# Didn't do it but cop THINKS you did? GUILTY!



## Cryozombie (Jun 6, 2010)

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/...cer-s-estimate-enough-for-speeding-conviction



> 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 court's 5-1 decision says independent verification of a driver's speed is not necessary.



Sweet!  What's next?  "You LOOK like a murderer, so off you go..."


----------



## tellner (Jun 6, 2010)

So what? We've decided people can be kidnapped, tortured and murdered without a trial because someone thinks they might be connected with people we don't like. Why should a little thing like a traffic ticket or outdated touchy feely stuff like so-called "due process" make Law Enforcement's job harder?


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 6, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> http://news.cincinnati.com/article/...cer-s-estimate-enough-for-speeding-conviction
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet!  What's next?  "You LOOK like a murderer, so off you go..."



Over-dramatize much? This is pretty common IF the officer has been speed estimation trained.



> 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.



I am speed estimation trained. I had to sit with an instructor (who had a radar gun) and estimate speed to within 5mph of 500 cars to pass. So as long as I am citing you for at least 10-15 mph over its accurate enough. And all this decision stated is that this visual estimate is enough to SUPPORT a conviction. It says nothing about not being able to contest the ticket at trial.

Murder? Please.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2010)

This is because in Ohio, painting your license plate silver and adding a mirror finish causes radar guns to malfunction.  But only in Ohio.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 6, 2010)

People have been under the impression that a cop needs a radar gun to issue a speeding ticket for a long time. While it certainly helps to secure a conviction, it is not "necessary". Visual estimation and pacing with a police vehicle have been around far longer than radar guns.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 6, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> People have been under the impression that a cop needs a radar gun to issue a speeding ticket for a long time. While it certainly helps to secure a conviction, it is not "necessary". Visual estimation and pacing with a police vehicle have been around far longer than radar guns.


 
I get speeding tickets, though it's been a couple of years-I speed *a lot*, and I get out of *a lot* of tickets. On the grand scale of things, this is no big deal, and, as others have pointed out, nothing new.....


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 6, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> People have been under the impression that a cop needs a radar gun to issue a speeding ticket for a long time. While it certainly helps to secure a conviction, it is not "necessary". Visual estimation and pacing with a police vehicle have been around far longer than radar guns.


Yep.  Several ways that I can establish that you were speeding; radar is simply one method of verifying the cop's visual estimate in Virginia.  In fact, to get radar certified, you have to show a certain number of accurate visual estimates as part of the course.  When I was in patrol, I was usually within one or two mph...  Pacing is a great tool, as is LIDAR.  But, whatever the tool, all it's doing is VERIFYING the officer's visual estimate of the speed.  (Yes, I know, some officers are lazy and don't truly make that visual estimate or confirm the speed on the measurement device when they look at it, rather than the reverse.)

But this case isn't saying that just any cop can automatically cite you for whatever speed he things you were going; he's got to have training and evidence of his accuracy.  





> 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.


  (from the posted article, emphasis added)

You may find the Court's announcement of interest; there's also a link for the opinion itself.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 7, 2010)

I've met my fair share of policemen ... and they all *think* a lot of things.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 7, 2010)

Im sure.

What did that have to do with visual speed estimation?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Over-dramatize much? This is pretty common IF the officer has been speed estimation trained.


 
I was about to retort with a "You're kidding!" in disbelief at this.  Then I read the next paragraph:



Archangel M said:


> I am speed estimation trained. I had to sit with an instructor (who had a radar gun) and estimate speed to within 5mph of 500 cars to pass. So as long as I am citing you for at least 10-15 mph over its accurate enough. And all this decision stated is that this visual estimate is enough to SUPPORT a conviction. It says nothing about not being able to contest the ticket at trial.


 
That calmed my twitching Anti-Totalitarian synapses .


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 7, 2010)

It's the same in Michigan.  When running radar you are SUPPOSED to estimate that the vehicle is speeding first, and then you use the laser or radar to confirm it.  Part of your training is the speed estimation aspect of it that you have to accurately guess the car's speed within 3 mph.

