Don't Drive Through Ohio Anymore!

[gyre]

You can be convicted of speeding based on an officer's guess!
Once again, science is ignored by the law.

And to think they used to call Ohio naziland.

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_ ... onvictions


Officer estimates enough for speeding convictions

Posted: 06/02/2010

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Ohio's highest court has ruled that a person may be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in watching for speeders.

The court's 5-1 decision says independent verification of a driver's speed is not necessary.

The court upheld a lower court's ruling against a driver who challenged a speeding conviction that had been based on testimony from police officer in Copley, 25 miles south of Cleveland. The officer said it appeared to him that the man was driving too fast.

Despite the training, some people in the Cleveland area said they are concerned about the accuracy of an officer's estimation -- especially when a fine is involved.

[Fire_Moose]

This isn't THAT crazy, I know in CA estimations are acceptable as well as in some other states....

In other news, Don't worry about passing out drunk in yer car any more!

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/cour ... w-standard

SANTA FE (KRQE) - The state Supreme Court has overturned the drunken driving conviction of a motorist found passed out in his vehicle with the keys on the passenger seat.

The court on Tuesday said prosecutors had failed to prove that Mark Sims was in "actual physical control" of the vehicle when he was arrested by Albuquerque police in 2004. His vehicle was in a commercial parking lot.

The court used the case to outline a new standard of evidence that police and prosecutors need to show that a motorist intended to drive while intoxicated and posed a danger to themselves or the public.

The justices said courts can't speculate that a passed out motorist might awake and then drive.

[gyre]

It is outrageous on many grounds, but it has been proven often enough that people aren't very good at estimating speed, especially from an observer's viewpoint.
"Well, it looked fast parked."

Will evidence from an less biased and more accurate source be accepted, like the driver?
Doubt it.

[Fire_Moose]

I doubt it too...until more civvie drivers take courses and training on estimating speed...

[Fire_Moose]

Will evidence from an less biased and more accurate source be accepted, like the driver?
Doubt it.

Whoa i read that wrong, how is the driver's evidence less biased and more accurate?

[Ugly Dougly]

Get a green-colored car. Studies have shown that these cars are the least likely to get pulled over for speeding.

[gyre]

Cops know they won't be prosecuted for perjury.
And we already know they are biased before they speak.
No uncorroborated evidence from an officer meets the sniff test.

A citizen already knows their testimony will be closely looked at.
You only take a ticket to court when you are convinced of your innocence to start with too.
Hardly enough motivation to risk jail over a traffic ticket.

If citizen and police testimony aren't given equal weight, there is not only the appearance of unfairness, there is the actual proof of it.

If testimony was adequate, why do they have radar and other measuring devices?
Ask for the officer to be tested for accuracy.


From inside a vehicle, an owner with a lot of experience may be able to accurately judge speed, from rpm, vibration, engine noise, wind noise and so on.
A high revving car is much easier to estimate speed with for the driver, in my experience.
Knowing gear and rpm may actually make it possible to know the speed fairly accurately.
Experience is the important thing though.

Try it.
Then stand by the road and guess how fast random cars and trucks are.

[Fire_Moose]

Cops know they won't be prosecuted for perjury.
And we already know they are biased before they speak.
No uncorroborated evidence from an officer meets the sniff test.

Agreed except for the biased part. I don't think they actually care what happens after you have received the citation. I don't think they go home after seeing a citation get dismissed and lose sleep. The cop gets nothing out of it either way...except maybe overtime for going to court

A citizen already knows their testimony will be closely looked at.
You only take a ticket to court when you are convinced of your innocence to start with too.
Hardly enough motivation to risk jail over a traffic ticket.

Not entirely sure where this is going, i see it as the accused is going to be more biased because they are either going to pay or have it dismissed...

If citizen and police testimony aren't given equal weight, there is not only the appearance of unfairness, there is the actual proof of it.

Is it really unfair? Does that tweeker's testimony have the same weight as yer?

If testimony was adequate, why do they have radar and other measuring devices?
Ask for the officer to be tested for accuracy.

Cuts costs to training every single officer

[gyre]

Cops know they won't be prosecuted for perjury.
And we already know they are biased before they speak.
No uncorroborated evidence from an officer meets the sniff test.

Agreed except for the biased part. I don't think they actually care what happens after you have received the citation. I don't think they go home after seeing a citation get dismissed and lose sleep. The cop gets nothing out of it either way...except maybe overtime for going to court

If you think so, try fighting a minor ticket.
I recently did, and it took three appeals to beat one that was bad on all counts.

They ignored all evidence, until I proved a speed limit sign was MISSING and the police ignored it (a crime, by the way).
So bad, I filed perjury charges, also ignored.

I once fought a paper charge all the way to jury trial, holding up a murder trial.
They would not make a deal with me at all.

If you don't think the motivation to win or look good on the job will motivate people to lie and falsify evidence, when they know there are consequences only for telling the truth, try it yourself.
And there are plenty of psychological studies of this.

In fact, the evidence is that power will always corrupt, without psychological intervention, where law enforcement is involved.

Perjury seems to be standard practice where speeding is involved.
I proved perjury, with no effect on the court.

Why would they tell the truth?

[Fire_Moose]

Dunno...I've only ever gotten one ticket...for an accident "I" was the cause of...