Quote :

"In Ohio, if a cop says it looked like you were speeding, he can write you a ticket - no proof needed. Makes things so much easier for law enforcement if they don't have to be bothered with the burden of proof. True story. The state's supreme court ruled five-to-one that independent verification of a driver's speed isn't necessary... things like laser guns or radar or actually clocking how fast you're going. The court says an officer's visual estimate will work as long as the officer is trained, certified by a training academy and experienced in finding speeders. Supporters say that officers undergo extensive training where they have to visually estimate the speed of vehicles within one or two miles per hour of the actual speed. Nonetheless, law enforcement officials insist they won't be getting rid of their speed guns; and that it's rare for officers to give tickets based solely on their observations. But the state's highest court says if they want to, it's quite all right. The case stemmed from the appeal of a traffic ticket issued near Akron, Ohio in 2008. In that case, a police officer ticketed a driver because he said it looked like the driver was going too fast. Without any technical assistance, the cop determined that the motorist was going 70 miles-per-hour when the speed limit was 60. The driver says the court's decision "stinks." The driver is right. Here's my question to you: What else will police be able to do without proof if they can now give speeding tickets if they simply "think" a car is going too fast?"

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/03/police-can-give-speeding-tickets-if-they-think-a-car-is-speeding/?hpt=T3

Evidence and burden of proof is Silly Stuff!

In Ohio it seems that a cop only has to "think" you are going fast to hand you a ticket. While I believe that theoretically a well trained experienced cop can probably guesstimate a driver's speed within 5 mph, I believe this ruling sets a bad precedent. This ruling only opens the door wider for abuse of power. Now any Barney Fife in a bad mood or under pressure from the mayor to increase traffic ticket revenue can fabricate speeding tickets on motorists. Any decent lawyer could get a ticket based on "visual inspection" thrown out. This still robs the defendant of time and money; plus chances are your average citizen will end up just taking a non-moving violation or reduced speeding fine as its not worth the effort or money to hire a lawyer.

What is next Ohio cops going to give people DUI's for thinking they are over the limit.

Even here in NC, I had a ALE pull me for "illegal tint" last month. I asserted that it was legal within spec and he told me I was full of shit. I told the officer to use the light transmittance meter because i was telling the truth. He responded that he "did not need the meter because he's being patrolling long enough to know illegal tint when he see's it. Luckily I had the certificate, with the tested light transmittance indicated, from when my windows were tinted. Otherwise I know the asshole would have given me a ticket and made me PROVE my innocence in court.



[Edited on June 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM. Reason : a]

6/3/2010 7:23:41 PM

Let's really be honest with ourselves here. 99% of the time this is invoked (which probably won't be often), it will be on someone who is clearly flying down the road, creating a serious hazard to other people. I know we have all seen these guys who go 90 mph in a 65 mph zone and weave in and out of traffic yet never get pulled over, probably because they have a radar detector, and then you (me) get busted for going 75 mph 10 minutes later.

The other 1% of the time the person is probably speeding anyway, but perhaps not so egregiously. Big picture, I am sure people will get their panties in a wad over this law, but it's actually a good thing.

I think also you need to consider that most of the time cops don't have actual proof of an event occurring. Let's say a cop sees you throw a cigarette butt, or other piece of litter out the window. There is obviously very little likelihood of finding it on the highway, and if he writes you a ticket, it is his word versus yours. Speeding is one of the few "crimes" that cops have the ability to quantitatively measure, and I agree, it is preferred to have that exact value. But a cop should also have the ability to write you a ticket if qualitatively, he feels your speed is unsafe, even if he doesn't have an exact number.

6/3/2010 7:33:22 PM

The real problem is not that they do this when they are actually going to write a speeding ticket - it is that the traffic stop is often just a pretext for further investigation (toss your car, order field sobriety tests, etc.). Basically, the police can stop you at any time they feel like it and then use the stop as a segue into investigation for other crimes. In my jurisdiction cops will routinely pull people over for alleged 'speeding' just so they can stick their head in your window - if they suspect booze or drugs for any reason you will get pulled out and hassled. If they think your clean, they just wave you on without even a pretext of having a reason for the stop. When they do make a "quota" arrest for drug or DUI, however, you can bet their report will claim you were speeding. No evidence necessary other than their say-so.

