Following a bench trial in the City Court of Atlanta upon charges brought by using the Uniform Traffic Citation, Summons Form, defendant William Odum was convicted of speeding ninety-nine miles per hour in a fifty-five mile per hour zone in violation of OCGA § 40-6-181 and reckless driving in violation of OCGA § 40-6-390.1 He was sentenced to fines totaling $600 and ordered to attend defensive driving school. The defendant appeals, contending that the city court erred in admitting evidence of his speed for noncompliance with OCGA § 40-14-4, i. e. the State neither proved that the Federal Communications Commission licensed the City of Atlanta Police Department to use the laser speed detection device used to clock his speed nor showed that the Department of Public Safety “DPS” certified the technician who calibrated the device before it was placed in service. In further claims of error, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his reckless driving conviction and contends that his convictions should be reversed in that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial. Finding the defendant’s claims of error to be without merit, we affirm. Held:
1. Defendant’s OCGA § 40-14-4 defective foundation claims to the contrary notwithstanding, the admissibility of evidence obtained from laser speed detection devices is controlled by OCGA § 14-14-17. Van Nort v. State, 250 Ga. App. 7, 8 1 550 SE2d 111 2001; see also Johnson v. State, 146 Ga. App. 277, 279-280 2 246 SE2d 363 1978 legislature has power to modify rules of evidence. OCGA § 40-14-17 pertinently requires that the State introduce a certified copy of the DPS’s list of approved laser speed detection devices. Given this foundation alone, independent of those required under OCGA § 40-14-4 as to speed determined by radar detection devices, evidence of speed measured by an “approved” laser speed detection device is admissible. Van Nort v. State, supra. We do not reach the further question of whether the State complied with OCGA § 40-14-17 in that this issue has not been enumerated and is not before us on appeal OCGA § 5-6-40; Hall v. State, 232 Ga. App. 664, 665 502 SE2d 764 1998; MacDonald v. MacDonald, 156 Ga. App. 565, 567 1 c 275 SE2d 142 1980. “Matters not enumerated as error will not be considered on appeal.” Rider v. State, 226 Ga. 14 2 172 SE2d 318 1970.
