Ohio Speeding Ticket Ruling

Feffman · #1 (**permalink**) 06-02-2010, 12:47 PM

Just got this from a buddy in Cleveland. Be careful driving through Ohio.

Feff

Officer Estimates Enough For Speeding Convictions

By: Associated Press

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.

dcdoug · #2 (**permalink**) 06-02-2010, 01:01 PM

Wow, that's crazy. What do they write the ticket for - what's the leeway given for variance in speed estimation? Or is the officer's specific speed estimate considered final judgment?

E.g. If someone is going 60mph in a 30mph, probably pretty clear they are speeding by at least 10mph or more and I'd have less heartburn if they got a ticket for something reasonable if it wasn't caught on radar. If someone is going 45 in a 35, harder to tell the difference between say 40 and 45, so what do you write the ticket for?

Seems like there's got to be more to this specific case (maybe it was an egregious violation that someone was trying to escape on a technicality) to have a 5-1 ruling.

Any more info?

Mooch · #3 (**permalink**) 06-02-2010, 01:42 PM

Ohio is now quickly catching up to California for ridiculous laws...

patrickt · #4 (**permalink**) 06-02-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcdoug

Any more info?

Barberton v. Jenney -- Read it over, digest it, and when you're ready then we'll expose you to the Socratic method of teaching law.

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod...-ohio-2420.pdf

Fordzilla · #5 (**permalink**) 06-02-2010, 02:20 PM

In NY it's the same & has been for as long as I can remember. Radar is only used to back up the Officer's estimate of the speed. I was a Police Officer back in the 1980s -early 1990s & a certified Radar Operator. You had to be within 3 miles an hour of the actual speed to be certified.

dcdoug · #6 (**permalink**) 06-02-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrickt

Barberton v. Jenney -- Read it over, digest it, and when you're ready then we'll expose you to the Socratic method of teaching law.

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod...-ohio-2420.pdf

Interesting case facts:

"Santimarino was required to show that he could visually estimate a vehicle’s
speed to within three to four miles per hour of the vehicle’s actual speed"

"Santimarino testified that based on his training and experience, he had estimated that Jenney’s vehicle was traveling 70 miles per hour"

"Santimarino testified on direct examination that after he visually estimated the speed of Jenney’s vehicle, he observed that the radar unit indicated that Jenney’s vehicle was traveling at 82 miles per hour."

So clearly he can't actually get anywhere close to within 3-4mph accuracy in estimating a vehicle's speed. He was off by 200-300%. This by itself does not seem to meet the reasonable doubt standard. But the fact that he had radar would be enough in my opinion to convict for this specific case.

The idea that the court excuses officers "trained in vehicle speed estimation" from proving beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was speeding still seems crazy to me. Even the facts in this case support that there would have very likely been reasonable doubt if there had not been radar.

Woodz428 · #7 (**permalink**) 06-02-2010, 02:41 PM

If it doesn't go to the Supreme court I'd be surprised. Even IF it was an "egregious" violation and he was trying to get off, that reeks of what is appropriately called a police state. That , it would seem, also allows an officer ...with their special perceptions,to charge someone because it appeared that they may have stolen something. Pretty hefty decision in a country where you are SUPPOSED to me innocent until proven guilty. He killed that person because he looks like the type...God forbid. Seems like NO proof, just supposition on a revenue collectors part.

Igofastr · #8 (**permalink**) 06-02-2010, 02:45 PM

You look guilty to me, a trained officer of guilt detection. Therefor, you must be guilty.

Great Asp · #9 (**permalink**) 06-02-2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igofastr

You look guilty to me, a trained officer of guilt detection. Therefor, you must be guilty.

That's racial profiling Mister!

LOL

E

Ibr8k4vetts · #10 (**permalink**) 06-02-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mooch

Ohio is now quickly catching up to California for ridiculous laws...

Cops can't do that in California!

Feffman · #11 (**permalink**) 06-03-2010, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodz428

If it doesn't go to the Supreme court I'd be surprised. Even IF it was an "egregious" violation and he was trying to get off, that reeks of what is appropriately called a police state. That , it would seem, also allows an officer ...with their special perceptions,to charge someone because it appeared that they may have stolen something. Pretty hefty decision in a country where you are SUPPOSED to me innocent until proven guilty. He killed that person because he looks like the type...God forbid. Seems like NO proof, just supposition on a revenue collectors part.

BINGO!

I've got to think eventually someone is going to challenge this all the way to the US Supreme Court under some type of "Innocent until proven guilty" issue. This is nothing more then a revenue generator for governments that simply can't live within thier revenue (taxes) means.

Think about this in a trial, the ticket recipients canny lawyer trots out 4 police officers, showing the cars traveling by and has them guess the speed. HMMM 4 different guesses, which one is accurate?

Our government is starting to look more and more like that in the movie "Brazil".