Also, personal bias and behaviors will now interfere with a cop's duty. This is especially true in more rural jurisdictions. A republican cop seeing an "Obama-Biden" sticker, well yeah that car probably IS going way too fast. Same goes for a "Good Ole Boy" cop from Lumberton patrolling I95 and seeing a NY license plate." Welcome to America!



[Edited on June 3, 2010 at 7:46 PM. Reason : l]

6/3/2010 7:44:10 PM

Welcome to a world where "reasonable suspicion" can mean any damn thing you want it to mean.

6/3/2010 7:45:43 PM

6/3/2010 8:10:27 PM

I am perfectly okay with this as long as it isn't used on white people.

6/4/2010 10:57:42 AM

oh look

HUR bitching about police

6/4/2010 11:04:01 AM

This is no different than a blood spatter expert testifying that a certain splatter proves that the blood came from this direction.

Officers are trained to be able to guess a speed within 5 mph.

Besides, it's a speeding ticket. They aren't "guessing" that you've committed murder or anything.

6/4/2010 11:07:52 AM

cops never lie, right?

6/4/2010 11:16:59 AM

If you take that route we can never trust the testimony of any expert witness in anything ever.

6/4/2010 11:18:08 AM

that's not even close to being a valid comparison.

cops have a built-in conflict of interest simply by being the 'expert witness' as well as the person issuing a citation.

Independent verification via radar/laser is readily available. There is absolutely no reason to allow judgment to be a factor.

6/4/2010 11:21:38 AM

Quote :

"This is no different than a blood spatter expert testifying that a certain splatter proves that the blood came from this direction. "

Ummm no. There is tons of research/tests and evidence to support the "blood spatter expert".

There could be a lot of factors in guessing speed. Maybe the cars around you are going 5-10 mphs below the speed limit because they see the cop. Thus, the cop may think you are speeding due to your speed relative to the cars around you.

6/4/2010 11:21:41 AM

^You have no idea what you're talking about.

6/4/2010 11:28:22 AM

um, he's right. bloodspatter analysis is all about physics, math, and fluid dynamics. I realize you probably didn't have to take any such classes as a film studies major.

I realize on TV it's a matter of "hey I'm an expert, therefore I'm just going make up shit and you have to believe it"

but all the calculations that have to be done to draw conclusions aren't shown on TV because it's boring.

[Edited on June 4, 2010 at 11:33 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2010 11:32:09 AM

I have been lucky. The one time the cop used his worthless judgement to write me a ticket in an accident involving someone failing to yield to me (I was going under the speed limit), it was dismissed. It still cost me money because I had to take a lot of pictures and hire a lawyer to deal with it. And then the insurance company tried to call dual fault. Thankfully, I screwed them too when I got the state SDIP director involved, and he nipped that in the budd.

I dont trust their judgement, period.

[Edited on June 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

6/4/2010 11:33:16 AM

what do you know, God with another apples to oranges analogy. couldnt see that coming.

This is bullshit, how hard is it to use a radar gun instead of just eyeballing it? There is just so much "human" aspect to this, and of course if its a judgment call the court is going with the officer. I actually was stopped in Ohio on the tail end of some traffic that was pulling away from me (probably because of having NC plates). Im guessing he just let me go once he realized I wasn't hauling drugs or up to something.

6/4/2010 11:42:20 AM

Quote :

"bloodspatter analysis is all about physics, math"

and what would you call speeding? lol

it's literally the simplest form of physics.

6/4/2010 11:52:17 AM

not if you don't actually measure anything.

6/4/2010 11:53:52 AM

I'm going to drop a ball off a building, and you guess how fast it's going when it hits the ground.

Then, I'm going to tell you how close you were.

Then we're going to do this 1000 times with different buildings and heights and ball densities.

Then you'll be able to guess a ball's speed within 5 mph and be correct.

6/4/2010 11:57:55 AM

I honestly don't know why we bother arguing with God in these threads.

6/4/2010 11:58:00 AM

Its pretty clear he is trolling

6/4/2010 12:02:38 PM

HE'S A FILM STUDIES MAJOR. HE SHOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT FILM STUDIES ON THE INTERNET, RIGHT BOBBY

6/4/2010 12:13:14 PM

i think everyone can acknowledge that at some point speeding is obvious with just a visual approximation; for example if someone is doubling the speed limit in a 55 you can tell they are speeding. however, in my opinion i don't think the difference between 60 and 70mph is obvious enough, the debate about using visual estimation is really about at what point it can be used.

