Speeding may now be estimated by officer

[rk-nsx]

The Associated Press Updated 11:42 AM Wednesday, June 2, 2010

COLUMBUS, Ohio — 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.

I guess reasonable doubt no longer applies.

 

[RSO 34]

Visual speed estimates have been accepted in most states for a long time. Any time I was able to knock out radar testimony based upon failure to calibrate, etc. the officer would always testify about his training on visual speed estimate and a conviction would be the outcome.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

I don't know. This guy was visually trained too, but his decision cost this guy a place in history. It's why they created instant replay. To err is human. So when you leave decisions up to human judgement, mistakes will (too often) happen.

 

[HIJACKER]

I disagree with this ruling completely, there are to many variables and geometric angles that can make things appear different than what they actually are. The angle in which you're viewing the vehicle, size of the vehicle, etc. all impact what it "appears" that its doing.

Unless it's a provision to where it must be something very obvious (i.e. speed limit is 55mph on the highway and you see a streak go by that appears to be doing something around ~100, I can see writing them a citation for speeding and maybe wreckless endangerment, but you can't be specific.

It's hard to really form a true opinion on this without knowing everything that has been written into law and what is allowed. I also don't care to research it since Ohio doesn't impact me personally.

 

[naaman]

Wow, this subject comes up a lot.... maybe we should sticky it:

Visually estimating speed is EASY. It takes some training and some practice, but one of the requirements to be qualified on RADAR is that the officer must be able to estimate the speed to within 3 mph BEFORE he targets the car with the RADAR/LIDAR. The device is used simply to confirm the officer's observation. After just 15 minutes of practice, I was able to average accurate speed estimates to within 1.5 mph. Considering the size of the vehicle, the angle and all that other stuff is part of the training.

In fact, the BEST way to beat a speeding ticket is to prove that the officer DID NOT estimate your speed before targeting you with the RADAR, or else prove that RFI was a factor.

All this mumbo jumbo about not "calibrating" the RADAR is more wishful thinking than an actual defense. The RADAR is tested for accuracy every day before it goes into service (specifically to counter the "uncalibrated" argument). And I myself confirm the accuracy of the radar after every speeding stop.

 

[yojack1]

"MONEY MONEY MONEY MOOOOONEY, money"

 

[Acura NsX Pilot]

Wow, this subject comes up a lot.... maybe we should sticky it:

Visually estimating speed is EASY. It takes some training and some practice, but one of the requirements to be qualified on RADAR is that the officer must be able to estimate the speed to within 3 mph BEFORE he targets the car with the RADAR/LIDAR. The device is used simply to confirm the officer's observation. After just 15 minutes of practice, I was able to average accurate speed estimates to within 1.5 mph. Considering the size of the vehicle, the angle and all that other stuff is part of the training.

In fact, the BEST way to beat a speeding ticket is to prove that the officer DID NOT estimate your speed before targeting you with the RADAR, or else prove that RFI was a factor.

All this mumbo jumbo about not "calibrating" the RADAR is more wishful thinking than an actual defense. The RADAR is tested for accuracy every day before it goes into service (specifically to counter the "uncalibrated" argument). And I myself confirm the accuracy of the radar after every speeding stop.

Just out of curiosity how would you confirm the accuracy of the radar after each stop or is this some trade secret.

 

[passline]

I don't know. This guy was visually trained too, but his decision cost this guy a place in history. It's why they created instant replay. To err is human. So when you leave decisions up to human judgement, mistakes will (too often) happen.

Like the umpire in the Gallaraga perfect game?

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Like the umpire in the Gallaraga perfect game?

Yeah, that's the link. You have two people visually trained for a specific task. The umpire to call an "out" and the cop to determine speed. They both have a lot of training and certification to do that one task. Yet, it's clear from that link example that it is possible for a person, who is specifically trained and licensed, to still make a mistake. So why allow admissible in court a system which clearly has the opportunities of mistakes? When someone is convicted, it is often under the pretense that it is without a shadow of doubt; that you are innocent until proven guilty. So when the guidelines on determining innocence or guilt is based upon a fundamentally flawed and prone to error system, I don’t think it should be used.

