Guess My Speed and Give Me a Ticket, In Ohio 636
quall writes "The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that police may estimate your car's speed and issue a ticket if they believe you were speeding. The hearing threw out a radar gun as evidence because the officer was not qualified to use it, but apparently his guess was good enough. If you make your way into Ohio, I suggest driving 5mph under the speed limit because this leaves little room to dispute your ticket in court. The only chance you have is if the issuing officer decides to skip your hearing."
I wonder whether the court would also accept a driver's own GPS log as exculpatory evidence.
Oh no they didn't. (Score:2)
" issue a ticket if they believe "
I think there's a law against that.
Re:Oh no they didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a law against waiting till the cop is walking to your car, then put it in reverse, crank the wheel, floor it and flatten the crooked bastard, as well. The same sort of problem cropped up in Louisiana. Cops were targeting out of state tags and towing cars to impound for further inspection, even if you were speeding. Then you pay inflated rates for impound and your belongings were probably stolen and there would never be an investigation. So don't defend yourself against tyranny and injustice from crooked law enforcement by killing as many of the cockroaches as you can.
That would be illegal. But then so is jaywalking.
Re:Oh no they didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, no, don't worry - vehicular law has a get-out-of-jail-free card (pun soundly intended) in that, because automobile operation and licencing are a regulated activity, your rights don't extend to cover it. Hence why RIDE programs are legal, hence why so-called 'routine' traffic stops are legal. It's a nice grey area that your local cops live to bask in.
Re:Oh no they didn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Happened to me in MO (Score:3, Interesting)
A similar situation happened to me in Missouri. I was going at a good clip on a short road, and I got onto the highway before they could get the radar gun out. Eventually they pulled me over (I was going exactly the speed limit at that moment), and issued me a ticket for *exceeded* the speed limit. I asked what my supposed speed was when I broke the limit, and they said that only applied if you are *exceeding* the speed limit. So they didnt list my speed, just that I had broken the posted limit.
I'm not
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I see no problem letting them guess my speed as long as they make an *educated* guess. I'm sure most of them have degrees in physics or mathematics anyway. They're probably just working temporarily as cops because they're in-between university research projects. They'll probably be using this equation: Vxf = xi + Vxi(t)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ability to challenge your accuser in court and all that. If a Cop 'felt' you were speeding, how exactly do you defend yourself against that?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How often are the officers re-certified?
Who keeps the officers accountable? One person's word alone doesn't prove anything. I don't care that it is a police officer, they are people just like the rest of us. They have bad days, prejudices, just don't like some people etc...
Hmmm you don't suppose... (Score:5, Funny)
that most of the judge's wages are paid from speeding fines?
Given that it is Ohio (Score:2)
Given that it is Ohio, that is a valid question. Never mind locality-set speed limits.
Re:Given that it is Ohio (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't a valid question, judges in Ohio get a salary that is paid no matter how many tickets are issued or not. They do not get commissions or anything of the sort. It may be that the fund the actual salary comes from is supplied or supplemented by citations, but it wouldn't effect their salary or benefits if no citations or twice as many was ever processed.
Next Stop: Murder! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Next Stop: Murder! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been stopped for suspicion of DUI before. Well, not stopped. I was standing outside my car talking to friends when the police showed up. The officer driving down the road, seeing us stopped and talking, could estimate my blood alcohol content. I've also been told I looked like I was going to buy drugs; speeding (without actually driving); and thinking about robbing a closed store (with my car parked in front, under a street light, on a busy street).
Just a couple nights ago, I was (to the best of my knowledge) parked legally. I came out of where I was visiting, and saw a patrol car stopped in the road with his spot light aimed at a house across the street. I got in my car, and started the engine. The patrol car pulled up and he rolled down the window. "You weren't going to drive off while I'm running your plates, were you?" My plates?
I played along nicely. I told him I'd wait while he did, and provided my license. In talking to him, it's illegal to park along any road in the county, even though it's not posted anywhere, and it's done all the time.
Then we started having a nice conversation.
We talked some more, and he said a lot of times when they spot a car parked on the side of the road in that area, it means someone's robbing a house, and they left the car in the road for a quick getaway. He was feeling me out to see if I had intended to rob someone, or if I was just leaving a friends place.
