Because I'm The Mom! -- Er, Cop -- That's Why!
Jack Cafferty blogs on CNN.com that, per the Ohio supreme court, Ohio cops can now charge you with speeding just by eyeballing you and deciding you were going too fast -- no laser gun or radar needed:
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.
It's getting far too easy in this country to become a criminal, with too many laws and removals of rights and protections.
Because it's obviously a good idea to allow someone to be convicted of a crime with no documented proof.
I would think that it'd be in the police department's best interest to be able to cover its collective assi (ten points to anyone who gets that geeky reference) rather than be sued by someone arrested on the "it sure looked like he was going 42 in a 40 zone" point of law. I'm guessing the thinking behind this is that it would be used in obvious cases of speeding (like doing 50 in a 30), but that's too subjective to be of any real use.
NumberSix at June 3, 2010 11:51 PM
Of course, these kinds of powers would never be abused. A police officer would never, ever, overestimate the speed of a motorist if, say, they spotted someone they didn't like or who had offended them in the past.
I wonder, how do the Ohio police force find all these saints who can be trusted with such powers, and are not subject to normal human character defects?
Nick S at June 4, 2010 12:23 AM
It has been a heck of a week for law enforcement I tells ya. This ruling and the whole hubub about police not wanting to be video taped in public anymore.
Sio at June 4, 2010 12:41 AM
Is anyone else seeing the creep of anti-scientific denialism in this? Forget evidence and data, feelings are the new facts! And the results would not be falsifiable. The police officer's belief in your speeding could no more be disproved than his belief in a personal savior.
Tyler at June 4, 2010 12:57 AM
Respect for the law and respect for law enforcement starts eroding when too high a percentage of the population end up breaking laws they never heard about. Every law is usually passed for the best of reasons. But the sheer number of them makes it almost impossible for anyone to obey all laws. Not because they don't want to obey but because it is almost impossible to remember all the laws you must obey.
Here is an easier approach. Instead of remembering all the laws, just focus on remembering your rights. Cooperate with the police but never surrender your rights and protections under the Constitution. While that does not reduce your risk of breaking a law, it significantly helps reduce your risk of allowing a monor infraction for say a traffic violation from turning into something far more serious.
LoneStarJeffe at June 4, 2010 3:04 AM
Sppeding is considered a civil offenxe in which the judge a supposedly imparital figure gets paid with the money collected from you.
But if they are going to allow this crap demand your rights under the 7th amendment. Any civil claim exceding $20 can be heard by a jury if you demand it
lujlp at June 4, 2010 3:26 AM
In fairness, the typical police officer has no interest in monitoring traffic or arresting high school kids for Tylenol, or any of the million an one other inane laws and policies that they're being called on to enforce. Policies like this are being driven by local government.
Jeremy at June 4, 2010 5:57 AM
Policies like this are driven by revenue collection.
Of course I'll go back to Cincinatti to fight a traffic ticket. It's only ten hours each way. I can't prove they pick on people with out-of-state plates, but I have my suspicions.
MarkD at June 4, 2010 6:17 AM
Next time, I'm sure I'll be going 200 mph over the limit.
MarkD at June 4, 2010 6:19 AM
MarkD - I live in Northern KY and work in Cincinnati. No, I don't believe they target people from out of state. Plenty of people around here get caught, too.
I pointed out to someone that I wouldn't want to be driving in Ohio if I had make a cop angry in the recent past. Once a requirement for solid evidence is removed, any officer in a bad mood can take advantage of it.
WayneB at June 4, 2010 6:52 AM
I certainly don't like it, but how did cops bust speeders before radar guns were invented. I'm pretty sure they didn't have them when I was a kid. Did they have to chase you and read their own speedometer? Or did they just get to "estimate?"
Bill McNutt at June 4, 2010 7:01 AM
A cop here in Austin did that to me back in college-no radar, but it "looked like I was going 10 over". The court date was, of course and certainly on purpose, during UT finals week, so I just paid. Now, I would not.
momof4 at June 4, 2010 7:17 AM
My muffler was out on my truck and I was driving down the street near my home. A new guy in the neighborhood was watering his yard and waved at me and yelled "slow down buddy." I looked down and was doing 28mph in a 25mph zone.