What gets me is that people do it ALL THE TIME!  Think about your own driving on the highway or somewhere and someone blows by you.  Do you not say to yourself or someone else, "That guy was flying, he must have been going around XX mph".  It's an innate ability to judge speed and we all have it and use it everday.  Everytime you get ready to pull out of a parking lot or make a turn, you estimate that car's speed and run a quick mental calculation in your head on how fast that car is going and if you can safely pull out or make the turn.  LEO's just have additional training to refine it a little further.

I also know for our particular magistrates and the other officers I know, if you only estimate the speed you only write it for 1-5 over and not write it for the 10 or more that you estimated it as.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 7, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> http://news.cincinnati.com/article/...cer-s-estimate-enough-for-speeding-conviction
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet! What's next? "You LOOK like a murderer, so off you go..."


 
Just like EVERY OTHER aspect to law enforcement.  It is based on probable cause and the courts along with burden of proof.  If we have probable cause to believe that you were speeding, then we can pull you over and cite you for it.  If you don't think that, than it is your right as a driver to challenge that and take it to court.  Then it is the LEO's burden to prove that you were speeding and why.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 7, 2010)

shesulsa said:


> I've met my fair share of policemen ... and they all *think* a lot of things.


 
Try working with them :uhyeah:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 7, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> http://news.cincinnati.com/article/...cer-s-estimate-enough-for-speeding-conviction
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet! What's next? "You LOOK like a murderer, so off you go..."


 
I haven't read the article or case yet, but I'd like to throw in a bit of input.  According to evidence law, a layman's estimate of speed based on observation alone is valid in court; i.e. you don't need to be trained in guessing speed (i.e. an expert) for your testimony to be valid.  That doesn't mean it's determinative, just admisible.

Why's this significant?  Well, if a layman's guess of speed is admissible as evidence, and _no evidence exists to the contrary, _then basing the conviction on officer observation alone can be perfectly valid.  That being said, a speed-gun reading, or a dashboard cam video, or witness testimony corraborating, would sure be helpful.  

And there's the fact that we're talking about a _speeding ticket, _not murder.  Too slippery a slope there for me to follow along.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 7, 2010)

So how do the officers here feel about a doctor, certified to evaluate the extent of the injury to a patient, claiming the officer used excessive force based on their training and then a visual evaluation of the patient with no additional facts to back it up?

Oh wait, we had that discussion.  Cops didnt like it much.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 7, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> So how do the officers here feel about a doctor, certified to evaluate the extent of the injury to a patient, claiming the officer used excessive force based on their training and then a visual evaluation of the patient with no additional facts to back it up?
> 
> Oh wait, we had that discussion. Cops didnt like it much.


 
Not sure the relevancy or the point.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 7, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> So how do the officers here feel about a doctor, certified to evaluate the extent of the injury to a patient, claiming the officer used excessive force based on their training and then a visual evaluation of the patient with no additional facts to back it up?
> 
> Oh wait, we had that discussion.  Cops didnt like it much.


The two situations aren't the same.  An officer making a visual estimate of speed is basing the allegation of an offense on his observation OF THE OFFENSE.  A doctor deciding, without seeing anything but the end result, that a use of force, whether by an officer or by someone simply defending themselves, is excessive has not seen what happened, only the end of the story.  I can't even make an accurate comparison if I move to crash investigation, because all any of the equations do is determine the MINIMUM speed necessary to leave particular evidence, like a skid mark.  They can be going faster... just not slower.  To make the same comparison, the officer would have to be citing someone for speeding on the basis of the car they drive, not any observed violation.

And the accused still has a chance to confront the officer at trial.  I'll grant that it's sometimes an uphill battle if the officer has a solid reputation with the court, but the accused has the right to make the officer prove his case.  (In fact, there was a stretch when officers where I work had to prove their radar cases every time, in depth, because radar calibrations has expired and the officers had continued to use the devices anyway... so the judges decided every one of our officers had to testify and show the calibration every case.)


