Skip to comments.Officer estimates enough for speeding convictions
Posted on 06/02/2010 11:25:23 AM PDT by MissTed
Ohio's highest court has ruled that a person may be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in watching for speeders. The court's 5-1 decision says independent verification of a driver's speed is not necessary.
The court upheld a lower court's ruling against a driver who challenged a speeding conviction that had been based on testimony from police officer in Copley, 25 miles south of Cleveland. The officer said it appeared to him that the man was driving too fast.
Government by whim
See my tagline.
Some situations are fairly obvious, others not.
This can’t end well.
Maybe they can guestimate that everyone has a .182 BAC. That will REALLY bring in the cash!
Even I can tell if someone passes me going 120.
Deemed to be correct; its the Law.
Boy, you’re not kidding.
You sound guilty. Turn yourself in to the thought police immediately.
I wish one of the GPS manufacturers would develop a feature that logs your last 10-15 minutes of driving (route and speed) at the press of a button with the ability to print a report that could possibly prove that a person was not speeding.
It’s all about money. More tickets, more fines. And if they don’t need to buy radar guns anymore it’s even more money in their pockets.
When I drove a truck, I was warned about Ohio, and how crooked the cops are there. It’s well known amongst truckers to avoid Ohio if possible.
Once got out of a traffic stop. Cop asked me if I knew how fast I was traveling and I replied, “Yes sir, 61.2 mph.”
When he wondered about the accuarcy, I pointed to my GPS and said, “Courtesy of Uncle Sam!”
When he stoppped chuckling, he reminded me that the limit was 55 and that I should slow down.
It sounds like the retarded Iowa “Supreme Court” “ruling” that red light cameras are legal. It is the same court that “legalized” “Gay marraige”.
But can you tell whether they’re doing 100 or 120? I doubt it. What about a difference between 65 and 80? Pretty hard to nail down the exact speed.
Normally a speeding ticket’s cost is associated to how fast you were going. I wonder how they calculated this one?
Does the “Buckeye” State elect the Supreme Court?
Okay, let’s send the officer down to a baseball field. He can “estimate” which are the 70MPH pitches, which are 76MPH, and which are travelling at 82MPH and which are 90MPH.
He must prove his proficiency since tickets are assessed based on your rate of speed.
Objective data is clearly better. Chase the bastard while data logging. See hardware on Volvo S60. Data logging from that is quite conclusive. The data is good enough to get b0zos on the test track nailed by the track safety officer. Trust me.
If he were issuing tickets to baseballs, you would have a point.
I can tell you from personal experience as a LEO that you can estimate a vehicle's speed within +/- 2 to 3 MPH after a year of traffic duty.
Yes, it can be demonstrated and stand up in court.
My Garmin’s trip computer will do that already...although the user must do a reset when needed. No hard copy report though.
I was driving home from the airport very late one night (2 AM) and had reset my trip data and max speed log for mileage expense calculation purposes. I was traveling through a rural/wooded region and was pulled over.
The trooper said I was ‘swerving’ (OK, whatever) and that he had clocked me at 74 mph in a 65 zone. A glance at my GPS revealed that I had not exceeded 66 mph at any point since departure. It was obvious that Johnny Law was on a DUI fishing expedition at that hour (’Have you been drinking etc.’) so I played it cool and lied and said if I was swerving it was only because I was tired after a long flight. He let me go.
But some part of me SO wanted to dispute his speed reading (assuming there was one) and/or photograph my GPS’s readout for use in court. Google searches indicate that traffic courts are mostly hostile to such evidence (but readily accept dodgy radar and laser stats - gee I wonder why?) but facts are facts and I’d rather have them especially when police ‘estimates’ are now the standard.
If they were that good at it, then they would sweep down TWO cars when both are speeding rather than cutting the faster car loose.
Ohio Supreme Court protects its own - one of the female members had multiple DUIs, tried to use her official power to intimidate the arresting officers, and STILL kept her seat on the bench.
This one’s no problem as long as I’m allowed discretion in the other direction — straight road, sunny day, dry pavement, light- or no-traffic — I should be able to do 95-110.
According to your standard, sure.
An officer has some discretion as to whom he pursues.
If a defendant wants to challenge the officer's accuracy, I'm sure he can do so during trial. If the officer can't consistently estimate speed with reasonable accuracy, then the defendant could be found not guilty.
But this ruling means the burden of proof would be on the defense to show that the officer's estimate was wrong.
The founders revolted for less, and our current “leadership” is revolting.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.”
Quote by: Ayn Rand
Source: “Atlas Shrugged”, Part II, Chapter 3
Would be nice , do you want to bet ? I will say they gave him they lowest bracket . If anybody can prove that wrong I will donate 10.00 to FR . If you challenge me you should post in the next 2 minutes you think I am full of it , and go look it up
So the defendent has to prove his innocence rather than the accuser proving guilt.
So now it’s “innocent until estimated guilty.” Wonderful.
The legal process had to end up costing Ohio more than the face value of the revenue ticket.
Were those the devices known as “tattlers”?
I’ve seen a LEO nab two at a time.
Ohio’s highest court has ruled that a person may be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast.
Hmmm: that looks like an effed up ruling.
I guess according to their logic, it is.
And 5-1, yet.
Thou are truly shLtting me.
You are banned!!
Just for my own curiosity, is there a reason you put a space before punctuation marks?
It renders you less readable.
The burden of proof shifts back and forth depending upon the evidence. Once the prosecution has overcome your presumed innocence and established a prima facie case, establishing at least the minimum case required to convict, then it's the defense's burden to prove the prosecution wrong.
This ruling says that a trained officer's speed estimate meets the requirement for a prima facie case of speeding. Without any proof to the contrary from the defense, it's enough to convict.
If, for example, there were three witnesses in the vehicle who all testify that the vehicle's speedometer, or a GPS receiver on the dashboard, indicated a speed at or below the current speed limit at that time, then that testimony might outweigh the officer's estimate.
“But this ruling means the burden of proof would be on the defense to show that the officer’s estimate was wrong.”
In other words, the defense is now carrying the burden to prove innocense.......
If this is such a good decision, why not just allow the officers to write down plate numbers to mail tickets later. Then they could get the multiple speeders and not be bound by their discression to pull one over instead of another...
Please be careful what you wish for .
And how does an individual get trained in observing abuse of power, tyranny, your honor?
Maybe you need smarter voters come retention time .
>>Maybe you need smarter voters come retention time<<
No kidding - Senator Sherrod Brown is a prime example of the need for smarter voters.
PS - haven’t lived there for 5 years (I’m now in the cesspool of the PROI - people’s republic of Iowa -and Iowa’s almost as bad)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.