supreme Court held that results from radar or laser speed devices are admissible without expert testimony or judicial notice of the underlying scientific principles, but the factfinder must assess the accuracy of the specific device and the operator’s qualifications.
- Justice Kennedy dissented, arguing the Ohio Rules of Evidence (Daubert/Miller/Evid.R.702) require the state to prove a device’s reliability (or have judicial notice) before admitting its readings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of radar/laser results without expert testimony or judicial notice | Rodojev: State must prove scientific reliability each case via expert or judicial notice | State/Brook Park: Ferell supports admission; laser rests on established science like radar | Readings admissible without expert testimony or judicial notice of the general scientific principles |
| Effect of device type or use (moving radar, angle, calibration, algorithms) on admissibility | Such differences can undermine reliability and require foundational proof | These are case-specific issues about accuracy/operation, going to weight, not admissibility | Device-specific issues (maintenance, angle, operator) go to weight/sufficiency, decided by factfinder |
| Procedural challenge and remedy when no trial objection (plain error) | Rodojev: Admission without foundation is plain error and undermines sufficiency | State: no reversible error; conviction may stand when factfinder had adequate basis | Court affirmed Eighth District’s judgment; factfinder must evaluate sufficiency but general admissibility stands |
Key Cases Cited
- E. Cleveland v. Ferell, 168 Ohio St. 298, 154 N.E.2d 630 (1958) (judicial notice of radar principles; readings admissible without expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (federal gatekeeping factors for scientific expert evidence)
- Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607, 687 N.E.2d 735 (1998) (Ohio adoption of Daubert factors)
- People v. Magri, 3 N.Y.2d 562, 147 N.E.2d 728 (1958) (New York recognized general reliability of radar meters)
- Goldstein v. State, 339 Md. 563, 664 A.2d 375 (1995) (Maryland decision allowing laser/radar readings without expert foundation)
- In re Admissibility of Motor Vehicle Speed Readings Produced by LTI Marksman 20-20 Laser Speed Detection Sys., 314 N.J. Super. 233, 714 A.2d 381 (1998) (New Jersey trial-court precedent admitting laser readings)
- State v. Williamson, 144 Idaho 597, 166 P.3d 387 (2007) (Idaho Supreme Court permitting laser evidence without expert foundational proof)