The Hawai'i Supreme Court has thrown out a man's conviction for excessive speeding, a ruling that could put in jeopardy dozens of cases in which drivers have been pulled over by police officers armed with a laser gun.

In a ruling released yesterday involving a man accused of exceeding the speed limit by more than 30 mph, the court wrote that prosecutors could not show that the way Honolulu police tested the laser gun used to nab drivers conformed with standards of the device's manufacturer.

HPD does conduct tests on the device, but the court said that without proof that the speed guns were functioning properly, police had no way of proving that the laser was accurately recording speeds of vehicles.

State Deputy Public Defender Ronette Kawakami, whose office represented Abiye Assaye, said the ruling has "far-reaching consequences" because of the number of speeding cases that are pending. Kawakami said the ruling also could affect future speeding charges unless HPD can prove that its testing methods conform with manufacturer's specifications.

"It's big in the sense that all those cases that are currently on appeal, because we knew we had this case pending, I think those cases are going to get reversed," Kawakami said. "The ones that only had evidence of speeding using the laser gun, if there's no other evidence, the cases are now gone."

Jim Fulton, spokesman for the city prosecutor, said his office had not seen the court's ruling and could not comment. A spokeswoman for the Honolulu Police Department also deferred comment until the department could read the ruling.

Assaye was charged with driving 90 mph in a 55 mph zone on the H-1 Freeway near the Radford overpass on Sept. 5, 2007. Assaye challenged the charge, but was found guilty at trial.

Because Assaye allegedly exceeded the posted speed limit by more than 30 mph, he was subjected to harsher penalties under state law. Assaye was fined $650, assessed $137 in fees, ordered to perform 36 hours of community service and had his license suspended for 30 days.

Assaye appealed the verdict and the sentence, and yesterday the court ruled in his favor.

PROCEDURAL TESTS

In the court's written order, Assaye's attorney argued that prosecutors failed to prove the accuracy of the laser gun used to catch him. Assaye also contended that his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination was violated when he was fined for refusing to admit guilt to the excessive speeding charge.

At trial, HPD motorcycle Officer Jeremy Franks testified that he was certified to use the laser gun and that he tested the equipment before going on duty on the day of the incident. He testified that the tests were standard and done according to HPD procedures.

But the defense argued that there was no evidence to show that the testing practice conformed with the manufacturer's operating manual. Without this proof that the machine met established standards, the evidence should be thrown out, the defense argued.

The justices agreed and said the laser gun reading should not have been admitted in court. With no other evidence of Assaye's speed that night, prosecutors had no case, the justices said.

The Supreme Court did not question the use of a laser gun, but the justices were critical of the way the police tested the equipment.

"This court has said that the accuracy of a particular radar unit can be established by showing that the operator tested the device in accordance with accepted procedures to determine that the unit was functioning properly," the court wrote.

QUALIFIED OR NOT?

The justices also questioned whether the officer was qualified to use the laser gun. Franks was certified by the department, but without showing the nature and extent of the certification or that it met the manufacturer's requirements, there was insufficient proof that he was qualified, the court wrote.

Kawakami said most of the cases involve drivers who are accused of excessive speeding, which carries a mandatory minimum $500 fine.

"Speeding is bad. People shouldn't be out there speeding," she said. "But we have these kinds of penalties where you enhance the penalty and you're saying it's because you're going 30 mph over the speed limit, then you should be proving it."

Kawakami added that HPD's testing method may conform with manufacturer's standards, but prosecutors did not present any evidence to prove it.

"They have to show that the gun really is in good working order and has been tested for accuracy according to the manufacturer, and not just, 'Trust me, it works,' because that's what they're telling us," she said.