Does Tennessee's law requiring radar operators to be trained also block automated speed-camera photographs from being used as evidence?

Subject

Opinion No. 10-116, Effect of Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124 (Supp. 2010) on admissibility of photographs generated by automated speed detection devices, December 21, 2010

Plain-English summary

In 2010 the General Assembly passed Public Acts ch. 703 (codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124), which said that radar, laser, or similar speed-measurement results are inadmissible "unless the law enforcement officer operating the device has been trained pursuant to guidelines established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or the Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission." Senator Steve Southerland asked whether that exclusion swept up photographs from automated speed cameras, the kind that work without a human operator. The AG said no. Reading the statute by its text and legislative history, the AG concluded the statute targeted handheld and operator-deployed devices being run by uncertified officers. Automated speed cameras have no operator, so the conditions for exclusion never trigger. Photographs from such devices still face the ordinary authentication rule for any photograph, Tenn. R. Evid. 901, with the trial court deciding admissibility on the foundation laid in the particular case.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What does "operate" mean in this statute?

The AG used the ordinary dictionary meaning: "to cause to function" or "to run or control" the functioning. A handheld radar gun is "operated" by an officer. An automated speed camera mounted on a pole or sign that detects and photographs vehicles without anyone running it is not "operated" by an officer in that sense.

What was the General Assembly worried about when it passed § 24-7-124?

According to the AG's review of the legislative history (debate on House Bill 2769, March 4, 2010), the concern was that some small local agencies were buying radar guns and putting them in the hands of uncertified officers. That problem is operator-specific. The statute pushed agencies to certify the people behind the devices. Automated cameras are a different fact pattern; nobody is behind them.

So how does a court decide whether to let in a speed-camera photo?

Under Tenn. R. Evid. 901(b)(1), authentication requires "evidence sufficient to the court to support a finding by the trier of fact that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." The trial court has discretion (Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co.) and the prosecution or municipal proponent has to lay a foundation explaining what the photo shows, when, where, and how it was generated. State v. Williams, 913 S.W.2d 462 (Tenn. 1996), is the leading Tennessee case on photograph authentication from a surveillance camera, and the AG cited it as the controlling framework.

Did this opinion apply to red-light cameras too?

The opinion was specifically about speed cameras but cross-referenced Op. Tenn. Att'y Gen. 10-17 (Feb. 19, 2010), which discussed red-light camera enforcement programs. The same authentication-under-Rule-901 logic applies generally to images from unmanned traffic cameras.

Could a municipality's speed-camera program still fail on other grounds?

Yes. The opinion only addressed the operator-training statute. Other questions, like whether a municipality can civilly enforce a speeding violation through a registered-owner-liable system, depend on separate statutory provisions and ordinance authority that this opinion did not reach.

Background and statutory framework

Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124(a), effective July 1, 2010, says that in "any judicial or administrative proceeding in which the results of a radar, laser or similar device used to measure the speed of a motor vehicle are being introduced for the purpose of proving the speed of the motor vehicle or the conduct of the driver of the vehicle, such results shall not be admissible for such purposes unless the law enforcement officer operating the device has been trained pursuant to guidelines established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or the Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission." The provision came in as 2010 Public Acts ch. 703.

The AG analyzed the text under the interpretation framework in Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 526 (Tenn. 2010): start with the words, give them their ordinary meaning, and look to context, purpose, and legislative history only if ambiguity remains. The phrase "operating the device" was the linchpin. Coupled with the requirement that the operator be trained, it indicated an "officer-operates-the-device" fact pattern. Existing administrative rules in Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1340-03-04.09(1) (2008) drew the same distinction between technicians who certify equipment and operators who "use" it. The corresponding sanction in 1340-03-04.14 (revoking a municipality's interstate-enforcement authorization) didn't reach evidence admissibility, which gives § 24-7-124 a clear, narrow role: it is "a legislatively crafted exclusionary rule for evidence obtained by law enforcement officers who are not appropriately trained."

For photographs from automated devices, the AG fell back on the standard authentication doctrine. Tenn. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what its proponent claims. The trial court has discretion to decide whether a sufficient foundation has been laid in each case (Otis, 850 S.W.2d at 443). State v. Williams, 913 S.W.2d 462, 465 (Tenn. 1996), applied this framework to surveillance-camera photographs and remains the working template for unmanned-device imagery.

Citations

• Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124 (admissibility of speed-measurement results)
• 2010 Tenn. Public Acts Ch. 703 (enacting § 24-7-124)
• Tenn. R. Evid. 901 (authentication of evidence)
• Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1340-03-04.09(1) (2008) (speed-detection-equipment certification)
• Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1340-03-04.14 (sanctions)
• Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010)
• State v. Williams, 913 S.W.2d 462 (Tenn. 1996)
• Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439 (Tenn. 1992)
• Op. Tenn. Att'y Gen. 10-17 (Feb. 19, 2010) (red-light cameras)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/opinions.html
• Original PDF: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/ops/2010/op10-116.pdf

Original opinion text

Effect of Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124 (Supp. 2010) on admissibility of photographs generated by automated speed detection devices

QUESTION

Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124 (Supp. 2010) render inadmissible in judicial or administrative proceedings the photographic image of a motor vehicle imprinted with a rate of speed generated by a fully automated detection device?

