Ohio sucks btw...

[stevew]

Estimates OK for speeding tickets, court rules

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'm just speechless....No independent verification needed if an Officer thinks you're "driving too fast."

[molson]

He can't just think you're "driving too fast", he has to think you're driving over the speed limit.

I know one judge in Idaho that will convict people based on the officer's visual estimation first - any radar evidence is merely supporting evidence, because he didn't consider it as reliable. I don't know how common that is.

In the academy, officers need to visually estimate a vehicle's speed to a surprising degree of accuracy.

If an officer estimates someone's going 57 in a 55 - probably not enough for reasonable doubt standard. But once you get to 10-15 over the speed limit, trained visual observations are pretty reliable (even laymen get usually get those right)

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'm just speechless....No independent verification needed if an Officer thinks you're "driving too fast."

[stevew]

I guess I was living under a rock when I thought that traffic cops had to follow rules in order to make a stop. These include presenting evidence of your speeding. I'm not going to challenge a ticket anyways, but the thought that there's evidence comforts me.

Now I'm willing to bet that the amount of citations they write will explode. No need for a calibrated gun or anything. You look like you're going 70mph.

[molson]

Originally Posted by stevew

I guess I was living under a rock when I thought that traffic cops had to follow rules in order to make a stop. These include presenting evidence of your speeding.

Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

In this case, the officer estimated the guy was going 79 in a 60. That's a pretty easy estimation that he was going too fast.

This doesn't mean that an officer can say "too fast" and the ticket is automatically upheld. It's just that such observation CAN be enough. Which to me, is obvious.

Judges still have to make decisions based on credibility. Officers will generally get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to credibility on traffic stops (though not always, I've seen a few cops lose their credibility with traffic court judges).

Even when it's radar, it's not like the radar results are recorded somewhere and verified. It's just the officer's testimony, "my radar gun said he was going too fast". That's enough. An officer's visual observations are arguably more reliable than the radar results (because the radar may be picking up the wrong car, or it might be malfunctioning, or whatever).

[CU Tiger]

Part of police academy training is learning to visually estimate speed. They have to be within, 1% total error on like 20 passes to get their badge.

[This is based on SC, I assume it is the same for other states]

Actually in SC a visual estimation is the dictating evidence and the radar is "a verification of fact".

Police judge distance or have a preset landmark between points and time either by stopwatch or count and then have a table/chart card that has the calculated speed.

Their is human error for sure, but MOST LEO's are going to err on the side of caution when using visual only.

BTW for the this is going to cause an explosion of tickets, this has been a standard that was just supported, it is business as usual.

Dont speed dont get a ticket its pretty simple. (That from the guy who has had literally dozens of tickets)

[sterlingice]

1% Total Error on 20 passes you say? So, like if you do 10 over then 10 under then 10 over then 10 under, you'd be ok? Kindof like a bad strike zone in baseball?

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

1% Total Error on 20 passes you say? So, like if you do 10 over then 10 under then 10 over then 10 under, you'd be ok? Kindof like a bad strike zone in baseball?

SI

As long as it's not the last out in a perfect game, you're fine.

[albionmoonlight]

Also, Ohio tries to steal North Carolina's First in Flight thunder by noting that the Wright Brothers spent a lot of time thinking about airplanes in Ohio or something.

Also, Ohio fights to keep Denali named after Ohio native William McKinley, even though McKinley had never been to Alaska and had nothing to do with the mountain.

So bragging about an historic event that didn't happen in Ohio and laying claim to a mountain that isn't in Ohio.

Yeah, I'm all over an Ohio sucks thread.

[Ksyrup]

Didn't need to see a court ruling to know Ohio sucks.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Also, Ohio tries to steal North Carolina's First in Flight thunder by noting that the Wright Brothers spent a lot of time thinking about airplanes in Ohio or something.

Also, Ohio fights to keep Denali named after Ohio native William McKinley, even though McKinley had never been to Alaska and had nothing to do with the mountain.

So bragging about an historic event that didn't happen in Ohio and laying claim to a mountain that isn't in Ohio.

Yeah, I'm all over an Ohio sucks thread.

My distate for Ohio is well known.

[illinifan999]

Every cop where I did my internship called out the speed +/- 2 on a driver before they zapped them in with radar. I tried and failed miserably.

