Ohio Radar Guns

Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum

Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

FjrVfr

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
256
Reaction score
15
Location
Columbus, OH
I found this quite disturbing.

https://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/20...al_estimat.html

Police officer's visual estimate of speed is enough for a conviction, Ohio Supreme Court rules

By Reginald Fields, The Plain Dealer

June 02, 2010, 11:03AM

Updated at 6:30 p.m.

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A simple educated guess that a motorist is speeding is all the evidence a police officer needs to write an ironclad speeding ticket, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

In a 5-to-1 ruling, the court said an officer's "unaided visual estimation of a vehicle's speed" is strong enough to support a ticket and conviction. A radar speed detector, commonly used by patrolmen, is not needed, the court concluded.

"Independent verification of the vehicle's speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding," assuming the officer has been trained and certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or similar organization, Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote for the court's majority.

The court's ruling, in a Summit County traffic case, leaves little chance for drivers to argue their way out of tickets when it is their word against the officers' and nothing more.

"In light of this ruling I guess we don't need radar guns anymore, we don't need laser. We might as well throw all that technology out the window," said attorney John Kim, who argued the case on behalf of motorist Mark Jenney.

"And now a police officer based on his own human biases can stand on the side of the road and write all the tickets he wants," Kim said. "So, we have taken Draconian steps backwards."

Justice Terrence O'Donnell, who wrote a dissenting opinion, was also troubled by the majority's assertion that a trained police officer cannot possibly be wrong. O'Donnell said just because an officer says someone was speeding should not alone be good enough for a conviction.

"I would assert that a broad standard as postulated by the majority. . . eclipses the role" of a judge or jury to reject an officer's testimony, O'Donnell said, especially if the testimony is "found not to be credible (or) could in some instances be insufficient to support a conviction."

It is rare for officers to issue a ticket on observation alone, said Ted Hart, a spokesman for the Ohio Attorney General's office, which operates the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy.

"Typically an officer would observe someone that appears to be speeding and then use radar or laser to confirm it," Hart said.

That is the policy of the Ohio Highway Patrol, whose primary duty is traffic enforcement. Troopers are not allowed to stop motorists for speeding based on a visual estimate.

"It works in conjunction with radar," said patrol spokeswoman Lindsay Komlanc. "And only after confirmation of radar clocked speed would they then pull a motorist over to issue a ticket."

Justices Paul Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert Cupp joined O'Connor for the majority. O'Donnell disagreed. And Chief Justice Eric Brown, who joined the court in May, did not participate on this case.

The ruling resulted from Jenney challenging a speeding ticket he was given in 2008 by Copley police officer Christopher R. Santimarino.

Jenney appealed the ticket to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, which upheld the conviction. Jenney then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The circumstances of this case were not clear cut.

Santimarino said he observed Jenney speeding in a black SUV on Ohio 21 and later estimated he was driving at 73 mph. The speed limit on the highway was 60.

After making his visual estimate, the officer said he then checked his radar gun for confirmation. But the radar read 82 or 83 mph, Santimarino testified.

Santimarino said he decided to write Jenney a ticket for 79 mph -- closer to what the radar calculated instead of his own estimate.

But Kim, Jenney's attorney, argued that Santimarino was not qualified to operate the radar gun because the officer could not produce a certificate proving he was trained to use it or explain the two different readings.

The radar evidence was thrown out. Jenney's speeding conviction then hinged solely on the officer's estimate of 73 mph. The Barberton Municipal court ultimately decided to issue Jenney a ticket for driving 70 mph.

That was not good enough for Jenney, who insisted he was not exceeding the speed limit. Jenney also said he was driving in the right lane of the highway, not left lane as Santimarino indicated, and suggested the officer flagged the wrong vehicle.

Kim questioned the officer's ability to visually calculate speed. Santimarino, a Copley patrolman since 1995, said he was trained at the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy where officers have to be able to visually calculate speed within a few miles per hour of the posted speed limit to be certified.

