Motor vehicles – Speeding – Discovery

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was found responsible for the civil motor vehicle infraction of speeding (G.L.c. 90, §17), it was an abuse of discretion not to allow discovery regarding the light detection and ranging (LIDAR) unit used by a state trooper to measure the speed of the defendant’s vehicle.

Reversed and remanded.

“Following a de novo hearing, a judge of the District Court found the defendant, Mikhael El-Bayeh, responsible for the civil motor vehicle infraction of speeding, G.L.c. 90, §17. ElBayeh appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the District Court judge’s finding of responsibility. El-Bayeh now appeals, arguing, among other things, that (1) the de novo hearing judge (hearing judge) erred by denying El-Bayeh’s motion to dismiss the speeding citation and (2) the motion judge (motion judge) erred by denying El-Bayeh’s motion to permit inspection of written documents and materials in possession of the Department of State Police (department) that he argues were essential to his defense. We reverse the decision and order of the Appellate Division and remand for entry of an order vacating the District Court’s finding of responsibility. …

“Prior to the hearing on the de novo appeal, El-Bayeh filed a motion ‘to permit inspection of written documents, materials, and/or potentially exculpatory evidence.’ El-Bayeh requested to inspect (1) the LIDAR unit used by the trooper to measure the speed of El-Bayeh’s vehicle; (2) the LIDAR unit’s storage area; (3) the user manual for the LIDAR unit; and (4) the site where the LIDAR unit was last tested by the trooper before issuing the speeding citation at issue — in this case, the trooper’s backyard. The department opposed the motion, arguing that El-Bayeh failed to establish that the requested materials were relevant to demonstrate that the LIDAR device was inaccurate or defective. Following a hearing on El-Bayeh’s motion, the motion judge denied the motion ‘for the reasons set forth in the Department of State Police’s opposition.’ …

“Given that the department intended to — and ultimately did — rely in part on LIDAR evidence to prove that El-Bayeh had been speeding, written documents and materials relevant to the reliability of the LIDAR unit were ‘essential’ to his defense. G.L.c. 90C, §3(A)(4), fifth par. El-Bayeh argued in his motion that inspection of the LIDAR unit user manual could help him cross-examine the trooper about whether the device was properly stored and calibrated on the day of the incident. Moreover, while the department did not object to this request it did not provide the user manual. Similarly, records of the calibration of the unit are essential to determine whether the unit was properly calibrated. Where production of this discovery could have assisted El-Bayeh in challenging the admissibility of the LIDAR reading or in cross-examining the trooper, and where such production would not have unduly burdened the department, it was an abuse of discretion for the motion judge not to allow this discovery.

“As for El-Bayeh’s requests to inspect the LIDAR unit, the storage area, and the testing site, those requests must be evaluated in light of any written discovery that is ordered consistent with this memorandum and order. In that context, the motion judge will be better equipped to evaluate and balance the parties’ competing interests and whether such discovery is essential to El-Bayeh’s defense. Here, El-Bayeh argued in his motion that inspection of the LIDAR unit would allow him to verify the existence and condition of the unit; inspection of the storage area would allow him to confirm if the device was properly stored according to the user manual; and inspection of the testing site, which was at the trooper’s home, would allow El-Bayeh to examine if the site complied with the unit’s preoperational testing requirements.

“Simply put, El-Bayeh must be provided sufficient discovery to challenge the accuracy of the LIDAR unit. … It also might be that after receiving the written discovery, El-Bayeh may no longer need the additional discovery, or that his interests may be served by examining photographs of the LIDAR unit, where it was stored, and where it was calibrated. …

“Because the hearing judge may have relied upon LIDAR evidence in finding El-Bayeh responsible, we are constrained to reverse the decision and order of the Appellate Division and remand to the Appellate Division for entry of an order vacating the District Court’s finding of responsibility.”

Department of State Police v. El-Bayeh (Lawyers Weekly No. 81-033-26) (10 pages) (Docket No. 23-P-675) (March 27, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.