[illinifan999]

dola

that being said, I still think there should be additional evidence needed.

[bulletsponge]

they need this ruling for when Lebron burns rubber right out of the state this summer

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

they need this ruling for when Lebron burns rubber right out of the state this summer

bawhahahaha

[Greyroofoo]

So does the cop need to have the speeder recorded on camera or anything?

What's to stop a racist cop from just pulling over black people because he 'thought' they were going over the speed limit.


Speed limit laws are racist and should be removed.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm gobsmacked - so basically if a police person over there dislikes you he can victimize you with no evidence and no comeback basically .... great stuff.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'm gobsmacked - so basically if a police person over there dislikes you he can victimize you with no evidence and no comeback basically .... great stuff.

That's true of any traffic infraction.

How much CSI-level proof do you expect for someone getting a ticket for running a stop sign?

I'm not sure what you mean by "no comeback" - the defendant is certainly entitled to put on evidence and cross-examine the police officer. and the judge still has to make credibility determinations regarding all of the witnesses, including the police officer.

[Mantle2600]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Also, Ohio tries to steal North Carolina's First in Flight thunder by noting that the Wright Brothers spent a lot of time thinking about airplanes in Ohio or something.

Also, Ohio fights to keep Denali named after Ohio native William McKinley, even though McKinley had never been to Alaska and had nothing to do with the mountain.

So bragging about an historic event that didn't happen in Ohio and laying claim to a mountain that isn't in Ohio.

Yeah, I'm all over an Ohio sucks thread.

Actually they say birthplace of aviation because Orville wright was born in Dayton Ohio.

[Butter]

The Wright Brothers "spent a lot of time thinking about airplanes in Ohio"???

How about designed and created the first airplane in Ohio. How about they were born in Ohio. Yes, the first flight was in North Carolina. But all the brainpower that led to that flight happened in Ohio.

[JediKooter]

Pretty soon we will be like Mexico where you are guilty until you prove yourself to be innocent.

[illinifan999]

Talking to a few friends who are officers, they didn't have much of a reaction to this. Cops have been giving citations based off visual estimation for quite some time now, or as one of the officers who's nearing retirement, "Son, I been doing that since before you were a twinkle in your daddy's eye."

[molson]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Talking to a few friends who are officers, they didn't have much of a reaction to this. Cops have been giving citations based off visual estimation for quite some time now, or as one of the officers who's nearing retirement, "Son, I been doing that since before you were a twinkle in your daddy's eye."

Radar speed technology is relatively new.

Another thing an officer can do is pace a speeding car.

But whatever the evidence - it's just the officer's testimony. Either he visually estimated it based on his training, he used a radar, or he paced a car, and he's testifying about it.

Do people think that if an officer uses radar the data is saved on some magic hard drive that's preserved forever, and can be independently verified somehow?

I'd be surprised if there's any state that has determined, as a matter of law, that an officer's visual speed estimation is inadmissible, or needs to be collaborated by some other means before the case can even GET to the fact-finder (in this case, a judge)

[CU Tiger]

BTW Ohio definitely sucks....all this talk aside.

Butter....The actual plane the first flight was recorded in was built in KDH...their FIRST plane they built in OH it never would fly and eventually was destroyed.

At least that what the first in flight museum taught the kids on our OBX vacation last year...LOL

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd be surprised if there's any state that has determined, as a matter of law, that an officer's visual speed estimation is inadmissible, or needs to be collaborated by some other means before the case can even GET to the fact-finder (in this case, a judge)

An officer in GA said their state law doesn't allow for visual estimation, and Idaho's SC ruled it was insufficient.

[JediKooter]

Talking only about speeding, here's how I see it...

Cop says, "I eyeballed him going 10 over the posted speed limit."

Accused says, "My speedometer said I was going the speed limit."

If I was a juror and there was no other evidence than the cops eyewitness account, I would vote not guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

BTW Ohio definitely sucks....all this talk aside.

Butter....The actual plane the first flight was recorded in was built in KDH...their FIRST plane they built in OH it never would fly and eventually was destroyed.

At least that what the first in flight museum taught the kids on our OBX vacation last year...LOL

Yeah, you're right. I got a little fired up and didn't fact check. But I stand by my annoyed tone.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Talking only about speeding, here's how I see it...