6/4/2010 12:33:44 PM

All traffic violations any more (really any charges in a car) are guilty until proven innocent. Which is why they are pure money makers for most police departments.

6/4/2010 12:47:10 PM

and yet most people still speed. maybe society needs harsher penalties if speeding is really such a problem.

6/4/2010 12:50:26 PM

Quote :

"i think everyone can acknowledge that at some point speeding is obvious with just a visual approximation; for example if someone is doubling the speed limit in a 55 you can tell they are speeding. however, in my opinion i don't think the difference between 60 and 70mph is obvious enough, the debate about using visual estimation is really about at what point it can be used."

It's all about context, which is why this is a good ruling, even if the original conviction was wrong (I'm assuming this case was about whether cops can visually estimate speed and not whether the driver was speeding). If a cop is driving down the road doing 60 and someone drives by doing 70, it's pretty easy to know that the driver is speeding, even if you don't have a radar gun on him.

6/4/2010 1:22:00 PM

^ the cop could have very easily been parked which I think would make it very hard to tell

6/4/2010 1:25:43 PM

Oh big surprise more people sucking off authority

6/4/2010 1:27:04 PM

Quote :

" If a cop is driving down the road doing 60 and someone drives by doing 70, it's pretty easy to know that the driver is speeding, even if you don't have a radar gun on him."

In that case though you have the speedometer. A cop eyeballing someone from the side of the road is pretty sketchy

6/4/2010 1:33:17 PM

^, ^^^ Agreed, hence I'm commenting on the assumption that the case before the state supreme court was about whether a cop can visually estimate speed and not whether the defendant was speeding in the first place.

It's also worth pointing out that even in those instances, it's all about context. I'll bet anyone here standing on the side of the road can tell the difference between someone driving 10 MPH through a parking lot, and someone doing 20 MPH. Hell, I bet most people could tell the difference between someone doing 30 MPH through a residential area and someone doing 40 MPH. I agree that as speeds get higher and higher, it's harder to tell a 10 MPH difference without a 3rd frame of reference, but let's not pretend that you can't ever know when someone is speeding even if you don't have a radar gun or a speedometer.


[Edited on June 4, 2010 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ever]

6/4/2010 2:02:14 PM

speeding might be simply physics...but I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that most cops didnt ace high school physics, much less have a degree in it.

6/4/2010 2:02:56 PM

Are you an expert?

6/4/2010 2:03:22 PM

me? no, but I'm not costing anyone money by claiming to be.

^^^ There are different consequences for different MPHs over. Plus I dont think its the point whether they can tell if you're speeding or not, for all I know they can. Its a matter of proof. If a guy can say he eyeballed your speed and that is enough, whats to stop him from just saying you were?



[Edited on June 4, 2010 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2010 2:06:01 PM

Quote :

"and yet most people still speed. maybe society needs harsher penalties if speeding is really such a problem."

Well here's the thing: in most cases speeding isn't really a problem. I dont think anybody in this thread gives a shit if I'm going 95mph down a mostly empty stretch of (as an example) I-40.

6/4/2010 2:27:44 PM

Quote :

"It's also worth pointing out that even in those instances, it's all about context. I'll bet anyone here standing on the side of the road can tell the difference between someone driving 10 MPH through a parking lot, and someone doing 20 MPH. Hell, I bet most people could tell the difference between someone doing 30 MPH through a residential area and someone doing 40 MPH. I agree that as speeds get higher and higher, it's harder to tell a 10 MPH difference without a 3rd frame of reference, but let's not pretend that you can't ever know when someone is speeding even if you don't have a radar gun or a speedometer."

Just what we need, more ambiguity the errs on the side of government for minor (tax collection) offenses.

6/4/2010 2:34:21 PM

Cops have practically no legal training. We already expect them to "eyeball" crimes; now we expect them to eyeball scientific measurements as well. LOL

6/4/2010 2:35:23 PM

It's no different than any other form of "guestimation" that everyone else is okay with.

For example, police officers often "eyeball" the characteristics of a person, like height, weight, skin color, etc. These are things that most people can't do very easily or quickly. How is the speed of a vehicle any different?

6/4/2010 2:40:51 PM

^ But you can't be convicted solely based on height, weight, or skin color.

6/4/2010 2:48:18 PM

^^ you cant tell a person's skin color quickly or easily?



[Edited on June 4, 2010 at 3:04 PM. Reason : apples to oranges...again]

6/4/2010 2:55:51 PM

Quote :

"^ But you can't be convicted solely based on height, weight, or skin color."