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 7, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> So how do the officers here feel about a doctor, certified to evaluate the extent of the injury to a patient, claiming the officer used excessive force based on their training and then a visual evaluation of the patient with no additional facts to back it up?
> 
> Oh wait, we had that discussion. Cops didnt like it much.


 
Another thing to point out is that the doctor in this situation isn't just claiming the use of force, but of _excessive _force.  To claim that it's excessive means you know the circumstances that would or would not justify it (after all, in the right circumstances, shooting a man 3 times in the cest is not excessive).  A doctor does not know this based only on observing the suspect/patient after the fact.  

In short, apples and oranges here.  Although really, apples and oranges can be compared, I don't know why we always use that phrase...


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 7, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> In short, apples and oranges here.  Although really, apples and oranges can be compared, I don't know why we always use that phrase...



Yup - in the end, they're both fruit.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 7, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> there was a stretch when officers where I work had to prove their radar cases every time, in depth, because radar calibrations has expired and the officers had continued to use the devices anyway... so the judges decided every one of our officers had to testify and show the calibration every case.)



Which always seemed odd to me..."radar is just a verification of visual estimation"...but we will toss a ticket if the radar unit doesn't show it was recently calibrated. Not that it's speed accuracy is off mind you..only that the calibration record is old.

BTW-I wonder what the speed was in this case? If I was citing someone for 48 in a 45 based on a visual estimation I could see this raising a stink. Most of the time though these visual estimations are when the cop sees a car FLYING down the road. 

As in my dept there are more cops without radar units than with we should just let the car continue on at 20-30 mph over based on Cryos argument here...


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Which always seemed odd to me..."radar is just a verification of visual estimation"...but we will toss a ticket if the radar unit doesn't show it was recently calibrated. Not that it's speed accuracy is off mind you..only that the calibration record is old.
> 
> BTW-I wonder what the speed was in this case? If I was citing someone for 48 in a 45 based on a visual estimation I could see this raising a stink. Most of the time though these visual estimations are when the cop sees a car FLYING down the road.
> 
> As in my dept there are more cops without radar units than with we should just let the car continue on at 20-30 mph over based on Cryos argument here...


As I recall from the either the opinion or the court's release on it, the cite was for 79 in a 60, down from 85, which would have required an appearance.  The officer's visual estimate was 70... so he was off, but they were still well over.


----------



## Carol (Jun 7, 2010)

I listened to the oral argument.  The defense attorney blew it, IMO.   Only one justice (perhaps the gent who dissented) asked "What was the real speed here?"   

To my own uneducated eyes, I didn't find this to be a strong case for speed estimation.  Yes he appeared to be over, and driving too fast for condition (riding someone's *** at highway speeds is prolly a surefire way to get a ticket in any state).

But the numbers don't add up.  The officer says he is trained to estimate between 3-4 percent of the actual speed....he estimates a speed of 70 that is clocked at 82?   As a motorist, I would love for every LEO to give me 12MPH of doubt on the highway.   Still, that's a 300% error margin.  

I'm no lawyer but between that and only the single justice questioning the facts...I think the attorney spent too much time with his canned "that is also under dispute" statement and not enough time with the hard data.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 7, 2010)

Many times the cop will lowball the speed estimate. Better to err on "75 in a 60" which is still well over the limit than go over by saying he was doing 90. Then there are times when the cop will be a softie and lowball the speed so that the fines won't jump into a higher bracket.

However the argument here didn't really boil down to the actual speed. The issue was if visual speed estimation is enough to support a conviction of speeding.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Many times the cop will lowball the speed estimate. Better to err on "75 in a 60" which is still well over the limit than go over by saying he was doing 90. Then there are times when the cop will be a softie and lowball the speed so that the fines won't jump into a higher bracket.
> 
> However the argument here didn't really boil down to the actual speed. The issue was if visual speed estimation is enough to support a conviction of speeding.