"I think this ruling stinks," Kim said. "The court agreed he was incompetent to use radar but said he is competent to stand on the highway and visually estimate speed. This is ridiculous."

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray praised the ruling. His office argued the case on behalf of the Barberton court. In a court brief, Cordray said the case should never have risen above the lower court.

"If a trial court finds a trained officer's visual estimate of a vehicle's speed to be credible based on the totality of the circumstances," Cordray argued, then "this court should defer to those fact-bound determinations."

Jenney paid a $50 fine plus court costs.

 
After a ruling like that, it won't be long until you can be found guilty of murder because an officer had a dream that you did it, so that in itself is proof enough for conviction!

 
I'd be screwed. I always hated driving in OH, in fact I used to avoid driving that way when going from Knoxville to CHI while in college.

I still remember my old man getting a ticket on the Turnpike in the early 70's when we lived in Cleveland. Once from an airplane above and another time because his booth tickets indicated he was speeding due to the time stamps on the tickets.

 
It no longer has anything to do with right and wrong.

It's all about the money!

Thanks for the info.

 
As an Ohio native I'm downright embarrassed. Sounds more like something they'd do here in Utah. Based on that ruling I could get a ticket in my own garage during winter, sitting on the bike parked on it's center stand making "vroom, vroom" noises (yes I've been known to do that while suffering PMS).

"That's right, your honor. He looked like he was going awfully fast."

Orwell would be proud.

 
As far as I know this isn't anything new. States laws are different but I always thought that most, certainly some states this is the case. I know some states troopers are specifically trained in speed estimation. If you want to avoid states where this is practiced I don't think you'll be ridding very far.

 
<snip> I always thought that most, certainly some states this is the case </snip>
Not tryin' to call you out but if you have a reference for that I'd love to hear it. If it's a common thing then I'm surprised it made it to the state's Supreme Court (and garnered media coverage). I'm not recommending avoiding Ohio or any other state that takes this measure, I'm just saying that this is a very dangerous precedent. How much further till we have enforcement officials charging us because "you looked like you were doing something wrong?"

Oh, wait. We already have that. :dribble:

 
<snip> I always thought that most, certainly some states this is the case </snip>
Not tryin' to call you out but if you have a reference for that I'd love to hear it. If it's a common thing then I'm surprised it made it to the state's Supreme Court (and garnered media coverage). I'm not recommending avoiding Ohio or any other state that takes this measure, I'm just saying that this is a very dangerous precedent. How much further till we have enforcement officials charging us because "you looked like you were doing something wrong?"

Oh, wait. We already have that. :dribble:
Got that tidbit from a retire CHP who's also a LD rider and was giving a talk about how to behave in a traffic stop. It only made the state Supreme Court because they wanted to challenge the law. The media covered it because it was brought before the Supreme Court. Like it says in the article you quoted "Santimarino, a Copley patrolman since 1995, said he was trained at the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy where officers have to be able to visually calculate speed within a few miles per hour of the posted speed limit to be certified." The CHP I referred to earlier said with the proper training you CAN visually calculate speed within a few miles per hour. Sounds like a tough thing to do in my book but as they say they are trained experts.

It sounds like some sour grapes from the lawyer after loosing this case 3 or 4 times he says,

"I think this ruling stinks," Kim said. "The court agreed he was incompetent to use radar but said he is competent to stand on the highway and visually estimate speed. This is ridiculous."
The cop could not prove he was certified for the radar gun, a bit of a technicality I think but that's the law. But he is certified to visually calculate speed within a few miles per hour so technically he is competent to do just that.
 
Sorry, but I call BS on even a "trained" officer being accurate to within a few mph. Under varying circumstances, in varying locations, with various vehicles, and varying visual acuity there is just no way they would overall be visually accurate within a few percent.

This one is ripe for appeal. All one would need to do to overturn this asinine ruling is to run a controlled experiment that shows the inherent inaccuracy of observed speed estimates.