OPINION

No. Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124 provides for the exclusion of measurements of speed by a radar, laser, or similar device where the law enforcement officer operating the device has not been trained pursuant to applicable guidelines. Because an unmanned and fully automated speed detection device has no operator, this section of the Code does not apply to such devices.

ANALYSIS

Effective July 1, 2010, Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124 provides in pertinent part:

In any judicial or administrative proceeding in which the results of a radar, laser or similar device used to measure the speed of a motor vehicle are being introduced for the purpose of proving the speed of the motor vehicle or the conduct of the driver of the vehicle, such results shall not be admissible for such purposes unless the law enforcement officer operating the device has been trained pursuant to guidelines established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or the Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission.

2010 Tenn. Public Acts Ch. 703, §§ 1, 2 (Mar. 17, 2010) (codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124(a) (Supp. 2010)).

In construing this statute, courts will seek to give full effect to the General Assembly's purpose, stopping just short of exceeding its intended scope. Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 526 (Tenn. 2010). The interpretive process begins with the text of the statute, giving the words that the General Assembly has chosen their natural and ordinary meaning. See id. When a statute's text is clear and unambiguous, the courts need not look beyond the statute itself to ascertain its meaning. Id. at 527. If an ambiguity exists, the courts may consider, among other things, the background and purpose of the statute, its legislative history, and the entire statutory scheme in which the statute appears in divining the legislature's intent. See id. at 527-28.

The text of Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124 opens broadly, encompassing "any" judicial or administrative proceeding in which the results of a speed detection device are offered to prove the speed of the subject motor vehicle. Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124(a). The balance of the statutory language, however, delimits the scope of the enactment. The statute contemplates devices that are "operat[ed]" by a law enforcement officer, and conditions the admissibility of the results on the training of the officer. Id. In its ordinary sense, "operate" means "to cause to function" or to "run or control" that functioning. See, e.g., Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 797 (1981); American Heritage Dictionary 871 (Second College ed. 1985). Unmanned devices that automatically detect the speed of vehicles, make photographs, and imprint the rate of speed on images do not comfortably fit within the ambit of this language. In essence, such devices perform the work of speed detection by themselves.

The legislative history bolsters this conclusion. Remarks by legislators indicate that some local law enforcement agencies were purchasing radar guns and then using them without training or certification. See Tenn. H. Calendar & Rules Comm., Debate on House Bill 2769 (March 4, 2010) (statements of Reps. Rich, Moore, and Todd). Existing regulations impose on smaller municipalities certification requirements respecting speed detection equipment, and, notably, draw a distinction between technicians who certify the equipment and "operator[s]" who themselves must be certified on its "use and operation." See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1340-03-04.09(1) (2008). The potential sanction for failing to adhere to certification regulations is revocation of the municipality's authorization to enforce the rules of the road on the interstate highways, see Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1340-03-04.14, but no rule speaks to the admissibility of evidence gained by untrained operators. Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124(a) thus provides a legislatively crafted exclusionary rule for evidence obtained by law enforcement officers who are not appropriately trained in the use of speed detection equipment.

Reading Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124 to erect a per se ban on the admissibility of photographic evidence from automated speed detection devices would extend the scope of the statute beyond the phraseology chosen by the General Assembly and the particular problem that it evidently intended to address. It is our opinion, in short, that Tenn. Code Ann. § 24-7-124 encourages law enforcement agencies to properly train officers in the use of speed detection equipment, but does not require the equipment to have a human operator in the first instance. In our view, the admissibility in judicial proceedings of photographic evidence from automated speed detection devices, like other photographs, is guided by Tenn. R. Evid. 901. See State v. Williams, 913 S.W.2d 462, 465 (Tenn. 1996) (discussing admissibility of photographs from surveillance camera under the Rule); see also Op. Tenn. Att'y Gen. 10-17 (Feb. 19, 2010) (discussing red-light camera enforcement programs). That Rule provides that "[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to the court to support a finding by the trier of fact that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Tenn. R. Evid. 901(b)(1). The question whether a law enforcement agency has laid a suitable evidentiary foundation in a particular case for the admission of a photographic image imprinted with an alleged rate of speed generated by an automated speed detection device rests initially in the discretion of the trial court. See Otis v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 850 S.W.2d 439, 443 (Tenn. 1992) ("In Tennessee admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.").

ROBERT E. COOPER, JR.
Attorney General and Reporter

GORDON W. SMITH
Associate Solicitor General

JAMES E. GAYLORD
Assistant Attorney General

Requested by:
The Honorable Steve Southerland
State Senator
1st Senatorial District
10 Legislative Plaza
Nashville, TN 37243-0201