He then warned me that besides being against the law, about half the time when they try to do a traffic stop in that area, the person will run, and that doesn't usually end nicely. Cars parked on the side of the road frequently get hit. He liked my car, and didn't want to see it damaged.
Now he knows what I look like, and what my car is. If someone else is messing with my car, they'll get stopped. He knows I'm one of the "good guys", so it's less likely I'll be messed with.
Re:Next Stop: Murder! (Score:5, Funny)
You post like a briber. Im hauling you in!
Re:Next Stop: Murder! (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe we can work something out. I'd like to make this cash donation to the "Widows and Orphans Fund". Would you be kind enough to deliver it for me? I don't need a receipt.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been stopped for suspicion of DUI before. Well, not stopped. I was standing outside my car talking to friends when the police showed up. The officer driving down the road, seeing us stopped and talking, could estimate my blood alcohol content. I've also been told I looked like I was going to buy drugs; speeding (without actually driving); and thinking about robbing a closed store (with my car parked in front, under a street light, on a busy street).
Can you please let us know where you live, so we can b
Re:Next Stop: Murder! (Score:5, Insightful)
See, this is the correct way to interact with the police. Be polite and friendly, build rapport, be willing to learn what the law is, and they'll be a lot nicer to you in return.
I have made a number of acquaintances who don't understand that, won't try it, and they unsurprisingly got roughed up and written up by the police a lot.
And you don't see a problem with that?
The cop treats the guy like a criminal, he kisses the cop's ass and you say "good for him!"
It may be smart, it may be the way of the world, but it is definitely NOT something that is compatible with American ideals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
American ideals are more aligned with the Roman Empire nowadays than the frontiers of colonial wilderness. I usually don't get into trouble by asking the question, "how would I behave if this were to happen to me in China?" The chinese police aren't there to punish you for just being you; but they will punish you if they don't think you respect their authority. So kiss ass, say "yes sir", and usually they'll let you go. Then go home and write online about you hate f@#ck!ng pigs, or some such comment.
Re:Next Stop: Murder! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but then everyone thinks you're a pussy, and you know they're right. Better to argue with the cop, curse him out, take the pepper spray and/or beating which ensures, spend the weekend in jail, and THEN go home and write about how you hate fucking pigs. Of course, everyone will then think you're a LYING pussy, but you'll know better.
Re:Next Stop: Murder! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Definitely not coarse, ignorant or self important enough for the typical American stereotype. The driver should also have been wearing a cowboy hat, blowing cigar smoke in the officers face, and hollering about "taxes!" and "unconstitutional!".
Re:Next Stop: Murder! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not all cops are out there to make your life a living hell. You'd be surprised how well being civil to them works if you get pulled over.
Re:Next Stop: Murder! (Score:4, Insightful)
If there had been a rash of burglaries in the area, it's a completely acceptable police response to the guy being parked there.
Its a perfectly reasonable response to say "you aren't going to drive off while I am running your plates?"
Like the guy is supposed to know what the cop is doing?
Not all cops are out there to make your life a living hell.
Of course they aren't. What they are out to do is make their lives as easy as possible at your expense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the first time he approaches you to ask for your license, he may not have made up his mind whether he's citing you or not. It may very well depend on whether you act like an asshole who deserves whatever happens to him, or if you act like someone who might be a nextdoor neighbor and worth cutting some slack.
Yeah, sometimes they will have decided that you're getting a ticket
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't lie. The truth is fucked up enough.
some info on the local statute [justanswer.com].
In talking to locals, there are signs scattered around the county which state "no parking on any roads at any time".
That's a lousy analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not analogous to condemning a person for "looking wrong". It's eyewitness testimony as evidence of a person's actions: "It looked like you were speeding" is analogous to "It looked like you stabbed that guy". Yes, eyewitness judgment can be wrong, but eyewitness judgment is not the same as "you look evil therefore you are guilty".