Feff

Fordzilla · #12 (**permalink**) 06-03-2010, 07:40 AM

Ah....Guys...This is nothing new. Radar is only used to back up the Officer's observation. To write traffic tickets using Radar you must be certified. To be certified you take a course on Radar Operation. It teaches the basic principles of radar, how to use the radar gun & speed estimate training. 25 years ago as a rookie in training, I sat for hours with a State Police Instructor observing vehicles on the highway, then estimating their speed & using the radar gun to see what speed the vehicle was actually travelling. On the final exam I had to be within 3 miles an hour of all vehicles. All through the years when I had to go to court on a ticket I had written, I had to say, I first observed the speeding vehicle, estimated it's speed & then used the radar to back up that estimate. If ever challenged on having the ability to estimate speed or being certified, I merely produced my State issued certification card. Also, we had to be re-certified every 3 years. So, This is old news. Just sounds like a ticket was challenged all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court where the Court upheld the age old ruling & practice of the way things have always been done.
Regards,

Wbulk · #13 (**permalink**) 06-03-2010, 09:42 AM

Mick is right, that's exactly the way we operated when I was a street cop in Ca. I do remember though a motor officer that only worked traffic and accident investigation write a ticket and go to court only on an observation. As I remember when he was walking back to his bike this car passed him at an obvious high rate of speed. He didn't have time to do anything but try to catch the guy. He won in court. When you do this day in day out for years you can get really really close with the speed. It's like shooting, the more practice the better you get. The problem most people have is with the few bad cops that make it difficult for the rest and I have fired a few of those.

lovehamr · #14 (**permalink**) 06-03-2010, 10:52 AM

Second Mick, it's not all that rare guys just not to many officers do it because of the hassle and a radar or laser pops out a specific # for everyone to see.

Steve

SPF2245 · #15 (**permalink**) 06-03-2010, 11:15 AM

Just for the non-cops, most radar schools are ~40 hours of math and in my class the final certification was 20 controlled speed verifications with a +/- 5mph (ie the suspect vehicle was moving at 50mph and you had to be within 45-55. Then you had to also have a distance you make the estimate. We had to get 18 out of 20 correct to pass the class. Along with that, we had 100 practice runs during the week...by the end we'd be making estimates +/- 2mph with near 100% accuracy.

The reason this exsists is due to the radar can not tell you which car is traveling at the speed indicated so you use the radar to verify your visual estimate. It's really not hard to do this accurately.

dcdoug · #16 (**permalink**) 06-03-2010, 11:41 AM

I guess my issue would be that in the case the officer was 12mph off and had been certified and had 13 years experience as a patrolman. If he can't get it right, how can we expect the rest of the officers to get it right?

It may be the law, but it seems to be pretty flawed, not to mention possibly unconstitutional IMHO. Be nice to see it get challenged further.

Rick Weber · #17 (**permalink**) 06-03-2010, 11:50 AM

I'm with dcdoug. Also, since penalties/fines/points are assessed at varying levels of speed OVER the limit, how would that work, since one is relying on an estimate. If the fine was $1,000...I would tell the judge that I'll estimate the amount I'll pay...hahaha. Seems to me, that without the backup of radar to confirm the officer's estimate, it would be impossible to be found guilty. Guess we'll get rid of parking meters next and just guess that 20 minutes, OR SO, have elapsed.

Rick

Great Asp · #18 (**permalink**) 06-03-2010, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feffman

BINGO!

I've got to think eventually someone is going to challenge this all the way to the US Supreme Court under some type of "Innocent until proven guilty" issue. This is nothing more then a revenue generator for governments that simply can't live within thier revenue (taxes) means.

Think about this in a trial, the ticket recipients canny lawyer trots out 4 police officers, showing the cars traveling by and has them guess the speed. HMMM 4 different guesses, which one is accurate?

Our government is starting to look more and more like that in the movie "Brazil".

Feff

No other state stacks up to Illinois.

They have revenue collectors (Highway Patrol) lined up on every interstate to collect taxes. It's pathetic. They are on traffic constantly, never on patrol.

I make a point not to stop in Illinois to buy diesel, food, or anything. I also make sure I never get a ticket in Illinois

E

dcdoug · #19 (**permalink**) 06-03-2010, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Asp

No other state stacks up to Illinois.

They have revenue collectors (Highway Patrol) lined up on every interstate to collect taxes. It's pathetic. They are on traffic constantly, never on patrol.

I make a point not to stop in Illinois to buy diesel, food, or anything. I also make sure I never get a ticket in Illinois

E

I'm sure that's because there just aren't any other real crimes to solve.

Much better to hang out and write tickets all day.

Fordzilla · #20 (**permalink**) 06-03-2010, 12:54 PM

Oh, There are plenty of crimes to solve but that's for other divisions. Traffic units work traffic detail. Yes, they write tickets. This keeps the roads safe (well..safer then without them) & produces revenue. This is the way it's done & has worked for decades.
Radar is not needed for a guilty conviction but does help. Is the system flawed? Well, just like all systems it can be abused & sometimes can be simply wrong. (People do make mistakes). All I can say is (IMHO) it's still the best system out there.
Regards,