 

[TomCat]

The device is used simply to confirm the officer's observation.


After just 15 minutes of practice, I was able to average accurate speed estimates to within 1.5 mph.

Must be a slow work day for me to respond...
1) My assumption is that the devise is used as empirical EVIDENCE...not a confirmation of an (alleged) observation.

2) Did this 15 minutes of practice include different scenarios (different: sized cars, ambient light, angles, surroundings, relative traffic, officer's disposition/health/, etc...). If there were limited variables...then the precision might get (artificially) better.

3) In my state 1 mph (15 over vs 16 over) can mean a huge difference...I'd prefer decimal point, repeatable, EVIDENCE.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

Must be a slow work day for me to respond...
1) My assumption is that the devise is used as empirical EVIDENCE...not a confirmation of an (alleged) observation.

2) Did this 15 minutes of practice include different scenarios (different: sized cars, ambient light, angles, surroundings, relative traffic, officer's disposition/health/, etc...). If there were limited variables...then the precision might get (artificially) better.

3) In my state 1 mph (15 over vs 16 over) can mean a huge difference...I'd prefer decimal point, repeatable, EVIDENCE.

Great points!

Not to mention, say the cop is feeling ill, has a head cold, is in a bad mood, suffering from allergies, stayed out too late the night before etc. etc. All of these factors could have an impact on the judgement process.

 

[Juice]

You guys apparently don't understand Ohio traffic law.

You do nothing.
Cop pulls you over.
Cop asks asks if you know what you did wrong.
You say, "No."
He says you were "X, and have you been drinking."
You say, "No, I've done neither."
He asks for your license and registration, then walks back to his car.
He returns with your license, registration, and a ticket. Possibly for X, but most likely determined by some underground, cop derived magic 8-ball.
The whole time you did not have a front license plate, but the cop is too stupid to write you a ticket for a legitimate reason.
You now pay what is affectionately known as "Ohio taxes".

 

[Cairo94507]

I never, back in my former career, wrote them for the obvious violation (front plate) because it gives the next officer a valid reason to stop them. It is not that the officer "is too stupid...."

 

[RJPKRP]

I never, back in my former career, wrote them for the obvious violation (front plate) because it gives the next officer a valid reason to stop them. It is not that the officer "is too stupid...."

Exactly .

Also, to those who doubt.....write enough tickets using VASCAR and you'll be able to accurately estimate the speed of a vehicle. Vehicle speed estimation is really not all that difficult, especially when your primary duty is patrol by vehicle.

It becomes as second nature as estimating distance. I'm sure most of us can pick an object and estimate with a relative degree of accuracy the distance it is from us. Speed estimation is really no different, especially when part of your career is traffic enforcement.

 

[SUNEDAZ]

I think I have enough proof for the ACLU!!!!

Purposely not writing a violation so another a$$ can pull you over later? Great work smart guys!
Lets start doing our jobs in America and stop screwing others because "you can"

Remember you agreed to Serve and Protect! Do it with pride!

You work in an admirable field please use your title to help rid your area of dangerous criminals and drugs!!

Lets clean up America!!

thats my $0.02 :wink:

 

[RJPKRP]

I think I have enough proof for the ACLU!!!!

Purposely not writing a violation so another a$$ can pull you over later? Great work smart guys!
Lets start doing our jobs in America and stop screwing others because "you can"

Remember you agreed to Serve and Protect! Do it with pride!

You work in an admirable field please use your title to help rid your area of dangerous criminals and drugs!!

Lets clean up America!!

thats my $0.02 :wink:

Oh, I'll tell you that the reason I pulled you over was for your burnt out tag light....doesn't mean I have to write you a ticket for it. Also, even if I do write you a ticket for a problem, doesn't mean that you can't get another ticket for it before the problem is corrected.