 
My son-in-law (cop) has told me they are "trained" to visually calculate speed,,,,,,,, Bullshit!!!!!

They are also trained to shoot ,,, but the majority of them couldn't hit a bull in the ass with a bass fiddle..

( I know a lot of cops and have seen them shoot.. Been to police firearm qualifications ,, Know several

police firearms instructors ,, shoot with Police officers ,, etc. etc. Some of them are excellent shots,,

but the majority of them aren't)

So, if they are as accurate visually calculating speed as they are hitting a target ,,, they could calculate

your speed at 100mph while you are at a stop light...

When they say speeding tickets are about safety ,, Bullshit,,, most of the time it's about generating Money..

Of course cops Never speed when that are off duty ... :glare: <_<

 
The justices didn't whip this out of the air and I'm surprised this made it this far in the press.

Licensing and certification of competency is a basis of society. The difference between a doctor and a person who went through the same med school and not passing the Boards is a piece of paper. Same for welders, most tradesmen, professional engineers, and any other "expert." And for cops doing speed enforcement.

I grew up in Ohio, know plenty of LEOs (I'm Fed), and as far as I'm aware, all States (definitely Ohio & MD) require an officer using radar to be certified to do so. A significant part of the certification in every State's speed & radar program that I'm aware of is the demonstrated ability to estimate speed within a specified number of mph. Some States may use 3 mph; as I remember, it's 5 mph. The radar is actually a verification of the trained officer's estimate in most places, not the other way around.

THAT demonstrated competency and certification is what the court used as the basis of fact that the person was speeding. This wasn't some uneducated passerby who took a random guess at speed.

Yes, there are people who become cops who become incompetent and may not be able to do speed or shoot to their original qualification standards or whatever. I'll bet that most of us know of plenty of lawyers who couldn't pass the Bar if they had to re-take it, too. Or people in the military who can't pass a basic p.t. requirement. But they did and are in the jobs they are in until proven (key word) not capable to remain there, which usually means not passing a re-qualification class or test. This is one of the places I worry about our society, but it's a different subject. In the name of cost control and cutting spending, a lot of re-testing & re-qualification requirements in various industries are getting relaxed. A significant part of the requirements for continuing education in at least one profession can be met by having subscriptions to specific magazines!!! Again, LOSING certification and proficiency is a totally different subject.

Beyond that, it looks like the press overplaying the lawyer trying to do what he is being paid to do, help his client.

Checks

btw - Having grown up in Ohio, it's ALWAYS been a State known for extremely strict speed control. My relative owned a trucking firm and truckers have always avoided Ohio if possible (hard to do) and otherwise considered it a ticket State.

 
Like any profession ,,, not everybody finishes in the top 10% of his / her class..

Teach a class , Everybody had the same training ,,not everybody will be able

to do the same quality of work....

Did the cop estimating your speed finish in the top of his class ,, or the bottom..

( I would prefer the doctor I go to / working on me finished in the top 10% of his class

rather than the bottom 10%... Wouldn't it be nice if you knew ...)

+10 on Ohio being a ticket state ,,,

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good to know how strict they enforce the limits in Ohio, as I'm planning a ride through there on Hwy 6 later this month.

Not that I'd ever break a posted limit.... <_<

Griff

 
I grew up in Ohio, know plenty of LEOs (I'm Fed), and as far as I'm aware, all States (definitely Ohio & MD) require an officer using radar to be certified to do so. A significant part of the certification in every State's speed & radar program that I'm aware of is the demonstrated ability to estimate speed within a specified number of mph. Some States may use 3 mph; as I remember, it's 5 mph. The radar is actually a verification of the trained officer's estimate in most places, not the other way around.
So you are agreeing with the OP - that now in Ohio, they don't need radar guns anymore. Since a trained cop no longer needs to "verify" his visual speed estimation with a radar reading. His visual estimation alone is enough to convict you.

An "estimate" now proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. This estimate no longer needs to be followed by an actual measurement of speed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top