• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ohio Supreme Court: Police officer's visual estimate of speed is enough for a ticket

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Police officer's visual estimate of speed is enough for a conviction, Ohio Supreme Court rules:

Police officer's visual estimate of speed is enough for a conviction, Ohio Supreme Court rules
By Reginald Fields, The Plain Dealer
June 02, 2010, 11:03AM
Updated at 6:30 p.m.

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A simple educated guess that a motorist is speeding is all the evidence a police officer needs to write an ironclad speeding ticket, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

In a 5-to-1 ruling, the court said an officer's "unaided visual estimation of a vehicle's speed" is strong enough to support a ticket and conviction. A radar speed detector, commonly used by patrolmen, is not needed, the court concluded.

"Independent verification of the vehicle's speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding," assuming the officer has been trained and certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or similar organization, Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote for the court's majority.

The court's ruling, in a Summit County traffic case, leaves little chance for drivers to argue their way out of tickets when it is their word against the officers' and nothing more.

"In light of this ruling I guess we don't need radar guns anymore, we don't need laser. We might as well throw all that technology out the window," said attorney John Kim, who argued the case on behalf of motorist Mark Jenney.

"And now a police officer based on his own human biases can stand on the side of the road and write all the tickets he wants," Kim said. "So, we have taken Draconian steps backwards."

Justice Terrence O'Donnell, who wrote a dissenting opinion, was also troubled by the majority's assertion that a trained police officer cannot possibly be wrong. O'Donnell said just because an officer says someone was speeding should not alone be good enough for a conviction.

"I would assert that a broad standard as postulated by the majority. . . eclipses the role" of a judge or jury to reject an officer's testimony, O'Donnell said, especially if the testimony is "found not to be credible (or) could in some instances be insufficient to support a conviction."

It is rare for officers to issue a ticket on observation alone, said Ted Hart, a spokesman for the Ohio Attorney General's office, which operates the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy.

"Typically an officer would observe someone that appears to be speeding and then use radar or laser to confirm it," Hart said.

That is the policy of the Ohio Highway Patrol, whose primary duty is traffic enforcement. Troopers are not allowed to stop motorists for speeding based on a visual estimate.

"It works in conjunction with radar," said patrol spokeswoman Lindsay Komlanc. "And only after confirmation of radar clocked speed would they then pull a motorist over to issue a ticket."

Justices Paul Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert Cupp joined O'Connor for the majority. O'Donnell disagreed. And Chief Justice Eric Brown, who joined the court in May, did not participate on this case.

The ruling resulted from Jenney challenging a speeding ticket he was given in 2008 by Copley police officer Christopher R. Santimarino.

Jenney appealed the ticket to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, which upheld the conviction. Jenney then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The circumstances of this case were not clear cut.

Santimarino said he observed Jenney speeding in a black SUV on Ohio 21 and later estimated he was driving at 73 mph. The speed limit on the highway was 60.

After making his visual estimate, the officer said he then checked his radar gun for confirmation. But the radar read 82 or 83 mph, Santimarino testified. Santimarino said he decided to write Jenney a ticket for 79 mph -- closer to what the radar calculated instead of his own estimate.

But Kim, Jenney's attorney, argued that Santimarino was not qualified to operate the radar gun because the officer could not produce a certificate proving he was trained to use it or explain the two different readings. The radar evidence was thrown out. Jenney's speeding conviction then hinged solely on the officer's estimate of 73 mph. The Barberton Municipal court ultimately decided to issue Jenney a ticket for driving 70 mph.

That was not good enough for Jenney, who insisted he was not exceeding the speed limit. Jenney also said he was driving in the right lane of the highway, not left lane as Santimarino indicated, and suggested the officer flagged the wrong vehicle.

Kim questioned the officer's ability to visually calculate speed. Santimarino, a Copley patrolman since 1995, said he was trained at the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy where officers have to be able to visually calculate speed within a few miles per hour of the posted speed limit to be certified.

"I think this ruling stinks," Kim said. "The court agreed he was incompetent to use radar but said he is competent to stand on the highway and visually estimate speed. This is ridiculous."

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray praised the ruling. His office argued the case on behalf of the Barberton court. In a court brief, Cordray said the case should never have risen above the lower court. "If a trial court finds a trained officer's visual estimate of a vehicle's speed to be credible based on the totality of the circumstances," Cordray argued, then "this court should defer to those fact-bound determinations."

Jenney paid a $50 fine plus court costs.
Click to expand...
 
T

Teddman

Member
Well, in this case the officer DID use radar. It's just the precedent that the ruling sets which is the problem. The supreme court's language is overly broad.
 
C

chuckddd

Fear of a GAF Planet
He's a human being, not fucking robocop.

And I'm driving back to Ohio in August. Do they make a pig with eyes detector?
 
Papa

Papa

Banned
6yhd9u.jpg
 
B

BobLoblaw

Banned
:lol What'll they think of next? Allowing cops to pull over say people of say hispanic descent and make them verify that their US citizens? :lol Oh, wait...
 
V

Veidt

Blasphemer who refuses to accept bagged milk as his personal savior
shieeeett, young black men have been experiencing this for years. At least now they're being honest about it.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
So the court has essentially shifted the burden of proof in these cases to the defendant.

At this point, it takes a lot for a court ruling to surprise me. More police power? What a shocker.
 
D

daw840

Member
Wow....this is retarded.