I ignored him and thought for a second why he would do this. I think the loudness of my muffler, plus my truck being a larger than normal vehicle, gave him the impression that I was going faster than I really was.
David M. at June 4, 2010 7:17 AM
As much as I dislike any hint of a police state, and with the disclosure that I am waiting out a probationary period to make 3 speeding tix go away: shouldn't a cop have the ability to cite you - at least for unsafe driving - if you go flying by him and he does not happen to have his radar gun out? - Mr. "Life is a Sliding Scale Of Reasonableness" Teflon
Mr. Teflon at June 4, 2010 8:18 AM
This would certainly solve Arizona's PR problem with 1070, just say all the suspected illegals are speeding!
CJ at June 4, 2010 9:41 AM
shouldn't a cop have the ability to cite you - at least for unsafe driving - if you go flying by him and he does not happen to have his radar gun out?
Only if you are driving unsafely. If it sorta looks like you're doing 30 in a 25, then no.
MonicaP at June 4, 2010 9:59 AM
The police are being trained to determine when a motorist is going $200 over the speed limit.
Support the State. If the State doesn't do it, who would?
Andrew_M_Garland at June 4, 2010 11:46 AM
I'm surprised California hasn't caught on to this. They budget some huge amount of revenue from tickets - something like $50 million, IIRC - and if would be fun, indeed, if the entire state started driving the speed limit, because the state would have to find some other way to make money.
Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money, Money. That's what your government is about.
Radwaste at June 4, 2010 2:46 PM
Hmmm... the driver is using physical instrument to measure the speed. Based on the speedometers that I have used, anyone with reasonable site can read the speed +-3 miles/hr. Of course, there also might be error in the speedometer (one one mine read nearly 10% faster than I was actually going) but that is easily measured and controlled for. So in court, you have a physical instruemnt reading from which you get the speed +- 3 against an eye witness acount. Oh, and what about GPSs? Mine can give me the speed quite accuarately and will even flash a warning if I exceed the speed limit (if it knows it like on the highway) and it can be set to give warning when you are within 10 of the limit.
You could also require the maintence records of the officer, last time is judging skills were checked, etc. How would an officer be fixed if it was found he was giving false readings? glasses?
Before radar guns, the two ways I know of were pacing (driving at the same speed and reading your speedometer) and timing with a stop-watch between two points with a known distance between them.
When I was in college, a couple of my friends got jobs with the DOT where they monitor traffic for the summer. They would be assigned a spot and they would estimate # cars and average speed (using stopwatch method). One game they played was guessing the speed (while the other did the stopwatch) and after being at a spot for a couple of hours one could estimate reliable within 5mph or so he bragged. The other one couldn't.
The Former Banker at June 4, 2010 4:24 PM
186000 Miles Per Second. It's not just a good idea - IT'S THE LAW.
There are good and bad cops and quotas for speeding all over. A local little Ohio city has a rule that beat cops are required to write X number of tickets per month as part of the "self-training" each month. But they have no "quotas". This was ruled legal by the local city, and then the county on appeal. They didn't take it any further.
I just do it the easy way -- on the highway (65 MPH) I do 67-68 with bursts to get around traffic. The surface streets keep it within 1-2 MPH.
More than once, on the highway, I have passed a car stopped by the police after they passed me a few miles back.
I haven't been stopped for about 10 years. The closest I've come was being tailed/caught up to when I had a temp tag and the cop didn't see my front plate looking right. He just turned around and went back after a 15 mile "chase".
As a side note, I live in Ohio.
Jim P. at June 4, 2010 6:09 PM
Here in Mexico, if you don't want to pay the cop, the charge filed when they take you in, is driving at an unsafe speed for conditions, with no specific speed stated. It is very hard to beat.
I am not saying no false or incorrect charges are filed, but one seldom hears that claimed. Most folks here who get stopped WERE driving too fast and make no bones about it.
They do have cops who eye-ball it. I am convinced there are cops can do it with some precision. just as some people can hit a basket from a great distance. They don't have to be too good when a car is running 70 in a 35 zone, nor is it a legal requirement. I think they don't stop those who are only a bit over, there are too many going way over the limit.
In the US. if you are going really, really fast, like twice the speed limit, we assume they have to be able to say 70 in a 35 zone, as opposed to 60 or 65 in a 35 zone. I am not sure that makes sense. 37 vs. 35 is a totally different matter.