How do you know that I'm not using something like a burnt out tag light to stop someone so that I can rid my area of dangerous criminals and drugs?

 

[jonas1jp]

Pricks. Got a ticket last week for 5 mph over - 35 in a 30. Said I was "making a lot of noise" and to "be careful. You'll hurt yourself or someone else." I wanted to strangle the skinny little s.o.b. Complete horse shit. I am so over dealing with cops - I NEVER have good exchanges with these guys. Sorry for the highjacking rant - I just had to say something.

 

[Swift]

I laugh because if drug smugglers are smart..which alot of them are...they probably are having their "girlfriends" driving honda odysseys with soccer stickers on them with a car seat in the back while the friend's lowriders with DUBS plays the cop for a fool.

Any lawyer and judge knows that eyewitness accounts are the worse "evidence" if you can call it that. Why? human error.



"Blink'n..what are you doing up there?"

"Guessing....I guess no one is coming."

 

[Juice]

None of this even matters. Officers have never needed to prove that an infraction has occured. If I get pulled over for weaving, aggressive driving, speeding, etc. How am I suposed to fight the claim? How much will it cost me? What type of time will it take? Even if dismissed, we still are required to pay court costs! No matter how it is dealt with, it costs the driver time and $. The state always wins.

Not many cops are lying SOBs. But some are.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[steveny]

When I use to ride around with my buddy we would try and see who could guess the speed the closest to the actually speed before pulling the trigger on the radar gun. Almost every time I would be closer to the actual speed than he as. It got me a free lunch more than a few times. It's not that hard to guess speed especially if you are parked diagonal to traffic, that seemed to make it the easiest for me.

with that being aid lets now rub a couple of brain cells together and see where they are going with this. It's pretty easy to record you speed and location with a GPS unit. If you have one calibrated and it's allowed as evidence in court you could prove you were speeding when the officer stated you were, exact time, location and speed.

Now lets rub a few more brain cells together and maybe put on a tinfoil cap. It's also just as easy to prove when and where you WERE speeding at anytime and any place with the same GPS unit, and IMO that is where this is heading.

Get all your speeding out of you now because within a few years it will be impossible to speed under any circumstances without receiving a ticket in the mail!

 

[steveny]

None of this even matters. Officers have never needed to prove that an infraction has occured. If I get pulled over for weaving, aggressive driving, speeding, etc. How am I suposed to fight the claim? How much will it cost me? What type of time will it take? Even if dismissed, we still are required to pay court costs! No matter how it is dealt with, it costs the driver time and $. The state always wins.

Not many cops are lying SOBs. But some are.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

The court costs are fixed, the final tally if someone fights a ticket all the way to the bitter end can far exceed any amount of court cost and fees. If it appears someone will fight the ticket to the point it will exceed a profit for the court the court will usually reduce the ticket to still be able to turn a profit. After all in the end it's all about the money. Which is totally fine as long as it's not covered with lies that it's about safty.

NSX at 90 MPH on the highway= safe
Dodge Neon at 90MPH on the highway=not safe

 

[SilverStone05]

You guys apparently don't understand Ohio traffic law.

You do nothing.
Cop pulls you over.
Cop asks asks if you know what you did wrong.
You say, "No."
He says you were "X, and have you been drinking."
You say, "No, I've done neither."
He asks for your license and registration, then walks back to his car.
He returns with your license, registration, and a ticket. Possibly for X, but most likely determined by some underground, cop derived magic 8-ball.
The whole time you did not have a front license plate, but the cop is too stupid to write you a ticket for a legitimate reason.
You now pay what is affectionately known as "Ohio taxes".

Yea, that sounds about right.

I have seen more cops on the prowl for speeders in the past two months than I had seen in the prior two years.

Motorcycle cops who sit on the freeway on ramps and jump out in the middle of the street, point at you then motion for you to pull over....I'd say its getting out of hand.

