Opinion ID: 2047351
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: While enforcing the speed limit in Omaha, police officer Ronald W. Cline noticed Hall driving at a real high rate of speed and passing all slower vehicle[s] on the interstate. To confirm his suspicion that Hall was speeding, Cline used a ProLaser III speed measurement device. The ProLaser III showed that Hall's vehicle's speed was 95 m.p.h. The posted speed limit was 60 m.p.h.; Hall was charged with speeding. Cline is certified to use the ProLaser III; to become certified, he took a class and passed a test. Cline testified that when the ProLaser III is turned on, it conducts a series of internal tests to ensure that it is functioning properly. On the day that he ticketed Hall, this internal testing indicated that the ProLaser III was functioning properly. Before going on duty, Cline also conducted an external test on the ProLaser III to ensure that the device was correctly measuring distance. He did this by pointing the ProLaser III at an object that he knew was a certain distance away. The test showed that the ProLaser III was correctly measuring distance. This was the only external testing that Cline conducted before he ticketed Hall. Nothing in the record suggests that Cline conducted either internal or external testing after he ticketed Hall. At trial in county court, the State asked Cline at what speed the ProLaser III showed that Hall was traveling. Hall objected, but the county court allowed Cline to testify that the ProLaser III showed that Hall was traveling at 95 m.p.h. The county court found Hall guilty. Hall appealed his conviction to the district court. He argued that the State had failed to comply with § 60-6,192(1) which provides: (1) Determinations made regarding the speed of any motor vehicle based upon the visual observation of any peace officer, while being competent evidence for all other purposes, shall be corroborated by the use of a radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device. The results of such radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device may be accepted as competent evidence of the speed of such motor vehicle in any court or legal proceeding when the speed of the vehicle is at issue. Before the state may offer in evidence the results of such radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device for the purpose of establishing the speed of any motor vehicle, the state shall prove the following: (a) The radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device was in proper working order at the time of conducting the measurement; (b) The radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device was being operated in such a manner and under such conditions so as to allow a minimum possibility of distortion or outside interference; (c) The person operating the radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device and interpreting such measurement was qualified by training and experience to properly test and operate the radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device; and (d) The operator conducted external tests of accuracy upon the radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device, within a reasonable time both prior to and subsequent to an arrest being made, and the device was found to be in proper working order. Specifically, Hall argued that the county court had erred in finding that the ProLaser III is a radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device and that Cline had conducted sufficient external accuracy tests on the ProLaser III before and after ticketing Hall as required by § 60-6,192(1)(d). In addition to his § 60-6,192(1) arguments, Hall also argued in the district court that the results from the ProLaser III were inadmissible under rule 702 because the State had not offered expert testimony establishing that the ProLaser III produces reliable and relevant results. Rule 702 generally governs the admissibility of expert testimony. It provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. Under rule 702, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure the evidentiary relevance and reliability of an expert's opinion. See, Carlson v. Okerstrom, 267 Neb. 397, 675 N.W.2d 89 (2004); Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215, 631 N.W.2d 862 (2001). This entails a preliminary assessment whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is valid and whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. Schafersman v. Agland Coop, supra . The district court reversed Hall's conviction. Its reasoning can be summarized into two main points. First, it concluded that the results from the ProLaser III were inadmissible under rule 702 because the State had failed to establish that the device produces reliable results. Second, the court ruled that the distance testing conducted by Cline did not constitute sufficient external accuracy testing under § 60-6,192(1)(d). The State was granted leave to docket an appeal under § 29-2315.01.