Officer estimates enough for speeding convictions

AP ^ | 6/2/10 | Staff

[CSM]

You make fine arguments on this thread, but I see from your profile that you do not live just outside of Detroit. I think that you are around a more honest pack of government agents than I am. My problem is with the potential for abuse and it is based on how I see the abuse already in the system.

[fr_freak]

If an officer's estimates are that inaccurate, then he will lose cases in court and stop getting any convictions. Those officers soon find it difficult to find work.

How do you prove that the officers' estimates are incorrect? Having GPS capable of calculating your speed and producing documentation would pretty much be the only way, right? How many people have that in their cars right now? For those that don't, if the nice officer says you were going 45 in a 35 zone, and you know you were only going, say, 39, how do you prove him wrong in court? From what I've seen, when it is Joe Citizen vs. cop in traffic court, cop wins EVERY time.

[kbennkc]

Wow! That virtually means there is no defense to speeding tickets.

Lucky for you and me they have no time to trump up speeding cases because there are so many real speeders the cops can't even eat a full dough nut between chasing after another.

Being wrongly accused is a civics lesson you will never forget. Once you have, you not think cops spend time lying setting someone up, throwing away their pride,integrity,and guts(why we call them P.I.G.) to get a speeding ticket fine into the coffer. If they falsify a case against you it will be something heavy like homicide or a pot seed in your sock.

[TChris]

Having GPS capable of calculating your speed and producing documentation would pretty much be the only way, right? How many people have that in their cars right now?

More than you would think. Lots of new cars have a black box which does this already. Every GPS receiver I know of will also record the maximum speed since being reset. That, plus sworn testimony from witnesses who were in the vehicle at the time, would be pretty persuasive in court.

The point is that these problems would be absolutely no different from the current situation. Who's to say the officer isn't lying about what the radar said? It always comes down to his testimony anyway, whether there's a radar involved or only his estimate.

[TankerKC]

Every GPS receiver I know of will also record the maximum speed since being reset. That, plus sworn testimony from witnesses who were in the vehicle at the time, would be pretty persuasive in court.

All to overcome the opinion of one cop. That's a rigged system and you must know it, my FRiend.

[fr_freak]

The point is that these problems would be absolutely no different from the current situation. Who's to say the officer isn't lying about what the radar said? It always comes down to his testimony anyway, whether there's a radar involved or only his estimate.

True, but I wasn't really concerned about the cases where a cop would lie about speeding (I suppose I was giving cops the benefit of the doubt in that most wouldn't purposely lie about speeding). I was thinking about the much higher rate of mistakes that would occur with eyeballs only.

[TChris]

All to overcome the opinion of one cop. That's a rigged system and you must know it, my FRiend.

Considering the training and experience that the one cop must accumulate to have his professional opinion and estimate carry weight in court, I believe it's a matter of him earning it.

The fact is, the one cop might spend 8-12 hours a day, 5-7 days a week watching cars come and go, and probably gets constant feedback from a radar gun to train his speed estimation. That's how it worked for me anyway. It's simply a matter of hours and hours of practice and training. You really do get to where you can estimate it with pretty good accuracy.

If you have complaints about the way the courts work in general, in terms of the burden of proof and the weight a LEO's testimony carries, I'm afraid that's a bit outside of my field, and probably outside this thread too.

[TChris]

I was thinking about the much higher rate of mistakes that would occur with eyeballs only.

It's true that his visual estimate isn't going to give the accuracy of a radar lock. Any officer who gave anything more specific than a range ("The vehicle appeared to be traveling approximately 45-50 MPH") would be questionable.

But specifying an exact speed isn't required to show a vehicle was over the limit. If the officer can say that he's certain, based on his estimation, that the vehicle was not traveling at or below the speed limit, but some significant rate higher, then it would be enough.

So it would be a "mistake" only if the officer was far enough off that a vehicle he estimated was speeding was actually not. Given that most LEOs don't write citations until you're going well over the limit (10-15 MPH over is common), and that estimating a vehicle's speed to within +/- 5 MPH isn't terribly difficult for an experienced traffic cop, that's a pretty unlikely mistake.

[fr_freak]

But specifying an exact speed isn't required to show a vehicle was over the limit. If the officer can say that he's certain, based on his estimation, that the vehicle was not traveling at or below the speed limit, but some significant rate higher, then it would be enough.

Here in CA it makes a difference how much over the speed limit someone is going. 45 in a 35 zone is a minor ticket. 55 in a 35 would be a major ticket, and IIRC, 70 in a 35 would be automatic impound and jail. Precision would matter.

[TChris]

Here in CA it makes a difference how much over the speed limit someone is going. 45 in a 35 zone is a minor ticket. 55 in a 35 would be a major ticket, and IIRC, 70 in a 35 would be automatic impound and jail. Precision would matter.

Yeah, in that case it would.