Cop says, "I eyeballed him going 10 over the posted speed limit."

Accused says, "My speedometer said I was going the speed limit."

If I was a juror and there was no other evidence than the cops eyewitness account, I would vote not guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

Except he wouldn't say he "eyeballed" him. He would bring up all the training and certification he's gone through. Like it or not, that stuff will sound good enough for a lot of people.

And in CA especially, courts can and have tested officer's ability and generally it's been shown they have the ability. An officer from there that I spoke with said he's never lost a case based on estimation.

[DeToxRox]

They already had something like this before in Ohio, it's called "look for Michigan plates".

[dwardzala]

Yeah but they only really enforce that in years when Michigan beats Ohio State in football.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Except he wouldn't say he "eyeballed" him. He would bring up all the training and certification he's gone through. Like it or not, that stuff will sound good enough for a lot of people.

And in CA especially, courts can and have tested officer's ability and generally it's been shown they have the ability. An officer from there that I spoke with said he's never lost a case based on estimation.

I do understand that people do/would/will take a cops word without question and don't see it the same as I do and that's ok. I'm just a firm believer in having to prove someone's guilt and with no other supportive evidence other than the cops eyewitness account, I could not give a guilty vote.

What this really sounds like though, is not some evil conspiracy, but, a way for Ohio to get more revenue into the state coffers.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by dwardzala

Yeah but they only really enforce that in years when Michigan beats Ohio State in football.

True, it has been a long time sadly.

[molson]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

An officer in GA said their state law doesn't allow for visual estimation, and Idaho's SC ruled it was insufficient.

That's definitely not true in Idaho. There was a case this year where the prosecutor basically forgot to ask the officer what his actual rate, per his certification, of error was in visually estimating speed. The court of appeals vacated the conviction, but specifically noted that they were NOT saying that an officer's visual estimation alone was insufficient.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I do understand that people do/would/will take a cops word without question and don't see it the same as I do and that's ok. I'm just a firm believer in having to prove someone's guilt and with no other supportive evidence other than the cops eyewitness account, I could not give a guilty vote.

What this really sounds like though, is not some evil conspiracy, but, a way for Ohio to get more revenue into the state coffers.

When an officer uses radar to measure your speed, all he's going to be able to do at the trial is give an eyewitness account of what his machine said. Are you OK with that?

[molson]

That Idaho case, by the way, does also include a decent run-down of what other states have said about this:

"This State’s appellate courts have not previously addressed whether an officer’s testimony as to his visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed can constitute proof of speed beyond a reasonable doubt. Other states that apply a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof for traffic infractions, and that have no independent statutory requirement for corroboration of an officer’s visual estimation of speed, have reached differing conclusions. The Georgia Court of Appeals held, without analysis of case specifics, that an officer’s visual estimate of speed is sufficient proof. Ferguson v. State, 587 S.E.2d 195, 196 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). Three of the twelve appellate districts of the Ohio Court of Appeals are of the view that an officer’s estimate of speed, standing alone, is insufficient to sustain a conviction, while five other districts of the same Court are of the view that an estimate is sufficient. See State v. Kincaid, 796 N.E.2d 89, 95 (Ohio Co. 2003), and cases cited therein.

Other courts have conducted a more case-specific inquiry in determining sufficiency, addressing matters such as the officer’s training and the amount by which the estimated speed exceeded the posted limit, or the magnitude of the variance as a percentage of the posted speed limit. Again, these courts have reached varying conclusions. For example, in State v. Ali, 679 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004), the defendant was cited for driving 41 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour zone. The officer testified that he had been trained to visually estimate the speed of a vehicle within 5 miles per hour and that he had perfected that skill over the previous twenty-five years, in part based upon comparing his visual estimates with laser readings. The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s finding of a speeding violation, reasoning that even allowing a 5-mile-per-hour margin of error, the defendant’s vehicle would still have been in excess of the speed limit. Id. at 368.

In People v. Olsen, 239 N.E.2d 354 (N.Y. 1968), the officers’ estimates were that the defendant was driving between 50 to 55 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour zone. The Court of Appeals of New York upheld the speeding conviction because the difference “of 20 to 25 miles above the speed limit was clearly sufficient to justify a finding of guilt,” id. at 355, but the court further explained:

'A police officer’s estimate that a defendant was traveling at 50 to 55 miles per hour in a 30-mile-an-hour zone should be sufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding. On the other hand, his testimony, absent mechanical corroboration, that a vehicle was proceeding at 35 or 40 miles per hour in the same zone might for obvious reason be insufficient, since, it must be assumed that only a mechanical device could detect such a slight variance with accuracy sufficient to satisfy the burden necessary to sustain a conviction.
Id.'