 
Incidentally, a cop's done me that favor before, gave me a ticket for 45 in a 35 when he'd actually clocked me at 54.  I was thankful, smaller fine to pay.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 8, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Incidentally, a cop's done me that favor before, gave me a ticket for 45 in a 35 when he'd actually clocked me at 54.  I was thankful, smaller fine to pay.



I've had that happen too.  It was a Nebraska State trooper who pulled me over passing a line of semi trucks so I could get over and make my exit.  It kept me from having to come back to Nebraska for court.

I don't see the Cop/Doctor analogy being Apples/Oranges.  Just as a Cop is trained to Assess the Speed of a Vehicle a Doctor is trained to Assess the amount of damage to the Human body.  He can certainly tell if enough force was used to break an arm, or if an excessive amount of force was used to SHATTER an arm bone, without being there, eh? 

Overall, here is my issue with this type of enforcement:  I worry that 

A) it allows for an officer having a bad day, or who is low on issuing tickets (and yes, I'm aware there are no "ticket quota" but I have also been told on a number of occasions by officers they are still expected to have a certain number written) to decide that people are speeding even if they are not by visual assessment, and the Speeder then has no recourse in court, since they assume the officer is correct _with no proof but their word._  That to me is the same as guilty until proven innocent.

B) It sets a standard for other offenses: What if that cop smells beer on your breath and decides you are drunk without the need for a breathalyzer, and a similar determination is that officers are trained to spot intoxication, therefore you are guilty without the benefit of the reading.  We aren't there yet, but MY OPINION is that this sets a precedent that police training/opinion superceeds the need for technology to prove a crime occurred. 

My initial comment about Murder isn't _too_ far fetched under that type of rationalization. If all it takes is an officer's word that you did it, with no evidence to back it up... some slick dick lawyer will find a way to abuse that to make cases, and all we can hope for is a Judge who doesn't think that makes for great justice.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 8, 2010)

The doc comparison IS absolutely apples/oranges. I am giving a visual estimation of an event AS IT IS HAPPENING. A doctor is looking at injuries after the fact that could have been caused by many factors that he DID NOT WITNESS personally. 

This is not setting any president. It's been this way all along. Back in the day when cops sat behind billboards in their Studebakers how do you think they stopped speeders? Radar and pacing are just verifications of the visual estimate. 

BAC is just another apples/oranges comparison. I determine that you are too intoxicated to drive based on your look/smell/performance of sobriety tests. You pretty much ARE (and have always been) charged with DWI based on the officers "opinion"...except it isn't opinion, it's legally accepted training and common experience.Something you are trying to define as my "opinion".

You can be too intoxicated to drive but still be below the legal BAC. Some people "hold their liquor" better than others. If you are all over the road and stumbling but your BAC is a .06 should we just let you drive away? Most states have 2 DWI charges. The one I charge you with on the scene based on my investigation ("opinion") and a second charge when your BAC is tested. Your BAC is determined by the breath test device not my "opinion".

So if I am in a car with no radar unit am I supposed to just let some car scream down the street and not stop it? If you say I should stop it..what for? What would I be allowed to do when I did? Most speeders don't maintain speed when they see me coming up behind them so that I can pace them.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 8, 2010)

Something else I would like to add...

Different departments do things differently so take this as a "most likely but not definite" statement.

I would say you shouldn't get the impression that most police officers set up speed traps without radar. Most officers are not going out there to fill their ticket "quota" with visually estimated speed citations. Most likely this was a case of an officer on patrol who saw some car flying down the road. 

In my dept only 3 regular patrol cars have radar units. However the traffic division cars ALL have radar. They are the officers that typically run speed traps. However, we ALL have a responsibility for road safety. Just because I don't have a radar unit in my car doesn't mean that I am going to let cars fly past me without doing something. Sure, if I can pace to add weight to my visual estimation I will, but typically, once they see me the brake lights come on...


