Legal Opinion
State v. Wiest, C-070609 (3-28-2008)
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided March 28, 2008No. C-070609PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Adam N. Wiest, appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court convicting him of speeding under R.C.4511.21. He was convicted after a bench trial.
{¶ 2} At trial, the court noted on the record that it had previously taken judicial notice of the scientific reliability of the LTI 20-20 laser device. Cincinnati Police Officer Brian Dettmer testified that he had used the laser device to clock Wiest traveling 73 m.p.h. in a 55-m.p.h. zone. Dettmer stated that he had been trained to use the LTI-2020, that he had calibrated the device before stopping…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- State v. BradleyOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. WellmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
- State v. CragerOhio Supreme Court · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. ZhovnerOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
- State v. StarksOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- State v. Yaun, 8-07-22 (4-21-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. Cleavenger, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Belmont County2018
- City of Brookpark v. Rodojev, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County2018
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.