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

[Cryozombie]

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]

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 Why should a little thing like a traffic ticket or outdated touchy feely stuff like so-called "due process" make Law Enforcement's job harder?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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Archangel M]

Im sure.

What did that have to do with visual speed estimation?

 

[Sukerkin]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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

Try working with them :uhyeah:

 

[RandomPhantom700]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...