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 8, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Many times the cop will lowball the speed estimate. Better to err on "75 in a 60" which is still well over the limit than go over by saying he was doing 90. Then there are times when the cop will be a softie and lowball the speed so that the fines won't jump into a higher bracket.
> 
> However the argument here didn't really boil down to the actual speed. The issue was if visual speed estimation is enough to support a conviction of speeding.


 
They will also low ball the speed so the person is less likely to try and fight the ticket and take up time.  For example, many officers I know will only stop cars for going over 10mph and then right it for 1-5.  This gives them a break on points and fines, but also since the ticket still has the actual speed on it, is less likely to fight it in court since the officer cut them a break.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 8, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> I don't see the Cop/Doctor analogy being Apples/Oranges.  Just as a Cop is trained to Assess the Speed of a Vehicle a Doctor is trained to Assess the amount of damage to the Human body.  He can certainly tell if enough force was used to break an arm, or if an excessive amount of force was used to SHATTER an arm bone, without being there, eh?


The officer is observing the alleged behavior directly.  The doctor is drawing inferences from the end result.  If the cop were to walk up to your car, note that the tires and engine are warm, and thereby conclude that you were speeding with no further evidence, he'd be doing the same thing as a doctor looking at the injuries and concluding the force was excessive.  The doctor doesn't know what level of resistance the officer faced; the officer looking at the hot car doesn't know what the speed limit was or where the car was driven, or if it was even driven faster than the speed limit.


> Overall, here is my issue with this type of enforcement:  I worry that
> 
> A) it allows for an officer having a bad day, or who is low on issuing tickets (and yes, I'm aware there are no "ticket quota" but I have also been told on a number of occasions by officers they are still expected to have a certain number written) to decide that people are speeding even if they are not by visual assessment, and the Speeder then has no recourse in court, since they assume the officer is correct _with no proof but their word._  That to me is the same as guilty until proven innocent.
> 
> B) It sets a standard for other offenses: What if that cop smells beer on your breath and decides you are drunk without the need for a breathalyzer, and a similar determination is that officers are trained to spot intoxication, therefore you are guilty without the benefit of the reading.  We aren't there yet, but MY OPINION is that this sets a precedent that police training/opinion superceeds the need for technology to prove a crime occurred.


I can and have made that case.  Based on my observations of the accused behavior, without a breath test (the subject refused), and my description of those behaviors, a magistrate issued a warrant and a judge convicted.  All the technology, be it a breath test, radar gun, or forensic analysis does is confirm the investigative results or what the officer observed.

The officer's trained and experienced estimation is accepted as evidence.  The accused still has the right to confront the officer and impeach that testimony.  Did he lose sight of the car?  Could he have been mistaken?  What other traffic was present?  If his estimate was so far off (in this case), is it really a reliable estimate?  Lots of room to attack the testimony, if the accused so chooses...


> My initial comment about Murder isn't _too_ far fetched under that type of rationalization. If all it takes is an officer's word that you did it, with no evidence to back it up... some slick dick lawyer will find a way to abuse that to make cases, and all we can hope for is a Judge who doesn't think that makes for great justice.


It takes a lot more to prove the case or even bring charges.  Especially in a serious case.

Again, the officer in the case of a speeding ticket is observing a violation directly.  He's made a visual estimate of the speed, and radar or LIDAR or VASCAR or whatever is simply confirming that estimate.  He must still be willing to stand in front of a judge, and give testimony.  If the defendant can sufficiently impeach that testimony, the judge has every right and duty to find the defendant not guilty.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 8, 2010)

Comparing traffic summons to felony criminal cases is a HUGE leap.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 8, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> I don't see the Cop/Doctor analogy being Apples/Oranges. Just as a Cop is trained to Assess the Speed of a Vehicle a Doctor is trained to Assess the amount of damage to the Human body. He can certainly tell if enough force was used to break an arm, or if an excessive amount of force was used to SHATTER an arm bone, without being there, eh?


