Idaho has very little case law. Foundational requirements are state specific.
I think this is kind of an unresolved question. Kind of.
State v. Kane, 122 Idaho 623 (Ct. App 1992) was a challenge to the scientific reliability of radar devices, where the COA took judicial notice of the reliability. This wasn't a foundation case.
State v. Williamson, ___ Idaho ___, 166 P.3d 387 (Ct. App. 2007), is the ONLY case that cites to Kane. I'm thinking those are the only cases that deal with this issue.
Williamson is about laser devices, and also about general reliability, but then goes into foundation. The COA sets out the rule that: "As with radar devices, we conclude that, when a laser device is used to determine a defendant is driving in excess of the maximum speed limit, the proper use and accuracy of the device in question must be established by the state in order to introduce the evidence at trial. See Kane, 122 Idaho at 624-25, 836 P.2d at 570-71. Therefore, in each speeding prosecution that seeks to introduce laser evidence, the state must prove that the officer was qualified to operate the device, that the unit was properly maintained, and that it was used correctly. See id."
Substitute 'radar evidence' in that last sentence and you have the rule of law.
That rule is governed by:
"The decision whether to admit evidence at trial is generally within the province of the trial court. A trial court's determination that evidence is supported by a proper foundation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gilpin, 132 Idaho 643, 646, 977 P.2d 905, 908 (Ct.App.1999). Therefore, a trial court's determination as to the admission of evidence at trial will only be reversed where there has been an abuse of that discretion. State v. Zimmerman, 121 Idaho 971, 973-74, 829 P.2d 861, 863-64 (1992). When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine: (1) whether the lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the lower court acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (3) whether the lower court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600, 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989)."
Unless a state sets out a statutory or administrative rule for calibrations of devices, you usually need an expert to challenge the state's expert (cop) on these issues.
Pursuant to Idaho Code 49-1502, the Rules of Evidence appear applicable to infraction matters. Given that, an objection should lie where an officer testifies about someone else calibrating a radar device. In Williamson it appears the officer testified that the city shop had calibrated the device. That would appear to be outside his personal knowledge and subject to objection.