Some months ago, I saw cops all over the place in a small town, and just south of it, was a lone cop hiding in the bushes with a hand-held radio eyeballing the oncoming traffic, and obviously calling back to the other cops which ones to pull over. Even with foreign plates, they never gave me a second look, because I was driving the ridiculously slow speed limit. So, I was convinced they were doing it right. If they were faking it, I'd have been the first to be pulled over.
Since being a local traffic cop here is sort of like being self-employed, some cops scrounge up the money and buy hand-held radars, as a personal investment.
If these cops in the US are stopping for 2 or 5 over, that I don't like. If they stop for 20 or 30 over, I personally think they can tell that.
irlandes at June 4, 2010 9:17 PM
I had forgotten something I heard many years ago. I had a police scanner, and when I woke up in the night, listened to it. The police helicopter one night spotted a motorcyclist who would really run it up, at times going very fast. They tried to get a clock in him, but he always slowed down when there were speed markers, and when a cop car got close.
They finally told a patrol car to stop him and check out his papers, and if something wasn't right, to ticket him for that, which I did not like.
But, I am not sure we need a number when suddenly a motorcycle is going an entire block in a few seconds, then visually driving the same speed as all the cars again.
By the way, I drove before they all had radar, and the law in those days, at least in my state, just like Mexico, also had a thing about driving too fast for conditions.
irlandes at June 4, 2010 9:28 PM
Follow the money and you will see why this is happening. Budgets come before your rights these days.
Matt at June 4, 2010 11:25 PM
Even police cannot stay clear of violating laws!
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100605/NEWS16/6050343
No matter what you do, it is probably now illegal.
LoneStarJeffe at June 6, 2010 7:32 PM
Thousands die each day on our highways, but people still want to speed, tailgate, phone talk, text, eat, put on make-up, run a stop light, no-stop right turn, screw and a number of other activities while driving.
Take a stand and start to drive like your a normal person for a change...the light ahead is red anyway.
Joe at June 7, 2010 5:30 AM
I thought that the reason for developing the technology to measure traffic speed was due to the fact that most police officers lacked training & were not able to reliably estimate traffic speed.
rich at June 7, 2010 9:37 AM
When I was in law enforcement officers were actively encouraged to ticket people we "thought" looked suspicious, appeared to be speeding, might have been drinking, or generally pissed us off. Officers that wanted to ticket someone would just outright lie to make the ticket stick. I got sick of it and left as soon as I could.
Because a ticket is not even considered a misdemeanor, just a traffic violation, judges don't care that it's going to cost you hundreds of dollars in increased insurance. For cops, it's all about the appearance of being in control, making the department money in fines, and appearing to actually do some work.
I myself have tried going to court on another officer that outright lied about the ticket I was issued. I had witnesses, I had measurements, I had notarized statements from the DOT. The judge didn't care, and even laughed at the fact that I was fighting an officer who was obviously blatantly lying. I ended up paying $70 for the ticket and $800 over three years in increased insurance costs. That was probably 10 years ago, prices have skyrocketed since.
Phang at June 7, 2010 1:28 PM
In fairness, then, I think you should be able to convict a policeman of illegal racial profiling if, in the arrested person's opinion, the policeman "looks like a redneck".
Jay at June 7, 2010 4:43 PM
Phang, that reminds me of a friend of mine who got pulled over for running a stop sign. It was in a neighborhood and there was no white line on the ground marking the stopping area. The sign was completely obscured by a tree. You had to be on the complete other side of it to even see it (others had complained of this, too, we later found out). She told the officer that there wasn't a stop sign there. He took her back and showed her where it was. He had to move branches out of the way to show it to her, and she said there was no way she could have seen it. She didn't want to piss of the cop, so she let it drop and prepared for court. She went back later that day and took pictures of the *completely* obscured stop sign. In traffic court, someone had been sent to investigate the claim and found the tree neatly pruned, the stop sign completely visible. My friend got off because she had dated, time-stamped photos showing there was no way she could have seen the sign (and she didn't regularly drive through there, so she didn't know it was there). The other side tried to use the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" excuse, but the judge dropped the ticket anyway.
NumberSix at June 8, 2010 12:08 AM
Leave a comment