"You look like a murderer" is more analogous to "you look like a speeder". It is quite different from "it looked like you were speeding", and has nothing to do with the case being discussed here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the spirit of it at all. The ruling is that eyewitness testimony can constitute reasonable evidence, albeit evidence which is not as strong as, say, photographic proof. It's bizarre that you can't understand this. Are you also railing against eyewitness testimony in murder trials? The real issue here is not that "appearances trump facts". The real question is whether eyewitness testimony about vehicle speeds constitutes sufficient evidence. This can be debated reasonably without ridiculous
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eyewitness testimony certainly can be, and often has been the basis of conviction, even for captial murder cases. If one guy stabs another guy right in front of you, it's not really difficult to ascertain that actually happened and wasn't a hallucination, provided the light is good, you got a good look at the guy or know him, etc.
Likewise, it's not hard to ascertain that someone is, say, going 20 mph over the speed limit just by looking.
Your attempt to conflate "he's was obviously going way over the speed
Re:That's a lousy analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Your position is utterly absurd - it seems to ignore the fact that people can 1) lie and 2) be mistaken.
I didn't say that people can't lie or be mistaken. I explicitly said that people can be mistaken. I also said that is not an excuse to discard eyewitness testimony. It is the judgment of the court whether the testimony provides a reasonable standard of evidence or not. It is your position that is utterly absurd: that no evidence such evidence can ever decide a case.
A single person saying X should not be enough for a court to decide X with NO OTHER INFORMATION WHATSOEVER.
It can be and often is. As I said, criminal trials have been decided on the basis of eyewitness testimony before, and this isn't even a criminal trial. It's up to the judge to decide whether the witness is credible and the testimony likely to be reliable; if so, the testimony can decide the case. If there is some reason to doubt the witnesses credibility -- and there could be, but this is not automatically the case -- then the testimony can be ignored.
It may not be hard to ascertain someone is going 20 mph over the speed limit, but it should not PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Yes, it can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, unless reasonable doubts have been raised about the credibility of the witness. And this isn't a murder trial. As another poster pointed out, minor moving violations don't have to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the first place, in most courts of law -- they have a lower standard of evidence.
You wouldn't believe conclusively in Aliens if a guy in Iowa said that he saw a UFO out in his field.
Look, you would come across as a lot less stupid if you'd drop these moronic analogies and just argue the case at hand. If you want to argue that there's reason to believe the cop was lying, or unable to adequately judge the speed, then argue that. But a cop visually estimating the physical speed of a vehicle is not even remotely equivalent to a random guy in NYC claiming he saw Jesus.
Jesus.
Guilty with no evidence? (Score:2, Insightful)
So much for a fair trial.
So by now, who hasnt wiped their ass off with the bill of rights?
Re:Guilty with no evidence? (Score:5, Funny)
So much for a fair trial.
So by now, who hasnt wiped their ass off with the bill of rights?
In Ohio the officers might not be trained to operate the Bill of Rights...
WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That man should either be forced to attend classes or BE FIRED.
Out of a cannon, into the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
There two completely different things, don't confuse them.
Just because you are certified to use a Radar gun doesn't mean you can estimate speeds. What you need to do is a bumper check.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here isn't the estimation, it's that we have to rely on the word of the cops. Which is kind of bad, because cops are known to lie. But
GPS (Score:5, Informative)
It's doubtful that you could show an appropriate chain of evidence with the GPS. It's easily argued that you tampered with any such evidence.
Ticketing for illegal speeds is pretty easy, most people confess to it.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"I was speeding."
"I saw you doing 80mph"
"Yes sir, that's about right. I'm sorry."
Voila, instant ticket for 80mph, and a confession to back it up.
I did the opposite. You never *KNOW* why the officer stops you. You may have been speeding. He may be pulling you over for a burned out taillight, or your vehicle may match a description of one seen at a crime scene, or it may even match the description of a vehicle from a missing persons case. Don't guess.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's doubtful that you could show an appropriate chain of evidence with the GPS. It's easily argued that you tampered with any such evidence.
Ticketing for illegal speeds is pretty easy, most people confess to it.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?" "I was speeding." "I saw you doing 80mph" "Yes sir, that's about right. I'm sorry."
Voila, instant ticket for 80mph, and a confession to back it up.