The Missouri Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in City of Kansas City v. Oxley, 579 S.W.2d 113, 115-16 (Mo. 1979), reversing a conviction where the 45-mile-per-hour speed estimation was only 10 miles per hour over the posted limit of 35 miles per hour. In State v. Kimes, 234 S.W.3d 584, 588-90 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007), where the estimate was 35 miles per hour in a 20-mile-per-hour zone, the Missouri Court of Appeals, expanding on Oxley, considered the variance between the estimation and the speed limit in percentage terms. The Court noted that the variance between the speed limit and the estimate found insufficient in Oxley was only twenty-nine percent, whereas in the case before it the variance was seventy-five percent and, viewing this as a significant difference, the Court affirmed the conviction. Id."

[molson]

And if anyone thinks that visual speed estimations are not enough for a speeding ticket in their state, I suggest this experiment over the weekend:

Drive around until you see a police officer outside of his car, away from any speed detection device. Blow by him at 100MPH. See if he thinks he can pull you over for speeding.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by molson

That's definitely not true in Idaho. There was a case this year where the prosecutor basically forgot to ask the officer what his actual rate, per his certification, of error was in visually estimating speed. The court of appeals vacated the conviction, but specifically noted that they were NOT saying that an officer's visual estimation alone was insufficient.

My fault.

Idaho Court of Appeals says visual estimation of speed insufficient for ticket | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

An officer's visual estimate of a driver's speed was insufficient to establish a violation, the Idaho Court of Appeals has ruled.

Read that part, and skimmed through the rest where it say's

The defendant argued that visual evidence was insufficient to establish a violation.
The court agreed.

It then goes on to talk about the certification. Stupid writer for poor wording, stupid me for not reading fully.

[Matthean]

(adds 1 to "Ohio sucks" counter)

And in other news the sky is blue and grass is green.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

When an officer uses radar to measure your speed, all he's going to be able to do at the trial is give an eyewitness account of what his machine said. Are you OK with that?

Not entirely, BUT, that radar gun is not biased or has the potential to be biased and used in conjunction with the officers eyewitness statement, gives more credence to it being a correct account.

Please don't read me wrong here as being against law enforcement, I just think there's good tools available and should be required to be used in order to help eliminate (as much as possible) any doubt.

[Silver Owl]

All you Ohio haters are just jealous of our cool flag.

[sterlingice]

Wait? WTF. You have a flag that's not a rectangle

SI

[Mantle2600]

Why the hell does everyone hate Ohio so much?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Mantle2600

Why the hell does everyone hate Ohio so much?

It's all Clevelands fault.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I've only been to Ohio once, and I bought a Black Eyed Peas CD while I was there. I'm cool with Ohio.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Mantle2600

Why the hell does everyone hate Ohio so much?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Not entirely, BUT, that radar gun is not biased or has the potential to be biased and used in conjunction with the officers eyewitness statement, gives more credence to it being a correct account.

Please don't read me wrong here as being against law enforcement, I just think there's good tools available and should be required to be used in order to help eliminate (as much as possible) any doubt.

In the county i live in less than 1 in 15 county sheriff cars have radar detectors in the car. It is still a considerable expense.

Again though the point I think you are missing, or at least not acknowledging, is a LEO could have a radar, it could say you were going 55, he could still pull you and say you were running 82...no difference. You dont know what the radar said. And yes you can ask to see the radar, but how do you know he hit the hold key when he clocked you and not some guy on the interstate a week ago?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Mantle2600

Why the hell does everyone hate Ohio so much?

Well, I'm from Michigan. I'll be holding my nose at the end of July to attend a softball tournament in Columbus. That's as close as I'll have ever gotten to OSU. I'm not looking forward to it.

[jeff061]

Was talking to a speed "trained" cop in Rhode Island and he told me the same thing. If you contest it in court his word will stand because of the training.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Toledo War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Butter]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Toledo War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michigan loses again. Not a surprise.