There are four ways to tell if a driver is speeding. Two old school, observation and following, and two new, radar and laser, and even radar is considered pretty old school these days. Laser, also known at Lidar, is the method all the really cool cops use. Except in Chicago.
Via Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar, the Chicago Trib reports that speeding tickets based on Lidar are being tossed:
Via Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar, the Chicago Trib reports that speeding tickets based on Lidar are being tossed:
Within the past year judges in Cook County Traffic Court in Chicago determined that speeds captured by lidar were not admissible because the devices had not been proven scientifically reliable in an Illinois court, said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the law department, which prosecutes most speeding tickets in the city.
The judges brushed aside the office’s position that such a legal hearing was unnecessary because lidar devices, which use a light beam instead of radio waves, have been used by police departments across the country with no problems for a long time and because some courts outside Illinois already had found them to be scientifically sound.
This is quite extraordinary, given the inclination of the courts to grab hold of scientific methodology it doesn’t understand and apply it because, well, it exists. Laser guns have become ubiquitous in law enforcement, the tool of choice for many speeding applications since it purportedly eliminates certain of the faults and maintenance requirements of radar (yes, there are faults, if anyone bothered to read tha manual, and radar, if properly used, requires daily upkeep and constant calibration). Once scientific thingies like this become “generally accepted,” rightly or wrongly, the idea that a court would reject it until actually proven within a jurisdiction is heresy.
To their credit, judges in Chicago have refused to accept Lidar evidence in the absence of proof by Frye hearing.
To their credit, judges in Chicago have refused to accept Lidar evidence in the absence of proof by Frye hearing.
The legal procedure required to prove a technology is scientifically reliable — a Frye hearing, as it is known in Illinois — is laborious and expensive, experts said. The hearing requires witnesses and can stretch for days.
That’s the reason the city law department was reluctant to initiate one against a defendant, Hoyle said.
Since last month the department has begun seeking such a hearing in the small percent of speeding cases in which the defendant has a defense attorney, she said. But each time the defendant has chosen to pay the fine rather than participate.
The department hopes the Cook County state’s attorney’s office will secure a Frye hearing because that office handles the most serious speeding cases in which the defendant has more invested.
And what is the plan should the City fail to prevail at a Frye hearing?
I have no idea whether Lidar is a scientifically valid method of determining the speed of a vehicle, or what flaws, false positives or negatives, limitations or problems are faced by its use. I do, however, admire the judges in Chicago who refuse to just go with the flow and adopt the use of this technology because everyone else is. The courts are awash in bad science, most of which serve the government to prove that citizens are breaking the law and many, historically, are proven somewhat less accurate and effective than originally believed. Not that it helps those individuals convicted based on junk science.
The point isn’t that Lidar is junk science. The point is that a bunch of judges are doing their jobs as gatekeepers of technology, introduced as conclusive proof of an offense. If the state wants to get its evidence into court, it has to prove it validity first. And no, it can’t just pass a law saying a particular piece of technology is admissible into evidence any more than it can pass a law stating that the sun revolves around the earth. Science either is or is not valid, and lawmakers don’t get to change it.
If they fail, Hoyle said, the prosecutors will seek a state law that explicitly recognizes lidar as scientifically reliable.There’s the rub. As Kevin points out, this is like the Indiana legislature’s attempt to redefine π, which is certainly a better use of their time than outlawing gravity.
I have no idea whether Lidar is a scientifically valid method of determining the speed of a vehicle, or what flaws, false positives or negatives, limitations or problems are faced by its use. I do, however, admire the judges in Chicago who refuse to just go with the flow and adopt the use of this technology because everyone else is. The courts are awash in bad science, most of which serve the government to prove that citizens are breaking the law and many, historically, are proven somewhat less accurate and effective than originally believed. Not that it helps those individuals convicted based on junk science.
The point isn’t that Lidar is junk science. The point is that a bunch of judges are doing their jobs as gatekeepers of technology, introduced as conclusive proof of an offense. If the state wants to get its evidence into court, it has to prove it validity first. And no, it can’t just pass a law saying a particular piece of technology is admissible into evidence any more than it can pass a law stating that the sun revolves around the earth. Science either is or is not valid, and lawmakers don’t get to change it.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.