|
Van Nort v.
State of
Georgia, 250
Ga.App. 7, 550
S.E.2d 111
(Ga.App.
06/07/2001)
[1]
Georgia Court
of Appeals
[2] No.
A01A0097
[3] 250
Ga.App. 7, 550
S.E.2d 111,
2001.GA.0000854
[4]
June 07,
2001
[5] Van
Nort
v.
The State of
Georgia.
[6]
Johnson, P. J.,
Ruffin and
Ellington,
JJ.
[7] The
opinion of the
court was
delivered by:
Johnson,
Presiding
Judge.
[8]
JO-004C
[9]
Peter Van Nort
was convicted
of speeding. He
appeals,
challenging the
admission into
evidence of the
results of a
laser speed
detection
device. His
challenges are
without
merit.
[10] On
April 27, 2000,
Georgia State
Patrol Sergeant
J. S. Blackmon
saw Van Nort
driving his
Jeep Wrangler
faster than the
speed limit of
55 miles per
hour. Sergeant
Blackmon used a
laser device to
measure Van
Nort's speed at
81 miles per
hour. Based on
the laser
reading,
Sergeant
Blackmon
stopped Van
Nort and cited
him for
speeding.
[11]
Van Nort pled
not guilty to
the speeding
charge. Before
trial, his
attorney filed
a motion to
suppress the
laser results
on the ground
that laser
devices have
not reached a
scientific
stage of
verifiable
certainty. At
the start of
the trial, the
court denied
the motion.
[12]
The state then
presented
Sergeant
Blackmon, who
testified that
he is certified
to operate a
laser speed
detector, that
on the day he
stopped Van
Nort he was
using a Kustom
ProLaser II
detector, that
this model of
laser detector
is approved by
the Georgia
Department of
Public Safety,
that the
particular
laser device he
was using had
been calibrated
and checked for
accuracy before
he used it, and
that using that
device he
determined Van
Nort's speed of
81 miles per
hour. The state
also introduced
various
documents into
evidence,
including a
certified copy
of a Department
of Public
Safety order
specifying the
Department's
approval of the
Kustom Signals,
Inc., ProLaser
II speed
detection
device.
[13]
Van Nort's
attorney then
cross-examined
Sergeant
Blackmon, after
which the state
rested. Van
Nort did not
present any
evidence. The
court found Van
Nort guilty of
speeding and
assessed a $240
fine.
[14]
Van Nort
appeals from
the conviction,
arguing that
the court erred
in admitting
the laser
evidence
because the
state failed to
prove its
scientific
reliability,
and that even
if laser
evidence is
considered
scientifically
reliable, it
should not have
been allowed in
his trial
because the
state otherwise
failed to lay
the foundation
for its
admission.
Because the
arguments are
without merit,
we affirm Van
Nort's
conviction.
[15] 1.
In support of
his argument
that laser
speed detection
devices are
inadmissible
because they
have not
reached a stage
of scientific
reliability,
Van Nort cites
Izer v. State.
*fn1 It is true
that in Izer we
held that a
trial court
erroneously
admitted laser
evidence
because the
state failed to
establish by
expert
testimony that
laser speed
detector
devices have
reached a
scientific
stage of
verifiable
certainty.
[16]
But shortly
after Izer was
decided in
February 1999,
the state
legislature
passed OCGA
§
40-14-17,
effective March
25, 1999. That
code section
expressly
provides that
evidence based
on a laser
speed detector
model approved
by the
Department of
Public Safety
is admissible
in court. OCGA
§ 40-14-17
states:
[17]
Evidence of
speed based on
a speed
detection
device using
the speed
timing
principle of
laser which is
of a model that
has been
approved by the
Department of
Public Safety
shall be
considered
scientifically
acceptable and
reliable as a
speed detection
device and
shall be
admissible for
all purposes in
any court,
judicial, or
administrative
proceedings in
this state. A
certified copy
of the
Department of
Public Safety
list of
approved models
of such laser
devices shall
be
self-authenticating
and shall be
admissible for
all purposes in
any court,
judicial, or
administrative
proceedings in
this state.
