State of Minnesota v. Shane Lee Olson
2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 81
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Officer Zabee used a handheld laser (LiDAR) device and recorded Olson at 70 mph in a 55 mph zone; Olson was tried in a bench trial for speeding.
- Olson objected to admission of the officer’s testimony about the device’s speed reading, arguing the state failed the external-test requirement of Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 10(a)(4). He claimed the officer only tested distance, not the device’s time component necessary for speed calculations.
- Officer Zabee testified he was trained, the squad car was stationary, weather and aiming were appropriate, the device ran internal checks, and he performed an external distance check against a known stationary object. Initially the court questioned foundation but ultimately admitted the testimony.
- The district court found Olson guilty; Olson appealed, arguing the external test was insufficient because it did not independently verify the device’s time measurement used to compute speed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that (1) the statute does not require exhaustive component-by-component external testing, and (2) a distance check on a LiDAR device necessarily verifies its time measurement because LiDAR computes distance from pulse travel time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Olson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an external test that checks only distance satisfies Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 10(a)(4) for admitting LiDAR speed readings | Officer’s external check measured distance only; speed requires both accurate time and distance, so foundation was inadequate | Statute does not require testing each computational component; prior radar/LiDAR precedent permits distance or tuning-fork style external checks | Distance check satisfied the external-test requirement; trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting speed testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ali, 679 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. App. 2004) (analogizes laser to radar evidence and rejects requiring moving-object test for LiDAR)
- State v. Gerdes, 191 N.W.2d 428 (Minn. 1971) (tuning-fork external checks adequate for radar accuracy)
- State v. Pulos, 406 N.W.2d 75 (Minn. App. 1987) (radar need not be re-tested for every mode change to be admissible)
- State v. McDonough, 225 N.W.2d 259 (Minn. 1975) (internal tuning fork may sufficiently check radar accuracy)
- State, City of St. Louis Park v. Bogren, 410 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. App. 1987) (properly calibrated internal and external tuning forks adequately test radar accuracy)