We're also talking about two totally different crimes here, but I was just giving an example of how estimations are normally used as evidence.

Quote :

"^^ you cant tell a person's skin color quickly?"

There's a right way and a wrong way to do it, though. Saying "a tan complexion" probably means something different to different people.

[Edited on June 4, 2010 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ]

6/4/2010 3:04:04 PM

bullshit. estimations are never used as evidence. they are used to help find a suspect...but the DA never says "well the witness said we're looking for a 6'2", 200 lb white guy and this guy fit the bill." There eventually has to be a lineup and the person eventually identified by a witness.

next time I'm going to check "tan complexion" on my drivers license.

[Edited on June 4, 2010 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/4/2010 3:06:05 PM

^ Exactly, damn I hope a 5'10-6'0" white guy never commits a crime around me, because according to God that's enough to lock me up.



[Edited on June 4, 2010 at 3:43 PM. Reason : ..]

6/4/2010 3:39:19 PM

SMI (Speed Measuring Instruments) in the State of North Carolina are only used to corroborate and officers opinion that a vehicle is speeding.

North Carolina has two types of speed laws 1) absolute - 45,55,65,70, etc. and 2) basic - operate a vehicle at speed greater than what is reasonable and prudent for existing conditions (weather, traffic, etc).

Rules of evidence in the State of North Carolina only require an officer who is trained SMI operator to testify to its operation (shapes, forms, transmits, etc) and not the scientific principles of physics (the latter falls under judicial notice).

6/4/2010 4:11:39 PM

^why's the penalty stiffer for excessive speeding in a 70mph zone? For instance going 85mph. Seems like common sense would tell you that going 15 over in a residential neighborhood (i.e. 40 in a 25mph zone) would be far more dangerous and reckless than going 85 mph on a rural interstate.

6/7/2010 11:54:57 AM

This happened to me when I was 17. I was not speeding, the car in front of me was. The pulled both of us and gave me his speed which was 42 in a 25. The first cop told the cop who pulled me over "He looks like he is speeding. Go pull him".

6/7/2010 12:15:29 PM

^^No idea, just how the law was written. I agree that 15 over in a 25 is way different than 15 over in a 70.

6/7/2010 5:13:43 PM

Quote :

"why's the penalty stiffer for excessive speeding in a 70mph zone? For instance going 85mph. Seems like common sense would tell you that going 15 over in a residential neighborhood (i.e. 40 in a 25mph zone) would be far more dangerous and reckless than going 85 mph on a rural interstate. "

Logical Common Sense is something politicians who make the laws and DA's who prosecute the law lack.

85 SOUNDS SCARY!!! Even if it is a sunny day, light traffic, in the middle of nowhere along I40 where the speed limit is 70mph.

Meanwhile YUPPIE bitches yapping on the cell phone rolling through a stop sign almost hitting a car or going 42 on a 25 mph resedential street, nearly hitting some kids playing ball, will get a light slap on the wrest as the cop wrights her for 39 in a 25 and court changes this to 9 over.

[Edited on June 7, 2010 at 5:16 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on June 7, 2010 at 5:17 PM. Reason : a]

6/7/2010 5:15:49 PM

F = ma. The faster you go has a geometric increase on the amount of kinetic force you're pushing around. Stopping distance also increases geometrically. You have less time to react to things getting in front of you and greater physical resistance to the mechanisms that bring your car to a stop.

Granted, in 25mph zones you may be more likely to have things getting in front of you, but you have more time to stop and you will impact with much less force.

Now, I think there are many other factors (speed relative to traffic, car handling at higher speeds) that contribute to the likelihood of impacting other vehicles, but all other things being equal faster = more damage. Maybe you meant to imply that if it's a 25 mph zone it's a school zone or a blind child zone or something....

6/7/2010 5:32:21 PM

While the severity of impact increases at greater speed; I believe the public is better served stopping a car going 40+ in a 25 mph since most 25 mph are residential and/or heavily congested than a vehicle going 85 in a 70 on a rural interstate.

6/7/2010 5:35:32 PM

plus a citizen can be far more dangerous while going the speed limit weaving in congested traffic like I40 during rush hour leaving RTP; than your auto-enthusiast driving their M5 15 over the speed limit in light to no traffic on I40 on the way to Wilmington.

6/7/2010 8:04:11 PM