Supereme Court: Cops can guess your speed and ticket you

[sgreger1]

Ohio Supreme Court Rules Officers Can Just Guess How Fast You’re Going
In what has to be one of the biggest violations of common sense and burden of proof in motoring news this year, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that officers can “visually estimate” how fast a person is driving… and give them a ticket for it.

Thanks Ohio Supreme Court for giving cops the green light to make up speeding tickets.

Supreme Court Justice Maureen O’Connor said “Rational triers of fact could find a police officer’s testimony regarding his unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, when supported by evidence that the officer is trained, certified by (the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy) or a similar organization, and experienced in making such estimations, sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s speed. Independent verification of the vehicle’s speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding.”

[tom502]

America, R.I.P.

[LaZeR]

Hope & Change. It's here...

[texasmade]

time stamped photo of the dashboard as soon as i see the lights flash suck on that cock justice system

[bipolarbear1968]

All of you who voted for "change", you got it!

More to come...

[danielan]

That's pretty much always been the case.

Radar is a relatively recent invention and pre-radar this is how it worked.

I'm not sure how this even made it to their Supreme Court.

[sgreger1]

That's pretty much always been the case.

Radar is a relatively recent invention and pre-radar this is how it worked.

I'm not sure how this even made it to their Supreme Court.

Radar started in 1954 in Illinois. Since then we have the tools to determine speed so it wa sa requirement. Similar to how before they may have guessed if you were drunk enough for a DUI, we now have gadgets to determine that, and it is required to prove your guilt. So this is why it went to the supreme court, because the current rule is that you have to have some evidence of a crime commited, not just taking a cop on his word. We all remember how fair everything was prior to the 50's, right?

[NonServiam]

Ahhhhh Man! You guys are gonna swarm on me like flys on you know what, but here I go anyway. Ok, since I have experience in this field and occupation, here is my 2 cents, or a penny for your thoughts (keep the change). Yes some departments do certify their officers in visual speed estimation. All courts I have been to consider it admissable.

The certification is acquired during the same certification for doppler radar (radar gun). Granted, some officers are better at it than others. I had to visually estimate the speed of 100 vehicles on the roadway, estimate them within 5 MPH, and be like 85-90% correct or something like that.

Anyways, this really isn't any different than a cop saying he got you on radar. The radar does not record to a hard drive, and cops are not required to "lock in" the speed on the display box. So if a cop is going to make something up, he is going to do it regardless, whether he is visually estimating your speed or using radar. In my experience, someone being stopped on a visual estimation alone is rare. We have radar and we like to use it because when it is coupled with a visual estimation it is all that more credible.

I personally, will estimate a speed first, if it appears to be above the posted limit, then I will activate my radar and compare the results. If I think you are going 55 MPH in a 40 MPH zone, and the radar reads 57, I am confident that you are in that MPH range. If I estimate you at 45 MPH and the radar reads 55 MPH, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and let you on by. (you gotta be at least 15 over to get my attention, anything between 10-14 over will just make me turn on my lights to get your pucker factor).

The only time I have stopped and cited on a visual estimation alone I can count on one hand. And these were circumstances where any reasonable person would have ascertained the same.

Example: Driving through a residential neighborhood (25 MPH) and I observe a vehicle traveling at a speed which is obviously greater, like 45 or 50 MPH. It doesn't take any special training or schooling to do this. How many times have you been in your front yard and some young punk comes haulin' down your neighborhood street and you shake your fist in the air yelling at him to slow down. You then tell your other neighbor "Hey, did you see that kid? He must have been going like 50 MPH through here!" Well, you just visually estimated a speed. And if you sat in your front yard and estimated the speed of every passing vehicle for 12 hours a day, 4 days a week, and then compared your estimations with a radar, I bet you could get pretty accurate at it. At least within 5 MPH.

Now to add to that, let's say I am on duty and I am standing in your front yard with you having a conversation about those strange looking green plants growing behind your shed. The same punk kid comes haulin' down the road again. I obviously don't have a radar immediately available, but it is obvious he is traveling faster than 25 MPH. Now, would you look at me and say "Aren't you gonna go stop that kid? Children play around here!" or are you gonna say "It's a shame you didn't have your radar with you, that kid deserves a ticket."

I understand that there is an abuse of power out there. Regretfully, a few bad apples spoils the whole bunch. Okay, I know you're going to do it, so let the flogging begin, one at a time please, and remember...single file line.

[danielan]

the current rule is that you have to have some evidence of a crime commited, not just taking a cop on his word

A witness is evidence.

Also, breathalyzers are not uniformly required to establish DUI. Field sobriety tests, the answers you give to the officer, the officer's evaluation of your driving, the video, etc can all be used as evidence.

More evidence is always better, but witnesses and professional opinions still count.

[NonServiam]

That's pretty much always been the case.

Radar is a relatively recent invention and pre-radar this is how it worked.

I'm not sure how this even made it to their Supreme Court.

In the old days, they would actually use two officers set up (in hiding) between a measured distance. They would then use stopwatches and calculate their findings to determine your speed.

[lxskllr]

In the old days, they would actually use two officers set up (in hiding) between a measured distance. They would then use stopwatches and calculate their findings to determine your speed.

That's been done more recently with VASCAR, but they seem to have gotten away from the in MD. You don't see the strips painted in the road like you used to, and if they're aiming something, it's typically laser.

[danielan]

You don't see the strips painted in the road like you used to

We still have those out here, but those are mainly for airborne enforcement on the highways.

[sgreger1]

HAha, I understand Nonserviam, no need to flame you for stating the obviouse, that cops will do what they do regardless. Just by saying that visual is all it takes, at a time when cops are looking for more money to fund their dept, I see abuse of power in our future. Then again this isn't really anything new, like you pointed out. I just wish all cops were like you Nonserviam.

[sgreger1]

A witness is evidence.

Also, breathalyzers are not uniformly required to establish DUI. Field sobriety tests, the answers you give to the officer, the officer's evaluation of your driving, the video, etc can all be used as evidence.

More evidence is always better, but witnesses and professional opinions still count.

I cower in fear over the day any authority can charge you of a crime based on nothing but their word. No man should have that kind of power. That's how the secret police get started

[danielan]

I cower in fear over the day any authority can charge you of a crime based on nothing but their word. No man should have that kind of power. That's how the secret police get started

They've always been able to charge you. Getting an indictment and conviction is another story.