 

[mspears]

In the last 10 years or so, here in Orlando, the trend has been one of overly aggressive cops who treat everyone like a career criminal. The protect and serve is gone ....now its seems more along the lines of spy and punish.

But the trend that troubles me most is the increasing absence of Due Process in many areas of the law ...The Ole innocent til PROVEN guilty statement -long referred to as the cornerstone of the Judicial system, is absent from many of Law Enforcement procedures and policies. Many of Law Enforcement's standard procedures are completely w/o even the barest appearance of due process. Listed below is one of the more egregious examples but Law Enforcement agency's here are rife with similar strong arm techniques.

ex 1: Police pull you over and arrest your passenger and yourself on suspicion of robbery of a store. Almost immediately the vehicle is now forfeit and will be sold in a matter of weeks. This is long before your day in court, or even if the charges are dropped; it doesn't matter if you are exonerated and the true perpetrators have been captured/convicted. The only recourse is to repurchase your auto and I do mean repurchase....not just some hefty storage and towing BS... but a price based on the actual value of the car. You must pay what is arrived at as the value.....and if u don't do it it is sold. Unbelievable.

 

[NSXLVR]

My mother told me about this, and anyone who believes it's not about money, is completely lying to themselves. I can only await the harassment to ensue.

Blue Ash Police Department will have a FIELD Day with this shit!

 

[naaman]

Must be a slow work day for me to respond...
1) My assumption is that the devise is used as empirical EVIDENCE...not a confirmation of an (alleged) observation.

2) Did this 15 minutes of practice include different scenarios (different: sized cars, ambient light, angles, surroundings, relative traffic, officer's disposition/health/, etc...). If there were limited variables...then the precision might get (artificially) better.

3) In my state 1 mph (15 over vs 16 over) can mean a huge difference...I'd prefer decimal point, repeatable, EVIDENCE.

Actually, I'd be glad to explain it.

First, it's important to understand that it's not ONLY 15 minutes of practice. It's a couple of hours practicing with LIVE traffic on a real road. Second, the "practice" is a continuing thing. When an officer is new to speed enforcement, the best way to get good at it is to park your car somewhere with a good view to traffic and just guess speeds, and then see if you're right by hitting them with the RADAR. I've spent upwards of two hours doing this on quiet Sunday afternoons.

The officer being "sick" or "tired" is a bunch of hogwash. After daily practice of estimating speeds, it really becomes as easy as counting. Being "sick" isn't going to cause you to count wrong or forget which way is up, etc (and if it does, you're not going to be at work in the first place).

Just out of curiosity how would you confirm the accuracy of the radar after each stop or is this some trade secret.

RADAR stands for "Radio Detection and Ranging." It uses radio waves to locate objects. I mentioned RFI in an earlier post, which will be important to your understanding of the following:

Each radar comes with tuning forks. Striking the tuning fork and placing it in the beam will cause the RADAR to "detect" a certain speed. The speed is based upon the pitch that the tuning fork emits (determined by the frequency at which it vibrates). Each tuning fork is labelled with the speed that the radar should indicate if it is functioning properly. If the RADAR returns the correct speed for all tuning forks tested, then it is working properly.

Beating a ticket may be easiest if you can "prove" that radio frequency interference was present. Many things can cause RFI, so it's important for officers to understand this before they target a vehicle with the RADAR, and is the main reason that the officer MUST be competent with visual speed estimation: if his estimate is grossly different from the RADAR, then we can say without reasonable doubt that the RADAR is malfunctioning or that RFI is a factor.

The bottom line is this: traffic enforcement is a job, or, at least it's part of a job and it is performed by professionals who are specifically trained to do it. All this business about "human error" and "what if the officer has a runny nose?" is just useless. It really is.

It's like saying that a bank manager might forget that 5 twenties is $100 if he's not feeling good that day. Or like saying that a race car driver might mis-shift because because he has a sore throat.