What if my car just LOOKS fast? Like, you know, with flames and speed holes and shit.
 
W

WickedAngel

Banned
Dreams-Visions said:
I bet I'll NEVER pay for that ticket. easiest court dismissals EVER.
Click to expand...

Bet again.

Traffic court is business and the word of a police officer carries far more weight than your own. You'll be paying for it indirectly no matter what you do; taking time off to go to court and defend yourself is lost opportunity for profit that would have been made while working.
 
S

Sacha

Member
daw840 said:
Wow....this is retarded.


What if my car just LOOKS fast? Like, you know, with flames and speed holes and shit.
Click to expand...

Then he won't even see you. Too much to take in at once.
 
A

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Honestly, some states are just fucked.
 
W

WedgeX

Banned
Count Dookkake said:
They say justice is blind.
Click to expand...

fd9jxg.jpg


?


HylianTom said:
So the court has essentially shifted the burden of proof in these cases to the defendant.

At this point, it takes a lot for a court ruling to surprise me. More police power? What a shocker.
Click to expand...

So the burden has shifted to the accused for misdemeanor offenses (driving) and everything else (invoking the right to remain silent). Great.

Also, nearly the only way to get to anything south or east of Michigan is through Ohio, and they (perception is, at least) already pull over MI drivers at a higher rate. Peachy.
 
X

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
WedgeX said:
Also, nearly the only way to get to anything south or east of Michigan is through Ohio, and they (perception is, at least) already pull over MI drivers at a higher rate. Peachy.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the rest of the country should look into building a giant overpass that goes around Ohio, complete with elevated rest stops, gas stations, and restaurants.
 
H

Hartt951

Member
What the hell is this? Stupid ass ruling. "Oh I think that car is going 10 over, let me pull them over and give them a 300 dollar ticket with no proof but my eyes"
 
H

HeySeuss

Member
This Ian't anything new. It's not hard to estimate speed when you do it every day. I can be accurate within 3-5 mph every time and I've written a few tickets this way. It's also used in Indiana and Michigan from the officers in those states I've had training with in the past.

As far as the burden of proof, for traffic offenses it is always on the defendant to prove innocence. Always has been and always will be.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Folks, READ the whole article.

This isnt about someone saying "you were going 36 in a 35" based on visual, its about 20MPH above the limit, which was confirmed by a radar gun!
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
WickedAngel said:
Bet again.

Traffic court is business and the word of a police officer carries far more weight than your own. You'll be paying for it indirectly no matter what you do; taking time off to go to court and defend yourself is lost opportunity for profit that would have been made while working.
Click to expand...
Being salaried, I wouldn't lose money at all, plus wouldn't have to be at work. Win win!
 
J

JGS

Banned
I am strangely indifferent to this ruling. He used vision and radar. His vision was right. He was not certified to use a piece of equipment that he knew how to use. Kentucky speeders try to get off on this technicality all the time because it costs money to certify someone so not everyone can be.

I can estimate that someone is going over 60 mph so it stands to reason someone whose job it is to check speed could do so too. However, they should do it based on the minimum, not on the double check.
 
M

Mr. B Natural

Member
jamesinclair said:
Folks, READ the whole article.

This isnt about someone saying "you were going 36 in a 35" based on visual, its about 20MPH above the limit, which was confirmed by a radar gun!
Click to expand...

Shhh, you're ruining my fun
 
D

Dead Man

Member
JGS said:
I am strangely indifferent to this ruling. He used vision and radar. His vision was right. He was not certified to use a piece of equipment that he knew how to use. Kentucky speeders try to get off on this technicality all the time because it costs money to certify someone so not everyone can be.

I can estimate that someone is going over 60 mph so it stands to reason someone whose job it is to check speed could do so too. However, they should do it based on the minimum, not on the double check.
Click to expand...
That is the weakest excuse I have ever heard.
 
Keylime

Keylime

ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
I've always wondered...

Can a police officer pull you over for speeding if they themselves are moving in traffic? As in, if you're driving past an officer who's in the middle lane, but you're speeding, can they pull you over?

Are the radar guns jacked into their own car's spedometers so that it can automatically adjust the reading based on their own speed?

I've always assumed that the only surefire way to get you that way would be to tail you and match speed, but even that wouldn't really hold up (unless you live in Ohio).

Anyone know?
 
S

Staccat0

Fail out bailed
Supreme court has been making some wierd rules lately. That miranda rights one was awful...

That said, I think anyone with sense knows that you CAN judge when someone is way over... which is about the only time they bother with tickets anyway. Most people put around going 5 mph over constantly.

I just drive the speed limit. Its never worth it to speed man... I learned in high school

EDIT: I'm completely stupid
 
S

siddx

Magnificent Eager Mighty Brilliantly Erect Registereduser
Ohio, makes sense. Cops are speeding ticket whores in that god forsaken hellhole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Jussie Smollet’s conviction overturned by Illinois supreme court
38
2K
Drake replied
  • Locked
Elon Musk vs Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court
Social Opinion News
12
3K
AJUMP23 replied
Missouri police officer told to 'tone down your gayness' reaches $10 million settlement, gets promotion
2
65
4K
H4ze replied
Iowa's Supreme Court Hears Dispute Over $75 Speeding Ticket
2
86
13K
MidgarBlowedUp replied
Urban Meyer placed on leave in bombshell Ohio State move
12
1K
Nobody_Important replied
Top Bottom