I did the opposite. You never *KNOW* why the officer stops you. You may have been speeding. He may be pulling you over for a burned out taillight, or your vehicle may match a description of one seen at a crime scene, or it may even match the description of a vehicle from a missing persons case. Don't guess.
Amen to that. Any conversation with a police officer should start with you saying "Evening officer, what seems to be the trouble?" - don't offer anything up, ever.
Re:GPS (Score:5, Funny)
Any conversation with a police officer should start with you saying "Evening officer, what seems to be the trouble?"
Unless it happens to be morning. Or early afternoon.
Re:GPS (Score:4, Funny)
I still like to say "evening." Keeps them on their toes.
Re:GPS (Score:5, Funny)
Meow also works.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah Sure.
Re:GPS (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's why I always say "evening", no matter the time of day!
Re:GPS (Score:4, Informative)
That's the point of establishing a evidentiary foundation. You testify under oath as to: 1) Here's the process by how I acquired it; and 2) the printout is a fair and accurate representation of the data contained in my GPS log. While it may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, that's the basic gist of it. Most judges I've appeared before were rather lax with evidentiary issues.
If the cop wants to challenge the validity of it, he can certainly do that on cross examination - or even voir dire before the logs are admitted as evidence. I would be amazed though, if the cop knew enough law to be able to effectively challenge its admission.
Unfortunately, and this goes back to the earlier post about videoing police during official stops, the old school judges seem to have a presumption in favor of police, so its an uphill battle regardless. Your closing argument would have to be along the lines of: a) I like cops; b) they're good for society; c) they would never intentionally lie and mistakes are rare, BUT THEY DO HAPPEN; etc...
The above, while it is general legal information, does not constitute legal advice. No one should rely upon the above statements and no attorney-client relationship has been established thereby. If you have been charged with a crime, you should immediately consult a local attorney.
Re:GPS (Score:5, Funny)
So since you use a powerful, bold disclaimer, if you accidentally omit it sometime, does your previous use of the disclaimer then imply that you are giving legal advice when you omit it?
Or is it so much puffery?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GPS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GPS (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no such thing as instantaneous speed. Velocity is always distance over time. If time is zero, that's a divide by zero.
You didn't do well in calculus, did you?
Watch this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Got this link off another
Never talk to Police [youtube.com]
In a nut shell, the police will take what ever you say and use it against you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You need to throw a large "I ANAL" tag on that post of your's, buddy.
Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. When I lived in SF, the court upheld the right for police to casually chat with people and take it further if they found the person suspicious and they failed to answer the questions satisfactorily. Might have been in regards to anti-vagrancy laws, but basically upheld the right of police to talk with people going about their business on the streets.
Re:GPS (Score:4, Interesting)
When you do show up in court with your GPS log, tell the judge that the GPS log is generally easy to verify if it has been falsified. Ask them to give it to their computer science guy to look for any signs of tampering. The record of the sattelite locations, the time of day, the locations, the time stamps, speed time distance, etc will provide evidence of tampering. Point out that a forgery is very hard to make with all those factors in place. It is up to them to prove their case against you. It is up to them to prove any errors in your GPS log.
Be sure to point out the number of satelites in the sky at the time of the stop, the margin of error, the base accuracy, the DOD calibration is monitored 24/7, etc. If the mobile is out of cal, it is out of sync and would not provide a valid fix. A valid fix is confirmation of calibration. If they doubt your statement of certification, ask them to verify it with the DOD and device manufacture. The base accuracy is generally +/- 1 on the LSD or 0.1 MPH. It does not have the parallax error of the officer's radar which you question to the max at this point along with the radar's known error modes, including mirrors, angle, angle correction, etc. It's your certification against their's and your operator skill against theirs.
You can show much more margin of error in both operator and equipment setup and calibration than they can show in your GPS log. Unless the judge is crooked or a technophobe, the GPS record is hard to discredit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're right. Next time I'm stopped, I'll confess to speeding, running a stop sign last week, and the fact that there are 5 kilos of heroin in the trunk next to the dead hooker.
No, hold on. How about I let him tell me why he's pulling me over, and I'll graciously accept the ticket for the burned out taillight.