[18]
While the Izer
opinion was
correct under
the law as it
then existed,
the subsequent
legislative
enactment now
controls the
issue of the
admissibility
of evidence
from approved
laser detector
models. *fn2 So
long as the
state provides
a certified
copy of the
Department of
Public Safety's
list of
approved models
of laser
devices, then
evidence of
speed based on
an approved
model shall be
considered
scientifically
acceptable.
*fn3
[19] In
the instant
case, the state
fully complied
with the
statute. It
introduced,
without
objection, a
certified
Department of
Public Safety
order listing
the approved
models of laser
detection
devices. And
that list
included the
Kustom ProLaser
II device used
to measure Van
Nort's speed.
Consequently,
under OCGA
§
40-14-17, the
evidence of
speed based on
that device is
considered to
be
scientifically
acceptable and
reliable. Van
Nort thus has
failed to show
that the trial
court erred in
admitting the
laser evidence
of his 81 mile
per hour
speed.
[20] 2.
Van Nort's
second
enumerated
error - even if
the laser is
scientifically
reliable, the
state failed to
lay the proper
foundation for
admitting the
laser device's
results - was
not preserved
for appellate
review. On
appeal, Van
Nort argues
that the state
did not prove
that Sergeant
Blackmon is
certified to
operate the
laser device,
that the laser
device met
certain
performance
specifications,
that the State
Patrol
possesses a
license in
compliance with
Federal
Communications
Commission
rules, and that
the laser
device used was
certified by a
technician.
[21] At
his trial,
however, Van
Nort raised
none of these
specific
arguments
either during
or after the
state's
presentation of
its evidence.
And in the
absence of such
objections, he
of course
invoked no
rulings by the
trial court on
any of these
issues.
Nevertheless,
Van Nort
contends that
he may still
raise these
issues on
appeal based on
Johnson v.
State, *fn4
which held that
a defendant in
a speeding case
could raise the
admissibility
of radar test
results on
appeal even
though he had
failed to
object to them
at trial.
[22]
But Van Nort's
reliance on
Johnson is
misplaced
because that
case has been
overruled. *fn5
Now, as with
other issues of
evidence
admissibility,
a defendant
must invoke a
ruling from the
court on the
admissibility
of radar
evidence in
order to
preserve the
issue for
appeal. *fn6
Likewise, any
specific
objection to
the
admissibility
of laser
evidence must
be made in, and
ruled upon by,
the trial court
in order for
the issue to be
subject to
review on
appeal. Because
Van Nort failed
to invoke a
ruling by the
trial court on
the issues he
now seeks to
raise, there is
nothing for us
to review.
*fn7
[23] 3.
Because of our
holdings in
Divisions 1 and
2, we need not
address Van
Nort's argument
that if the
court had
suppressed the
laser evidence
of speed there
would not have
been enough
evidence to
convict
him.
[24]
Judgment
affirmed.
[25]
Ruffin and
Ellington, JJ.,
concur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion
Footnotes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[26]
*fn1 236 Ga.
App. 282 (511
SE2d 625)
(1999).
[27]
*fn2 See
Johnson v.
State, 146 Ga.
App. 277,
279-280 (2)
(246 SE2d 363)
(1978)
(legislature
has power to
modify the
rules of
evidence).
[28]
*fn3 OCGA
§
40-14-17.
[29]
*fn4 189 Ga.
App. 192 (375
SE2d 290)
(1988).
[30]
*fn5 See Carver
v. State, 208
Ga. App. 405,
406 (1) (430
SE2d 790)
(1993),
overruled in
part on other
grounds, 271
Ga. 534, 540
(523 SE2d 1)
(1999).
[31]
*fn6 Nairon v.
State, 215 Ga.
App. 76, 77 (2)
(449 SE2d 634)
(1994); Carver,
supra.
[32]
*fn7 See Turner
v. State, 236
Ga. App. 592,
594 (1) (512
SE2d 699)
(1999).
|
