Is a radar gun reading or caller ID display inadmissible?

As a criminal defense attorney in Fort Lauderdale, I regularly have clients arrested for driving under the influence or possession of drugs and they ask me, “Can the police testify in court about the results of a radar gun to show the speed of my vehicle or trust on a caller ID screen to prove I made a phone call?…Shouldn’t this evidence be considered inadmissible hearsay?” According to Bowe v. Condition785 So.2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2001), radar gun readings and caller ID screens are not considered inadmissible hearsay and police can (and routinely) present this type of evidence in court. .

The Florida Evidence Code (90.801(1)(c)) defines hearsay as an extrajudicial statement by a “deponent” who offers to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A declarant is a “person” who makes a declaration. Therefore, only statements made by people fall under the definition of hearsay. This distinction is crucial in determining what testimony is considered inadmissible hearsay.

Police officers often rely on radar gun readings to test an individual’s travel speed in court proceedings for driving under the influence. Surprisingly, radar guns do not generate paper prints for police officers to present as evidence. Instead, police officers testify in court about what the radar gun recorded to test an individual’s speed.

Similarly, police officers occasionally link caller ID displays to prove an individual’s knowledge of or involvement in a crime. For example, a police officer may testify in court that a caller ID readout of an individual’s assigned telephone number on an undercover police officer’s cell phone corroborates that the individual was conspiring with the undercover police officer to sell or buy drugs. Caller ID screens are also associated with police officers in cases of domestic violence, stalking, and assault.

In both cases, the courts have held that neither the radar gun readings nor the caller ID screens are considered hearsay due to their designation as machines, and not “persons,” capable of being declarants within the definition of hearsay. . It is important to note that these statements (ie actual radar readings) are not generated by people. In contrast, out-of-court statements generated by individuals (ie email chains) that are offered to prove the truth of the matter claimed are considered hearsay. For example, a witness testifying about statements he read from an email would be considered a hearsay since the email was generated by a person, not a machine.

The primary justification for the hearsay rule is to provide the defendant with an opportunity to cross-examine a deponent who made an extrajudicial statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Remembering that one does not cross-examine a machine; one questions the person who operated or maintained the machine. In cases involving a radar gun readout or caller ID screen, the information entered is limited to machine-generated numbers, not human-generated numbers. Also, this information cannot be influenced or manipulated by other people. As a result, the proper remedy for challenging the evidence is to: attack the reliability of the declarant’s statements (ie, a declarant may have a reason to lie to strengthen his or her case or justify an arrest); noting that the declarant may have misread or incorrectly transcribed the numbers; attack the reliability of the machine, if any; attack the declarant’s ability to read/understand the results of the machine (ie, complicated program to interpret retinal scans); or questioning the relevance of the evidence.

Since nothing can be more damning evidence at trial than a radar gun reading or caller ID screen, it is important to immediately contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to review such evidence and attack its admissibility or weight at trial. .

The information on this article site was developed by Lyons, Snyder & Collin, PA for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Transmission and receipt of information in this article does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship with Lyons, Snyder & Collin. Persons receiving the information in this article should not act on the information provided without seeking professional legal advice.