(Just kidding about the contents of my trunk. I promise.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That was pretty much the way it went with a traffic stop with me several years ago. I was scooting down a large road in a convertible with the top down. I saw him on his motorcycle going the other way, and didn't think anything of it. I ended up stuck in the middle of a large clusterfuck of cars, where a few roads merged. I heard the siren behind me, so I pulled over.
The conversation went pretty much the same. After asking me twice, he told me, "you're really making me mad
If you make your way into Ohio... (Score:2, Insightful)
No real difference (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm from Ohio. I once got pulled over, and though I was speeding (and quite excessively), the officer didn't radar me. He wasn't legally allowed to write me a ticket for speeding so he just gave me a ticket for reckless operation. The speeding ticket would actually have been cheaper and put less points on my license. Bottom line: this doesn't change much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ugh, I got a reckless op once in Illinois... I "changed lanes too fast". The court didn't even see it. they had some administrator tell me I was wrong because they knew the officer was a "fair man." I moved back to Ohio because I've had better experience here... but apparently we are getting as bad as IL.
They may have a point (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes they are not set with their radar but a driver is going way too fast for the situation and the fact is obvious to any observer. Cops in motorbikes without radar come to mind, for example. They should have a way to ticket that driver. The problem, obviously, is the gray area. How fast is too fast? Is too fast if they estimate the driver is 50% faster than the limit?
Perhaps a common sense solution to that kind of situation would be just to stop the driver. The mere fact of stopping someone is usual
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are driving the speed limit it is trivial to tell if someone else is speeding without the use of a radar gun.
1) I am going 10 miles over the speed limit.
2) That person just passed me.
3) Is that person speeding? Not much of a gray area really.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Observation based on a single eyewitness account who is biased against the accused (as the accuser).
Clearly Ohio doesn't subscribe to the concept of "presumption of innocence" i.e. "proof".
Old News (Score:4, Interesting)
Not saying I agree with the practice, but lets not blow this out of proportion as there is nothing new under the sun. Precedent shows that the officers word is statistically more "trusted" than yours by the judges, and thems the ropes, folks. Sigh...
Honestly, I'm shocked that any serious court... (Score:2)
It hardly meets the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I'm surprised it made it as far as it did. I hope the Ohio Supreme Court isn't an elected body — or their jobs will all be on the chopping block next election day!
Juries? (Score:2)
This is the kind of thing where I would really want a jury trial for a speeding ticket. But I've heard that some legal gymnastics have been used to justify making traffic courts immune from the right to trial by jury.
Does anyone know if this is true, and if so, what the justification is?
Re:Juries? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm starting to think that forcing the accused (in either civil or criminal proceedings) (and later found blameless) to pay for their defense and/or court appearance is a terrible injustice within our society.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow. I know that it's fairly common to scream 1984 here but this time I gotta point to Brazil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKcMDFKSLcI [youtube.com]
Been on tickets for a while (Score:2)
I remember seeing this on a ticket years ago. There were two boxes, one indicating that a radar gun was used, the other saying that the person was visibly speeding. I'm surprised it's taken this long to come up honestly. Though I was under the impression it was to get people who were obviously driving much faster than the speed limit, not for minor speeding.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't visit NC (Score:5, Interesting)
I was written a ticket by a detective one morning. It was for 4mph over the limit. There was no traffic on the 5 lane road and I was in a business suit. After he left, I realized he had written the ticket to me, but was for a Ford Mustang. I drive a Dodge Charger.
So the court date rolled around and I showed up in court. The DA comes over and asks if I want to plead it down to an equipment violation. I tell him that wouldn't be legal as I didn't have any equipment violations and the detective wrote the ticket to the wrong type of vehicle.
The DA walks over to the detective and proceeds to have him write me a new ticket, making the change to the type of vehicle to reflect what I was driving. This was after the DA looked up my DMV records to find the correct type of vehicle.
We go in front of the judge and I have to question the detective. I ask him if he used a radar gun to clock me, which he didn't. I asked him if he was qualified to write tickets based on "pacing". He wasn't. I asked him if he knew how far down the road in either direction the speed limits changed. He didn't. This was relevant because I had just entered a 45 mph area from a 55 mph area.
The judge got tired of me reaming the detective and says "I really don't care what evidence you have, you're paying for the ticket. Dismissed." That was the end of that. Traffic court is a joke.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying that it never happens, but I'll bet it's relatively rare.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Radar is often crap anyways (Score:3, Interesting)
Nonetheless fighting speeding tickets isn't that hard. In all my years of driving I have been issued tickets twice. Both times I went to court at the appointed time to contest the charge (two different counties of the same state, a few years apart). Both times because my record was clean I was offered a plea bargain - with "probationary" terms where they agreed not to report the violation as long as I was not pulled over in their county again for X number of months (or years I don't remember now). Either way I paid the plea bargain fine (one case lower another case higher than the citation) and was not pulled over again in the issuing county. For that matter, one of those counties I have never returned to since
Harder to get out of than you think... (Score:5, Informative)
I recently fought a speeding ticket in BC. I went to court, was prepared with radar gun manuals and specs, what I thought was the regulations regarding calibration and many other defences.
They were all struck down. Things that i learned:
- going down a hill, moving with the flow of traffic, not enough posted signs, and many other "commonly accepted" defences were explicitly stated by the judge as not holding any water.
- The police officer does NOT have to prove that the gun was calibrated in any way. His word that it was calibrated was "good enough" in the judges view.
- Police are trained to make a visual inspection of the speed. They MUST make a guess at your speed in their head before firing off the laser or radar gun. Their experience in estimating speed is treated the same as laser evidence.
- there is no "paper trail" on the gun, and they do not have to prove that the gun registered a certain number.
- the judge makes or breaks your case. its pretty much the whim of the judge whether you will get off on a technicality or not.
- bring some sort of previous case law that backs you up. I tried hard to find some relevant stuff, but obviously did not try hard enough.
So I lost, but it was fun actually, going through the motions.
Another thing i should say is that i was simply unlucky in the end. There were approximately 20 people there in the court fighting tickets, and 10 of them got to go scott free as their respective cops didnt even show up. No show = automatic win if you show up. So it is worth fighting every ticket and pleading not guilty, at least initally. Just dont expect to win if the cop shows up.
Just my 0.2 cents as I just did this a few weeks ago in BC canada. ymmv.
Judges... (Score:5, Insightful)
My uncle got a ticket for a speed higher than he was traveling, and the officer testified in court that speed was determined by time over distance between two very close markers. The officer thought the closer his markers, the more accurate the measurement. My uncle, a professor, tried to explain that human timing error meant that the closer the markers were, the LESS accurate the speed measurement was. The judge didn't understand, was frustrated, and finally said he thought my uncle was a speeder, and let the fine stand.
Re:Judges... (Score:5, Interesting)
In my case (in Ohio) it was low flying aircraft measuring the distance and an officer at the side of the road waving me to pull over based on the results (along with several other drivers and a patrol car at the side for those who chose not to stop...).
I was pretty bothered by what I saw as a cheap stunt for money, so I went to court on the principal of it, after reading up on speeding ticket defense and the city's speed ordinance at the local University Library. Present at the hearing was the officer at the side of the road and the assistant city prosecutor. Here's a nut-shell of how it went:
Prosecutor to police officer: How fast was the defendant going?
Officer: The defendant was clocked at --
Me: Objection, your honor.
Judge: Yes, young man?
Me: The officer doesn't know how fast I was going. Based on the complaint issued to me in writing here, he was relying on an aircraft pilot's measurements. The pilot is not here; that makes the officer's testimony hearsay.
(Prosecutor approaches Judge after talking with officer)
Judge: Young man, would you agree to an extension 10 days from now until the pilot can be summoned?
Me: Respectfully, no, your honor. That date would put the hearing beyond the 30 day time-line for disposal of this case, which is the end of this week.
Judge: young man, would you like your case dismissed?
Me: yes, your honor.
Judge: case dismissed.
Know the basics of the law in your case. Sometimes it can end up being on your side, as long as your willing and able to take the time to research it and appear in court.
Perfectly legal in California (Score:3, Informative)
I once got a speeding ticket for 10mph above 45 limit. The officer had "estimated" my speed. When I challenged him in court, he presented a training certificate, certifying that he could estimate speed with some ridiculous accuracy (forgot the actual number, maybe within 3mph).
How uneconomical is speed enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Minneapolis suburb of Edina is fairly notorious for speed enforcement.
Now I recognize that law enforcement is not a for-profit business (on paper at least...) but given the limited resources available for law enforcement and the unlimited amount of crime there's still a cost-benefit argument to make.
What often amazes me, though, is seeing them occasionally use up to *five* squad cars at a time. It gets me wondering how much money its costing them relative to how much they make back in fines.
Because they are a wealthy suburb, they have pretty state of the art squad cars. Assuming a fully equipped squad car runs about $75,000 including everything stuffed inside (from emergency gear & weapons in the trunk to lights, sirens, and other upgrades or add-ons), five cars on the side of the road is a $375,000 capital asset not to mention 5 police officers @ $100/hour each or whatever it costs the city in salary, benefits and overhead to employ them.
You could be looking at $1000/hour to run that speed trap in men and equipment without coming nearly that close to writing enough tickets to pay for it.
Re:This isn't so strange. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This isn't so strange. (Score:4, Interesting)
This whole story is strange. Courts have always recognized that Cops can ticket you based on "passing markers"--yes they need only count off the seconds between those little reflectors on the side of the road.
This is considered indisputable if the officer has passed a certification test.
Officers will routinely write, "passing markers" because its subjects them to the least review by the courts.
Other backwards ideas: if Cops use 'stationary radar' they need to do a bunch of work to ascertain whether it is working correctly--it takes two patrol units: the stationary one and the reference vehicle. But, none of this is necessary if they use moving radar!
But moving radar is next to meaningless (cosin error) without careful regulation of the setting which is only required... for stationary radar.
Re:This isn't so strange. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, of course, requires visually estimating that your speed is approximately equal to that of the target vehicle.
Telling whether or not an object is getting closer to you is not very difficult. It's an ability that evolved in animals several million years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Neither is, with some training, estimating approximate speeds for a narrow class of objects (e.g., "cars") under very specific situations (e.g., "being observed from rest from the roadside"). Surprisingly enough, its fairly common for traffic police to be trained in that skill.
Further, where its relevant to a case (whether or not its a speeding case) anyone can testify to a visual estimate of speed in court; of course, any party
Re:This isn't so strange. (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither is, with some training, estimating approximate speeds for a narrow class of objects (e.g., "cars") under very specific situations (e.g., "being observed from rest from the roadside"). Surprisingly enough, its fairly common for traffic police to be trained in that skill.
Just like arson forensic investigators?
http://search1.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=114005470 [npr.org]
In that case, an innocent person was put to death because being 'trained in that skill' usually means the older guy saying 'Yeah, the new guy can do this.'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, the village of Linndale (an inner ring Cleveland suburb) is a classic example. At one point fully 60% of their village budget came from a speedtrap they ran on I71, the village officers had to exit their jurisdiction to even get onto the highway!
Re:This isn't so strange. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bumper Checks.
Re:This isn't so strange. (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK, it used to involve two police officers.
One would drop their arm, raise a flag or some other indicator as a fast-looking vehicle passes...
The other would time how long it takes from the time that the first officer indicates to the time that the vehicle passes him. Since the two of them are a known distance apart, say 100 yards or so, it would be trivial to calculate the speed.
So if the driver was speeding or does something (braking like crazy to slow down) to raise reasonable suspicion, he'd be ticketed accordingly.
Re:This isn't so strange. (Score:4, Interesting)
We still have that in Ohio, but it's a little more high tech. It involves a helicopter and painted lines at certain distances on the road. (The helicopter makes it more high tech.)
Though, this isn't what the story is about. I can't believe the SC voted it a valid technique. Now we have to have our lawyers figure out if a police officer is properly trained to issue tickets by guessing... I'm hoping there's a way to overturn this decision. (Yes, I'm claiming ignorance on how my government works in this regard.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is some hope of maintaining independent calibration of the radar gun, your jolly officers can increase the apparent speed by standing a little closer together or using a quick thumb on the clock.
Uh yeah it's pretty strange (Score:5, Informative)
How do you think police issued tickets before radar guns were invented?
Well if I didn't know any better, and thought there was no way to measure velocity prior to the invention of radar, I might do as you have invited me to do and imagine that they just guessed and that this was good enough.
But since I do know better, I don't have to imagine. What they actually did was to time how long it took you to go between two points of known separation. Amazing, eh?
Even as late as the 90s some officers preferred this method, and sometimes near speed traps in the city you could see the markings on the curb that they drew. When it was explained to me by an officer, I believe he said the preference stemmed from when radar guns were new and tickets based on radar guns were being challenged successfully, while the stopwatch measurement of a trained officer was more likely to be believed by the judge.
In any event, "guess" was never the proper method.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And Pennsylvania still requires that method. (And, actually, Ohio uses that method, too, for freeways - they just do it from a Cessna.)
They used to have to match your speed (Score:3, Interesting)
Before radar guns, the police generally had to match your speed over 1/4 mile to issue a speeding ticket.
Needless to say, a lot fewer speeding tickets were written. The radar gun's debut in the 70s led to the exact same discussion we're having now with red light cams. They actually made the roads less safe, but they were a revenue godsend, so they became the norm.
Re:They used to have to match your speed (Score:5, Insightful)
Exact same discussions? They were measuring speeds with a radar gun, not confronting the alleged speeder, but then mailing them a civil citation, fining them with no opportunity to prove their innoce-- oops I mean -- have the proof of their guilt be examined by a court?
The main issue with radar guns was technology and how much people trust equipment. The main issue with red light cams is basic due process.
Exact same discussion was ... (Score:3, Insightful)
(Speed traps || Red Light cameras) are about raising revenue, not enforcing the law. They actually make driving less safe by causing drivers to slam on their brakes at unexpected times. They engender contempt for the law by making law enforcement about revenue generation and bill collection, not serving the public.
But yes, I'm in total agreement that red light cameras are a far more egregious case, though I would argue that radar speed traps paved the way for them, in the same way that red light cameras wil
Speed traps cause erratic driving, divert cops (Score:4, Insightful)
Roughly stated, speed traps and red light cameras cause people to slam on their brakes, which more than one study has shown causes the very accidents they're hoping to avoid.
The other big point of discussion used to be that when you need to find a cop, they shouldn't be hidden from view. Speed traps raise tons of revenue, but they make society as a whole less safe by leeching police presence and resources away from attending to actual crime and accidents.
Re:This isn't so strange. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If some car ZOOMS by it's pretty easy for me to tell its speeding, radar gun or not (I'm not a police officer). If you have even a modicum of experience driving and you can't estimate whether or not a car is speeding you should probably have your driver's license taken away.
If you're talking about someone doing 50 in a 30, you're correct that it's pretty easy. But the difference between 60 and 70 isn't as obvious as you may think. Calling it accurately, and consistently? BS. That's why they have Radar and LiDar and all their other toys, so they can catch the minor offenders as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just $50, that is the immediate cost. Don't forget the $200 increase in your mandatory auto insurance for the next 3 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The officer in question claimed that the other car was traveling more than 10mph above the speed limit.
I don't claim to be able to gauge speeds that accurately, but I can definitely tell if a car is going that much faster than the limit.
People got speeding tickets before radar guns, ya know.
Put this in perspective. 10 over a 10mph limit is easy to tell. 10 over in a 20, shouldn't be too hard. 10 over in a 60? Pretty hard to tell. Unless he's passing cars left and right, it's not going to be as simple as you think.
Re:What is next useing the EZ-pass times for Ticke (Score:3, Insightful)
IIRC, the timestamps on New York Throughway tickets have been used to give people tickets before. I.e., you entered here, you left there, it took you so much time, bingo, average speed. Probably the same in other states. That's why I always planned my trips to include lunch or dinner stops on the throughway. I could do 80 and still average out to 55.
There really is nothing new in this story. Police are trained to estimate speeds. If they write a ticket ba