Ohio: Officer estimates enough for speeding convictions

3axap · Jun 3, 2010

Here's an article I came across in my interwebz adventures:

"Officer estimates enough for speeding convictions

By Associated Press

POSTED: 09:59 a.m. EDT, Jun 02, 2010

COLUMBUS: 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."

Linky: http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/95410314.html

My stance on this is that even a trained police force will have far too much variability to be considered an objective source on simple speeding tickets. Reckless driving, endangerment of others, etc are obviously something that an officer can gauge easily, but speed is different IMO. What do you guys think?

homeslice · Jun 3, 2010

An experienced officer can tell when someone is exceeding the speed limit. Most know what 10+ looks like.... I'd agree that preciseness is impossible. But knowing that the speed limit is exceeded is enough for a speeding ticket. I would think most people are dumb enough to admit guilt anyway.

rooster · Jun 3, 2010

homeslice said:
An experienced officer can tell when someone is exceeding the speed limit. Most know what 10+ looks like.... I'd agree that preciseness is impossible. But knowing that the speed limit is exceeded is enough for a speeding ticket. I would think most people are dumb enough to admit guilt anyway.

There is much more to the case than just that. In this case, the officer had hit him with the radar and clocked him going 82 in a 60, however at a trial the LEO had no proof of being trained with the radar so it was ruled inadmissible. Regardless I think it's a bad decision and I am glad Louisiana's supreme court is not as liberal as Ohio. A LEO's word should be held in even regard as any other witness including the person proposed of the crime unless that persons previous actions bring in question their character. The courts really uphold that except in traffic cases.

dustyk70 · Jun 3, 2010

unnecessary speed for a roadway... Recieved this ticket in 1989. He said that he did not get me on radar but he knew I was speeding, Sooo, Ticket I recieved. New Llano La. PD.

charliepapa · Jun 3, 2010

here we go again... and y'all thought the field sobriety test / breathalyzer debate was fun!

Akajun · Jun 3, 2010

rooster said:
There is much more to the case than just that. In this case, the officer had hit him with the radar and clocked him going 82 in a 60, however at a trial the LEO had no proof of being trained with the radar so it was ruled inadmissible. Regardless I think it's a bad decision and I am glad Louisiana's supreme court is not as liberal as Ohio. A LEO's word should be held in even regard as any other witness including the person proposed of the crime unless that persons previous actions bring in question their character. The courts really uphold that except in traffic cases.

Well considering that in LA you must first visualy confirm that the offender is speeding then confirm that reading with the gun, this is no different. Even so there is still the speeding law of Diving to fast for conditions, and then You know how many tickets I have written for pacing someone with my speedometer? Hell You can even take a radar gun and drive 70mph lock the reading then just pull whoever over and tell them they are going 70, see here's the gun.
The fact of the matter is that an officers testimony still carries a great deal of weight in a court. Unless the defendant can show some improper act on the officers part or mistake of fact or law, you will more than likely be convicted.

Duck Jenkins · Jun 3, 2010

rooster said:
A LEO's word should be held in even regard as any other witness including the person proposed of the crime unless that persons previous actions bring in question their character. The courts really uphold that except in traffic cases.

What? I think the cop word is good enough in a speeding case. His word is good enough for a stop sign ticket.

Once i got pulled over for speeding and did not think I was speeding. I paid the ticket for this reason..............I know was speeding on MANY other times and did not get caught. So, I am ahead of the game.

nola_ · Jun 3, 2010

Duck Jenkins said:
What? I think the cop word is good enough in a speeding case. His word is good enough for a stop sign ticket.

Once i got pulled over for speeding and did not think I was speeding. I paid the ticket for this reason..............I know was speeding on MANY other times and did not get caught. So, I am ahead of the game.

Um...ok. That makes sense. You give up easily.

Nolacopusmc · Jun 3, 2010

32:§64. General speed law

A. No person shall drive a vehicle on the highway within this state at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and potential hazards then existing, having due regard for the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and the condition of the weather, and in no event at a speed in excess of the maximum speeds established by this Chapter or regulation of the department made pursuant thereto.

B. Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with paragraph A of this section, no person shall operate or drive a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

C. Rolling roadblocks shall be prohibited from operating on all Interstate highways in the state.

Acts 1962, No. 310, §1. Amended by Acts 1982, No. 191, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1983.

In on page 1.

No radar is necessary for a speeding ticket conviction.

There are other ways, and just like the chemical "confirmation" of an intoxilizer, a radar is not legally necessary.