 
"Excessive Force" is a legal concept and has a specific meaning. If someone gets mouthy with me and I punch them in the stomach for it, even though I cause no injury at all other than pain, it is still excessive force because their level of resistance did not match with the level of control I chose to use.  Yes, there are some cases when that is the appropriate use of force to control a violent suspect trying to hurt you.

As to a broken arm, the courts have ruled that if force is justified and applied in "good faith" and an injury occurs than the officer is not at fault. For example (true court case out of Dearborn, MI), a woman is unrulely in a public place, and the police attempt to calm her down and remove her. The woman refuses and keeps escalated her verbal abuse and is not complying with directives to leave. The officer puts his hands on her arm to escort her out of the movie theater. The woman attempts to resist and tries to pull away. To maintain control, the officer goes for a straight armbar takedown (which is the technique taught and used for that resistance in his department). As the officer is taking the woman down, the woman further tries to resist and takes a step forward in an attempt to resist the takedown. Due to the momentum of the officer, the position of her straightening out her arm as she pulled away and then bracing herself during the takedown, her arm is broke.

Now, you can look at it two ways:

1) The officer broke her arm for being disorderly (which everyone can agree is excessive). 

OR (as the courts ruled)

2) The officer WAS using the appropriate force in that situation and the suspect further resisting caused an unforseen circumstance to change that outcome and if had not been further resisting no injury would have occured.

You see, in that example, the doctor can *only *tell you that the arm is broken, and how many pounds of pressure it would take to cause that type of injury. The doctor *can't *tell you if 1) the officer was legally using force in the first place or 2) if the injury was intentional or accidental or 3) if the officer was using the appropriate amount of force for the situation.

That is why it is apples and oranges.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 8, 2010)

Ok fair enough.

But would anyone like to address my concern that cops can lie if they want, and with no verification we are presumed guilty with no way to prove otherwise?  I notice no one chose to tackle that fundamental issue?


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 8, 2010)

So cops couldn't lie about pacing in their vehicle...or about the radar read? What sort of "proof" would you require???


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 8, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> So cops couldn't lie about pacing in their vehicle...or about the radar read? What sort of "proof" would you require???



Something more tangible than "he said she said" with 1 side always being "right, just and trusted" and the other side always being wrong.  Maybe A radar read, on an accurate machine, used properly.

"innocent until proven guilty" was SUPPOSED to be an important concept in our justice system... IMO that gets skewed when the accusing side can say anything they like with no evidence to back it up and they are always given the benefit of the doubt.  

Look at it this way: What if the role was reversed?  Ask yourself how you would feel if everything a cop said and did was assumed to be wrong, and all it took was some scumbag on the street to say "That cop did X" and you got fined for it?   Would you demand evidence then?  

What I'm getting at, again, is that despite attitude to the contrary, cops aren't always moral, just, and error-free...  Im willing to give them the benefit of the doubt 75% of the time, but you know that other 25%... isn't right.  There SHOULD be checks and balances, and the courts fail in that job by assuming the officer is always right.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 8, 2010)

Thing is... that "accurate read on the radar" cant be traced to your particular read. You are going on "my word" that what I wrote on the ticket is what the radar CONFIRMED as my visual estimate. At trial what typically gets queried is if the radar unit has been calibrated...not for the specific read on your ticket. All you seem to be requiring is that the cop have a radar unit in his car.

Which still leaves my question unanswered, if I don't have a radar gun and some dude SCREAMS past me..what should I do?

What about running stop signs? I could "lie" and say you did...it's just my "word" that I saw you run it. Am I going to have to set up cameras on all stop signs to prevent cops from "lying"?


----------



## Carol (Jun 8, 2010)

Do we really want to not be able to rely on a LEO's judgment (which can sometimes work heavily in the motorist's favor, ie: a warning instead of a ticket) for traffic offenses, and rely on technology instead? 

UK/US police has that in place already, eh?  As red light cams and speed cams?   

