Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Officer estimates enough for speeding convictions
AP ^ | 6/2/10 | Staff

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.


TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; activistjudge; cultureofcorruption; donutwatch; isaidso; judicialtyranny; nifongism; policestate; revenuetickets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last
That's comforting.
1 posted on 06/02/2010 11:25:24 AM PDT by MissTed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Government by whim


2 posted on 06/02/2010 11:26:54 AM PDT by GeronL (Political Correctness Kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

See my tagline.


3 posted on 06/02/2010 11:26:58 AM PDT by wastedyears (The Founders revolted for less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Some situations are fairly obvious, others not.


4 posted on 06/02/2010 11:27:00 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Revenue Generation.


5 posted on 06/02/2010 11:27:08 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed
Good common sense ruling , and I will match my cop bashing creds with anybody .
6 posted on 06/02/2010 11:29:16 AM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

This can’t end well.


7 posted on 06/02/2010 11:29:44 AM PDT by mockingbyrd (Remember in November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

Maybe they can guestimate that everyone has a .182 BAC. That will REALLY bring in the cash!


8 posted on 06/02/2010 11:29:51 AM PDT by MissTed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MissTed
Radar and video data logging on these puppies can tell the truth.

http://www.volvocars.com/us/all-cars/volvo-s60/pages/default.aspx

9 posted on 06/02/2010 11:30:13 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

Even I can tell if someone passes me going 120.


10 posted on 06/02/2010 11:31:28 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Deemed to be correct; it’s the Law.


11 posted on 06/02/2010 11:32:13 AM PDT by ntmxx (I am not so sure about this misdirection!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Boy, you’re not kidding.


12 posted on 06/02/2010 11:34:32 AM PDT by sauropod (Ill behaved women rarely make dinner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Profiling?


13 posted on 06/02/2010 11:34:36 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

You sound guilty. Turn yourself in to the thought police immediately.


14 posted on 06/02/2010 11:34:44 AM PDT by relictele (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

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.


15 posted on 06/02/2010 11:34:56 AM PDT by Niteranger68 (Boycott PA 12!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed
cops Pictures, Images and Photos
16 posted on 06/02/2010 11:36:11 AM PDT by Snickering Hound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

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.


17 posted on 06/02/2010 11:37:10 AM PDT by Frenchtown Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed
A prosecution against a defendant who did not take a test is often easier than one , where the test results can be questioned , which is always . Proper defense gets the jury thinking the whole case rests on the test , they forget the weaving down the road , strong smell of alcoholic beverage , stumbling through the field sobriety tests , throwing up in the cop car , the admission of drinking 10 beers in two hours .
Good heavens , have some faith in the jury system helping you avoid justice . Your defense counsel gets to talk too .
18 posted on 06/02/2010 11:40:09 AM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

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.


19 posted on 06/02/2010 11:42:14 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (FreepMail me if you want on the Bourbon ping list!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

It sounds like the retarded Iowa “Supreme Court” “ruling” that red light cameras are legal. It is the same court that “legalized” “Gay marraige”.


20 posted on 06/02/2010 11:42:53 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

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.


21 posted on 06/02/2010 11:42:57 AM PDT by RightFighter (So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Normally a speeding ticket’s cost is associated to how fast you were going. I wonder how they calculated this one?


22 posted on 06/02/2010 11:43:14 AM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

Does the “Buckeye” State elect the Supreme Court?


23 posted on 06/02/2010 11:43:42 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed; Slings and Arrows

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.


24 posted on 06/02/2010 11:45:49 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Throw the bums out in 2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter
Ya but, I can tell if someone is going >100mph in a 55.

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.

25 posted on 06/02/2010 11:47:59 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
He must prove his proficiency since tickets are assessed based on your rate of speed.

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.

26 posted on 06/02/2010 11:48:28 AM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MissTed
27 years in law enforcement, had a lawyer ask me once when I said his client was driving at an excessive speed, Officer, —— do you have a radar stuck your -—? Well, maybe not in that last word but we all know what he meant.
NO! clock then give ticket or, reckless driving.
27 posted on 06/02/2010 11:48:50 AM PDT by gulfcoast6 (PRAYERS FOR ALL IN NEED, THAT IS ALL OF US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Niteranger68

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.


28 posted on 06/02/2010 11:48:58 AM PDT by relictele (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Niteranger68
We had tach charts in our trucks decades ago . They precisely record your road speed , engine speed ,Time and mileage .
They were made unpopular by the efforts of the insurance industry to make it more difficult to reconstruct accidents to protect big trucking companies .
The new stuff will be mandatory and Obambi types will likely implant it in your head .
29 posted on 06/02/2010 11:49:12 AM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TChris

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.


30 posted on 06/02/2010 11:49:51 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Throw the bums out in 2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

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.


31 posted on 06/02/2010 11:49:51 AM PDT by LadyBuck (In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

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.


32 posted on 06/02/2010 11:51:25 AM PDT by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
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.

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.

33 posted on 06/02/2010 11:54:46 AM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

The founders revolted for less, and our current “leadership” is revolting.


34 posted on 06/02/2010 11:55:42 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

“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
(1905-1982) Author
Source: “Atlas Shrugged”, Part II, Chapter 3


35 posted on 06/02/2010 11:57:59 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: microgood
Normally a speeding ticket’s cost is associated to how fast you were going. I wonder how they calculated this one?

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

36 posted on 06/02/2010 11:58:11 AM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TChris
But this ruling means the burden of proof would be on the defense to show that the officer's estimate was wrong.

So the defendent has to prove his innocence rather than the accuser proving guilt.

37 posted on 06/02/2010 11:59:47 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Throw the bums out in 2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

So now it’s “innocent until estimated guilty.” Wonderful.


38 posted on 06/02/2010 12:01:44 PM PDT by Interesting Times (For the truth about "swift boating" see ToSetTheRecordStraight.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissTed

The legal process had to end up costing Ohio more than the face value of the revenue ticket.


39 posted on 06/02/2010 12:02:32 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Throw the bums out in 2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

Were those the devices known as “tattlers”?


40 posted on 06/02/2010 12:02:54 PM PDT by Niteranger68 (Boycott PA 12!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I’ve seen a LEO nab two at a time.


41 posted on 06/02/2010 12:05:47 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Hmmm: that looks like an effed up ruling.
I guess according to their logic, it is.
Unbelievable.

And 5-1, yet.

Thou are truly shLtting me.


42 posted on 06/02/2010 12:08:06 PM PDT by Adder (Proudly ignoring Zero since 1-20-09! WTFU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Well, of course that makes too much sense.

You are banned!!

43 posted on 06/02/2010 12:08:12 PM PDT by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

Just for my own curiosity, is there a reason you put a space before punctuation marks?

It renders you less readable.


44 posted on 06/02/2010 12:08:55 PM PDT by Xenalyte (Yes, Chef!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
So the defendent has to prove his innocence rather than the accuser proving guilt.

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.

45 posted on 06/02/2010 12:10:30 PM PDT by TChris ("Hello", the politician lied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TChris

“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...


46 posted on 06/02/2010 12:15:42 PM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
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.

Please be careful what you wish for .

47 posted on 06/02/2010 12:19:31 PM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MissTed
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.

And how does an individual get trained in observing abuse of power, tyranny, your honor?

48 posted on 06/02/2010 12:20:09 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LadyBuck
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.

Maybe you need smarter voters come retention time .

49 posted on 06/02/2010 12:22:01 PM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know .F Trp 8th Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

>>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)


50 posted on 06/02/2010 12:26:54 PM PDT by LadyBuck (In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson