This is interesting, I just learned of the courts decision a yesterday. I don't know if any other states allow officers to visually estimate speed and write based on it?
Justices: Officer's eyes can be judge of speed
State court’s ruling likely won’t change use of radar, some say
Thursday, June 3, 2010 02:57 AM
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
THE HOT ISSUE
* Should police be able to issue tickets based only on a visual estimation of a driver's speed?
Drivers beware: Police now have a new low-tech weapon to catch speeders - their eyes.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a trained officer's visual judgment is enough to cite a driver for speeding.
In a 5-1 ruling, the court said police don't need radar or laser evidence to confirm what they judge with their own eyes.
Some drivers called the court's decision puzzling.
"At a time when more and more police work seems to be based on science - such as DNA testing - we seem to have gone a step backward," said Laura Potts, 41, of Clintonville.
But state officials said they don't expect that officers will put away their radar guns and start winging it.
The court upheld a speeding citation against Akron-area motorist Mark W. Jenney, who was ticketed for driving 70 mph in a 60-mph zone in July 2008. A Copley Township officer had estimated that Jenney was driving 79 mph but lowered the speed to save him fines and additional points on his driving record.
Although the officer had clocked Jenney on radar, a court threw out the radar evidence because it may have gauged a passing truck rather than Jenney's car.
But the Barberton Municipal Court, and the Ohio Supreme Court, concluded that the officer's trained estimate was good enough.
"Rational triers of fact could find a police officer's testimony regarding his unaided visual estimation of a vehicle's speed, when supported by evidence that the officer is trained, certified by (the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy) or a similar organization, and experienced in making such estimations, sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's speed," Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote for the court. "Independent verification of the vehicle's speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding."
Jenney's attorney, John Kim, said the court's ruling is another step down the road of government raising money - not serving safety - by writing tickets.
"They're essentially saying they're going to allow local municipalities to save money by throwing away their radar equipment," Kim said. "It is asking the ordinary person to set aside their common sense and accept that a peace officer is almost godlike."
The State Highway Patrol will continue to rely on radar readings as it reviews the ruling, said Sgt. Max B. Norris II, a patrol spokesman.
Currently, state troopers do not issue tickets without a radar or laser speed estimate. Troopers use visual estimates to back up readings from their electronic gauges.
"They are trained to be able to judge the speed of the car using a visual estimation," Norris said. "If the visual estimation does not match the radar, then no enforcement action is taken."
Michelle Banbury, the Barberton assistant city prosecutor who tried the case, said she doesn't expect local officers to change their practices.
"The court is still going to require officers to give credible testimony and to be trained properly," Banbury said. "(The ruling) affirms practices that have gone on for years. I really don't think it changes anything."
Casey Schultz, 26, of Westerville, said some officers might take too many liberties with their own visual judgments.
"When I was in driving school, they specifically told us that the human eye can't detect speed," she said. "It just seems odd."
John Souders, 78, of Dublin, said he's not convinced by arguments that police make subjective judgments all the time. During arguments in the case earlier this year, Banbury and the Ohio attorney general's office contended that officers rely on their professional judgment on violations such as aggressive driving and tailgating.
"There is a big difference between estimating speed as opposed to the subjective observation of the distance of a tailgater from the car in front," Souders said.
Ted Hart, a spokesman for Attorney General Richard Cordray, said the ruling still gives the final say on speeding convictions to a judge, jury or other neutral party.
"We are pleased with the court's decision," Hart said.
Ric Oxender, lobbyist for AAA of Ohio, said most officers already err on the side of drivers, so he doesn't expect the ruling to lead to many abuses. But James L. Hardiman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said he's concerned that the ruling takes away checks and balances on an officer's judgment.
Justices: Officer's eyes can be judge of speed
State court’s ruling likely won’t change use of radar, some say
Thursday, June 3, 2010 02:57 AM
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
THE HOT ISSUE
* Should police be able to issue tickets based only on a visual estimation of a driver's speed?
Drivers beware: Police now have a new low-tech weapon to catch speeders - their eyes.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a trained officer's visual judgment is enough to cite a driver for speeding.
In a 5-1 ruling, the court said police don't need radar or laser evidence to confirm what they judge with their own eyes.
Some drivers called the court's decision puzzling.
"At a time when more and more police work seems to be based on science - such as DNA testing - we seem to have gone a step backward," said Laura Potts, 41, of Clintonville.
But state officials said they don't expect that officers will put away their radar guns and start winging it.
The court upheld a speeding citation against Akron-area motorist Mark W. Jenney, who was ticketed for driving 70 mph in a 60-mph zone in July 2008. A Copley Township officer had estimated that Jenney was driving 79 mph but lowered the speed to save him fines and additional points on his driving record.
Although the officer had clocked Jenney on radar, a court threw out the radar evidence because it may have gauged a passing truck rather than Jenney's car.
But the Barberton Municipal Court, and the Ohio Supreme Court, concluded that the officer's trained estimate was good enough.
"Rational triers of fact could find a police officer's testimony regarding his unaided visual estimation of a vehicle's speed, when supported by evidence that the officer is trained, certified by (the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy) or a similar organization, and experienced in making such estimations, sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's speed," Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote for the court. "Independent verification of the vehicle's speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding."
Jenney's attorney, John Kim, said the court's ruling is another step down the road of government raising money - not serving safety - by writing tickets.
"They're essentially saying they're going to allow local municipalities to save money by throwing away their radar equipment," Kim said. "It is asking the ordinary person to set aside their common sense and accept that a peace officer is almost godlike."
The State Highway Patrol will continue to rely on radar readings as it reviews the ruling, said Sgt. Max B. Norris II, a patrol spokesman.
Currently, state troopers do not issue tickets without a radar or laser speed estimate. Troopers use visual estimates to back up readings from their electronic gauges.
"They are trained to be able to judge the speed of the car using a visual estimation," Norris said. "If the visual estimation does not match the radar, then no enforcement action is taken."
Michelle Banbury, the Barberton assistant city prosecutor who tried the case, said she doesn't expect local officers to change their practices.
"The court is still going to require officers to give credible testimony and to be trained properly," Banbury said. "(The ruling) affirms practices that have gone on for years. I really don't think it changes anything."
Casey Schultz, 26, of Westerville, said some officers might take too many liberties with their own visual judgments.
"When I was in driving school, they specifically told us that the human eye can't detect speed," she said. "It just seems odd."
John Souders, 78, of Dublin, said he's not convinced by arguments that police make subjective judgments all the time. During arguments in the case earlier this year, Banbury and the Ohio attorney general's office contended that officers rely on their professional judgment on violations such as aggressive driving and tailgating.
"There is a big difference between estimating speed as opposed to the subjective observation of the distance of a tailgater from the car in front," Souders said.
Ted Hart, a spokesman for Attorney General Richard Cordray, said the ruling still gives the final say on speeding convictions to a judge, jury or other neutral party.
"We are pleased with the court's decision," Hart said.
Ric Oxender, lobbyist for AAA of Ohio, said most officers already err on the side of drivers, so he doesn't expect the ruling to lead to many abuses. But James L. Hardiman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said he's concerned that the ruling takes away checks and balances on an officer's judgment.