I'd much rather deal with a human police officer, personally.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 8, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> What about running stop signs? I could "lie" and say you did...it's just my "word" that I saw you run it. Am I going to have to set up cameras on all stop signs to prevent cops from "lying"?



I thought that was part and parcel to the reason we have added Dash Cams to cop cars...


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 8, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> I thought that was part and parcel to the reason we have added Dash Cams to cop cars...



Dash Cams turn on when I turn the overheads on...

I turn the overheads on when I have reason to stop you...

You have to do something BEFORE I can stop you...

Do the math.

PS-Not all PD's have, or can afford dash cams.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 8, 2010)

Also, in some areas, 11 cars can show up on scene, but all 11 will have "technical issues" with their cams.  (true story, discussed here in the past).

The way it works is, cop says its so, and can stack the deck in his favor. ("He was speeding, and I religiously have my radar gun chronoed every morning so it's perfectly accurate.") (again, true story from traffic court)

Truth is, cops lie, cops "fix" evidence, and cops make mistakes.
Some cops.

Most I believe are doing a hard job, often with substandard equipment and just doing the best they can.

Worried about whats going to happen when dealing with cops?

Get your own dash cam, install a 'black box' that will record all traffic data, get a wearable cam, and be a polite and quiet type.  Sir them to death, and send the profanity laced lambasting to the media, youtube, and their superiors.  Don't make an issue of minor things, don't seek out confrontations, and don't be a jerk. Also, don't hang out with jerks or those who seek out confrontation.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 8, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Get your own dash cam, install a 'black box' that will record all traffic data, get a wearable cam, and be a polite and quiet type.  Sir them to death, and send the profanity laced lambasting to the media, youtube, and their superiors.  Don't make an issue of minor things, don't seek out confrontations, and don't be a jerk. Also, don't hang out with jerks or those who seek out confrontation.



Id go to Jail for that... you CANNOT tape the cops in Illinois.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 8, 2010)

You don't. You tape your dashboard, and the view out the front of your window.  Cop will be behind or next to you.

Cop says you were doing 40 in a 30, your dash cam shows you never went over 32. You get the security rig that does all the "court approved security" stuff with anti-tampering, etc.  

Then again, you -might- (talk to a lawyer) be able to get away with it if on the front, back and sides of the vehicle you have big block letters that say "We video record 360' at all times.".  You might also be in the clear if you have a separate video with audio going and specifically ask the stopping officer for their name and badge number right from the start, and ask that they ok your recording the stop "for quality assurance".

Then again, they might say no, drag you out of the car, and play "hide the maglite", Chi-Town style.  I dunno.

I still go on "If the cop's not doing anything wrong, there should be no objection to being recorded while on-duty/."

Then again, I wasn't up for testing the TSA goonsquad and doing any airport photography this past trip either.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 8, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Ok fair enough.
> 
> But would anyone like to address my concern that cops can lie if they want, and with no verification we are presumed guilty with no way to prove otherwise?  I notice no one chose to tackle that fundamental issue?


Yes, a cop _could_ lie.  I mentioned several questions that could impeach the officer's testimony.  You have the right to confront your accuser, and demand that he show that he is trained, experienced, etc. and ask how he arrived at his estimate, too.

But... a cop caught lying over a traffic ticket, at least in most jurisdictions, will very quickly be fired.  And won't get another job as a cop, either.  In fact, if terminated in that fashion -- they may lose their pension, too.  In other words, what's in it for the cop to lie about speeding?  Or seeing you run a red light... or whatever traffic violation you care to name.  Lots of them come down to the cop's word versus yours.