Easier to beat, but not legally necessary.

rooster · Jun 3, 2010

Akajun, if you are pacing someone then that is conformation of your thoughts. That is much like having the person on radar. With locking your radar on 70 then pulling someone over, that moves into the realm of an honest cope guessing a speed vs a criminal act. A police Officer does have a great deal of weigh in a court(seeing as in some cases they can be considered an expert witness but most LEO do not really have the qualifications) so legally no more than any other citizen. Last time I was cited for speeding, it was by a LEO that at the time I passed was standing on the side of the road handing another person a ticket. I spoke to the DA, explained that he could not have known my speed. The DA dropped the ticket. So quite often people think just because they get a ticket then they are guilty. That is not the case

Duck Jenkins · Jun 3, 2010

nola_ said:
Um...ok. That makes sense. You give up easily.

Give up easy (LOL) I just know I will always be ahead of the game so you must know how to pick and choose your battles, with cops and life.

rooster · Jun 3, 2010

Nolacopusmc said:
In on page 1.

No radar is necessary for a speeding ticket conviction.

There are other ways, and just like the chemical "confirmation" of an intoxilizer, a radar is not legally necessary.

Easier to beat, but not legally necessary.

No speed is needed but depending on the situation however I would argue reasonable or prudent fact. If it raining like crazy and the roads are icy, then yes even under the speed limit can be cause for a citation. However that is very flimsy and situational.

Duck Jenkins · Jun 3, 2010

rooster said:
However that is very flimsy and situational.

Agree +1

rooster · Jun 3, 2010

Duck Jenkins said:
Give up easy (LOL) I just know I will always be ahead of the game so you must know how to pick and choose your battles, with cops and life.

I pick and choose my battles. Just so happens I pick and choose all of them

. All of them I am right about that is. I got stopped for not seat belt about 1 year ago. I just paid the fine. Y? I did not have my seatbelt on.

rooster · Jun 3, 2010

pangris said:
All that is necessary for ANY legal decision is a preponderance of evidence against you (civil) or certainy of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" (criminal).

I would say it is reasonable to require something other than "he said so". That standard doesn't apply very well, especially when you consider how often eye witnesses are proven wrong.

Case by case basis, yada yada yada...

That is my personal opinion also. Well put.

aard3 · Jun 3, 2010

pangris said:
All that is necessary for ANY legal decision is a preponderance of evidence against you (civil) or certainy of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" (criminal).

I would say it is reasonable to require something other than "he said so". That standard doesn't apply very well, especially when you consider how often eye witnesses are proven wrong.

Case by case basis, yada yada yada...

+1 for pangris. Heck, to be honest, I've always wondered if some* cops don't just do this already... I mean, is there any "recording device" built into the radar guns?

Bayoupiper · Jun 3, 2010

If I don't have you locked on my laser, I don't write the ticket.

.

rooster · Jun 3, 2010

Bayoupiper said:
If I don't have you locked on my laser, I don't write the ticket.

.

I think most would be the same way.

Akajun · Jun 3, 2010

rooster said:
Akajun, if you are pacing someone then that is conformation of your thoughts. That is much like having the person on radar. With locking your radar on 70 then pulling someone over, that moves into the realm of an honest cope guessing a speed vs a criminal act. A police Officer does have a great deal of weigh in a court(seeing as in some cases they can be considered an expert witness but most LEO do not really have the qualifications) so legally no more than any other citizen. Last time I was cited for speeding, it was by a LEO that at the time I passed was standing on the side of the road handing another person a ticket. I spoke to the DA, explained that he could not have known my speed. The DA dropped the ticket. So quite often people think just because they get a ticket then they are guilty. That is not the case

I understand that, and was using that example to show that machines can be manipulated, wrong, etc. It all comes down to an officers credibility in court, what he can articulate, and his experience.

Bayoupiper · Jun 3, 2010

Akajun said:
I understand that, and was using that example to show that machines can be manipulated, wrong, etc. It all comes down to an officers credibility in court, what he can articulate, and his experience.

That credibility is built up over time.

A hell of a LONG time!

All it takes is one small incident to destroy that credibility.

Aren't you guys glad you don't live with THAT pressure on you every day?

.

Ohio: Officer estimates enough for speeding convictions

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

Well-Known Member

Be honest.

Well-Known Member

Shamed Liberty

Clandestine Sciuridae

Go away,Batin...

Lone Wolf

Well-Known Member

*Banned*

Well-Known Member

Lone Wolf

Well-Known Member

Lone Wolf

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Curmudgeon

Well-Known Member

Go away,Batin...

New Curmudgeon

Log in

Forum statistics

Banned