Call Now For Help

732.580.1237

New Jersey Appellate Update (GPS Evidence)

12
Feb
2010

by in Traffic Tickets

The following criminal case was recently decided on appeal pertaining to the State’s failure to produce an expert witness from a GPS manufacturer. The State sought to introduce evidence from the defendant’s GPS despite the absence of expert testimony. Summary by Mark Friedman.

State v. Eric Pittman, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-2569-08T4 (November 4, 2009) – Order denying admission of evidence from Global Positioning System (GPS), State’s motion for reconsideration, and State’s motion to reopen affirmed.

“Specifically, the State sought to introduce evidence of the location of defendant’s Yukon motor vehicle, on which a GPS unit had been installed pursuant to court order, to show that the Yukon traveled to the vicinity of an apartment in Edison where guns, drugs, and drug paraphernalia were later seized pursuant to a search warrant.

No independent surveillance corroborated defendant’s location and travel on the day in question…. [T]he State [argued] that an expert from Orion was not necessary for admission of the GPS evidence, because the device’s technology has been generally accepted as scientifically reliable…. [The trial court concluded] that while it was satisfied the GPS system was an appropriate technology in general, ‘the question came down to this particular system, the Orion system … that was installed by the county prosecutor’s office in the defendant’s vehicle.

Whether or not this system was an appropriate method of calculating one’s position in the world.’… Here, the trial judge decided that expert testimony, beyond that of McDonald, who attested only to the acceptance of GPS technology in general, was essential to determining the accuracy and trustworthiness, and therefore admissibility, of the particular GPS device used in this case.

We agree…. The State’s belated effort to reopen the N.J.R.E. 104 hearing nine months after commencement of the proceeding and seventeen months after the issue was raised is simply too little, too late. The State declined many requests and opportunities to present the expert proof deemed necessary by the court to close the gaps identified in McDonald’s and Palfy’s testimonies. Moreover, when the State finally relented after the close of evidence and resolution of the issue, it failed to make an offer of proof to assure the court that its expressed concerns would be satisfied by the proposed testimony.” (Joshua D. Altman; Steven D. Altman, on the brief).

  • //www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a2569-08.pdf

LOCATIONS

*ALL LOCATIONS BY APPOINTMENT ONLY*

CALL NOW FOR HELP

732.580.1237

CONNECT WITH US

*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey | Rating Methodology | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
The information contained in on this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to The Law Offices of Anthony J. Vecchio or the information, products, or services contained on www.anthonyvecchiolaw.com for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
The results of verdicts and settlements mentioned herein are not typical. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.

Site by Consultwebs.com: Law Firm Website Designers / Criminal Defense/DWI Lawyer Marketing.