Oh... by the way... I have caught someone lying in court.  THE DEFENDANT!  More than once...  For example, one night I'm a traffic detail to handle the intersection while the traffic light engineer makes some changes to the hardware.  The intersection is posted "No U-turns."   Well, he's working at night because the traffic's light, so I'm not really having to do much...  This car comes down, and the kid driving decides he's going the wrong way.  So... he starts to turn down the cross street... and decides it's wrong too...  and he swings hard left... backs up, and finishes his U-turn.  Only to be confronted by me, directing him to pull into the parking lot to receive his special driving reward.    He wasn't very grateful.  :shrug:

Court date comes up, and he's there.  With one or two of the occupants of the car.  They try to say that I directed him to make the U-turn.  Had I known he was going to be there, and that I'd need them... I'd have brought the traffic light guys.  'Cause we all were watching him and saying "that moron ain't gonna do a U-turn with a cop standing here, is he?"  Nope... but Defendant & buds actually introduced enough doubt in the judge's mind that (in conjunction with a clean driving record... anyone ever wonder about giving someone a break for a clean record since if you always give someone a break for a clean record, they'll always have a clean record?) he dismissed the charges.

Oh, and then there was the guy who got lucky.  I tried to give him a break; I only cited him for disobeying a highway sign, instead of the 15+ he was doing over the limit.  Well, he came to court... and in my testimony, I established nicely how fast he was driving.  I did, however, fail to mention one little thing... the 4 speed limit signs he'd passed!  Yep, charges dismissed... 'cause the cop screwed up.


----------



## Carol (Jun 9, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Id go to Jail for that... you CANNOT tape the cops in Illinois.



I don't know of any statutes in Illinois law that criminalize taping of a police officer, and wasn't able to find a citation online (granted I am not a lawyer...)

Wiretapping laws must be obeyed, yes.  Illinois is a two-party (all party) consent state.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2010)

What happens when StreetView passes a cop car in those states I wonder.....


----------



## Carol (Jun 9, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> What happens when StreetView passes a cop car in those states I wonder.....



Nothing.  StreetView is video only.    Perfectly legal, as is the security camera on the sidewalk, the surveillance cams at Wegmans, or the CCTV camera behind your bank tellers.

We put a big sign up on the door of our lab saying "WARNING:  VIDEO AND AUDIO SURVEILLANCE IN PROGRESS" when we began recording video and audio in our lab.  When it was just the run-of-the-mill CCTV, no sign.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 9, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Don't make an issue of minor things, don't seek out confrontations, and don't be a jerk. Also, don't hang out with jerks or those who seek out confrontation.


 
Such true words there that they justified saying them twice.

There are issues of trust with LEO's it seems. That is in part because some people do not think that the law applies to them and that becomes a source of problems when they wear a 'badge'.

So the fundamental problem is how to address those trust issues? 

Over here in Blighty, we have what is generally termed 'policing by consent' and there is a fair consensus that neither 'we', the subjects, or "they", the police, want our police to be armed.

Both of those factors mean that, whilst there are still problems, 'trust' is very much easier to come by when dealing with our coppers. That doesn't mean that they always get the respect they deserve but it does mean that we see them less as an oppressive force - indeed, the most common moan about police we seem to use is that there is never one around when you need one .


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 9, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Such true words there that they justified saying them twice.
> 
> There are issues of trust with LEO's it seems. That is in part because some people do not think that the law applies to them and that becomes a source of problems when they wear a 'badge'.
> 
> ...


I count a few British cops as acquaintances.  We've got a whole lot more in common in what we encounter than we have different...  You often draw a distinction in that cops in the US are armed; I think that's artificial and inaccurate.  British police are also armed, in various ways -- including more firepower in the case of some units that a lot of us here in the US routinely carry.

In the end, the police are the folks who make you do what you're supposed to.  The police are the ones who catch you when you're doing wrong.  Yes, they're also the ones that protect you from people who do bad things -- but they generally only respond when things have already gone bad.

Police in both the US and UK require the voluntary compliance of the majority of the population.  We don't have enough cops to do otherwise; speed enforcement is a great example.  Cops could start zero-tolerance enforcement, and write people at 5 or less over... but nobody would tolerate it for long.  Instead, you're generally safe so long as you're not more than 10-15 over the limit...


----------

