Thread: Ohio police allowed to "guesstimate" your speed

LOL wow i can do without an off topic twist like that one again.

no you cant death...

Reading the details of the case, the defendant sounds totally shady. The radar said 82, the cop gave him a ticket for 79, and the court dropped it to 70 (in a 60 mph zone) at the trial due to the fact that the cop could not show that he was certified in the use of the radar gun on the day that he used it. It doesn't say why, just that he couldn't show it. The cop was trained in visually estimating speed of moving vehicles back in 1995 and had been visually estimating speeds for many years although it doesn't ever say how his accuracy was checked to make sure he hadn't "missed a step" and considering that we're all fallible there's no telling if one particular day or other he'd be a bit off and get outside the 4 mph window. Regardless, he was likely correct in his estimate of the other guy's speed and just unable to prove it via radar gun results (due to lack of ceritification proof) or video (if it's possible to see speedometer of the police car when it's pacing someone). He only had his visual indication of how fast the car was going at the time of the stop and he said it was going at least 70 and they ruled 70.

The 8th circuit court in Ohio had tried a similar case and ruled in favor of the guy who got pulled over. A bunch of other cases over the years had gone with the idea that a sufficiently experienced and trained officer's assessment that someone was driving a certain speed was sufficient for a ticket, provided that the officer had an unobstructed view and that the jury decided to believe the officer (as the case and dissenting opinion state, the jury is instructed that it can disbelieve whoever it wants).

So it looks like this ruling wasn't far different from rulings already done in Ohio, although it's somewhat vague in that it doesn't specify the accuracy to which the officer can be expected to determine speed. This officer said "I visually estimated and said it was at least 70" when the radar gun said 82 which is pretty defensible. Not sure what would happen if the officer said "I visually estimated that he was going 82 and had no radar gun at the time." It says nothing about the effect of a long shift or day to day fatigue on an officer's ability to estimate speed, and leaves the door open for an officer to attempt to use his word to give someone an unfair speeding ticket. The driver pulled over was definitely trying to get away with one by appealing the ticket after it had been reduced to 70 mph.

The court was being shady in my opinion too, saying that letting the radar data into the case was inconsequential based on the fact that the officer's visual assessment was sufficient to convict, when as the dissenting opinion and even the majority opinion state, the visual assessment only holds up if the jury believes the cop (and they are free to not believe). Knowing that the radar said 82 mph, when that evidence (if it could have any effect on the case) is required to be dismissed by law, biases the jury's opinion in favor of the cop. The fact that the Ohio court doesn't acknowledge this while admitting that the whole case hinges on "does the jury believe the expert witness (i.e. the cop)" smacks of some judge getting on his high horse and just passing down a ruling.

It also seems like the ruling oversteps its bounds. I would guess that if the cases were thoroughly reviewed at the next highest level (considering that different appellate courts had ruled differently) that they'd side with the 8th circuit court, or revise the wording of the ruling so that the officer's visual estimation would have a maximum amount of points it could go up to (i.e. it looks like the guy's going 20 over but due to human imperfection you're limited to the 2 point ticket). It would also seem that there'd be a burden of proof to show that the officer was still 'calibrated' (similar to a radar gun) i.e. that he could still estimate speeds in 2008 as well as he did when he was measured in 1995. You could argue that he's "tested" every day, but he's also using a radar gun every day which helps a little bit.

Just my 2 cents.

Good post toad. i think you nailed it on the head.

Then again, if you were to argue the "expert witness" how about people who are "experts" in pyscology? Or DNA? Or anything else. See, that could be the problem with everything. Because with it all, you have human error. If I ever got a speeding ticket where the cop said he "visually clocked me" I would fight it. I think I watch enough law and order to get through the case

After seeing this video a couple years ago it's hard to have faith in anyone brought in by a plaintiff or defendant as an expert witness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2X52rS-ZLE

bullshit, i think you was going 75 it looked it lol..... LAME