Guessings good enough when issuin a ticket ?

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I haven't read the case but this excerpt from the article seems to suggest that the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that nothing other than an officer's seat of the pants estimate of your speed is enough to write you up.

As well it should be, if they are properly trained and the event is obvious.

"No issues."

[merrylander]

VA recently had a bunch of DUI cases called into question because their breathalyzers were mis-calibrated. One wonders about radar guns as well.

[Grumpy]

Originally Posted by Zeke

As well it should be, if they are properly trained and the event is obvious.

"No issues."

"Except, of course, for our inability to be fully accurate in death convictions.

We've all seen it, are aware of it, we know it happens, and the entire idea of summary execution is animalistic.

Now, do no think me a weak soldier. I have been a state-level parole officer and worked within maximum custody prisons...

But once wrong, is once too many.

I dispute your model."

Sure a traffic ticket is not a murder conviction but your logic puzzles me.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Probable cause? My, what a quaint little notion.

.....

QFT, sad but true.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Sorry guys. I read the case and that headline is extremely misleading. The officer had clocked the defendant at 82 using the radar gun. Because the officer had not produced a certificate of his training on the radar gun, although he testified in some detail how it worked and how he maintained it, the court sustained the objection to the officer testifying about the speed on the radar gun. The officer wal allowed to testify concerning his estimate that the driver was going 75, based on his training and his certification for being able to estimate speed. The appellate court rejected the defendant's attempt to impeach the officer's testimony with a radar report that he had successfully excluded. It was considerably more than a guess, but was the type of estimation the officer had been trained to perform and had been certified for.

This decision is not a new law, but an interpretation of whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold a conviction for speeding. It will not dissuade police forces from using radar, because radar is the most effective method for detecting speeding cars. It should persuade police departments and procecutors to make sure they have the testifying officer's certification available for court.

Sometimes it just doesn't work to try to simplify a decision down to a sound bite or a headline. In this instance the headline was grossly misleading.

Regards,

D-Ray

Thanks for reading it. I've changed my postition somewhat after some thought, after all police testimony is used in many many criminal cases? Say they saw someone breaking and entering, with no camera, their testimony is given great weight, correct?

And they are trained in shaking down citizens. I mean eyeballing speed lol.

Pete

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Grumpy

Sure a traffic ticket is not a murder conviction but your logic puzzles me.

My logic is simple: I'm sure YOU could tell if a guy is going 60 mph in a 35 mph zone.

So, what could a trained guy do?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Zeke

My logic is simple:

I'm not touching that one.

I'm sure YOU could tell if a guy is going 60 mph in a 35 mph zone.

Probably not. True, I could probably tell he was exceeding the 35 MPH limit but I doubt I could tell you he was going 60 MPH. I doubt a cop could either.

So, if I get a ticket for going 60 in a 35 when I was actually going 45 in a 35 should I be pissed off? The laws are written with an escalating scale of penalties, in terms of both money and DMV points. Should a cop be able to guess under those circumstances?

So, what could a trained guy do?

Eliminate the guesswork? Use the freakin' radar gun we bought for him? Do what they used to do before radar and clock him?

John

[JJIII]

Doesn't happen often but I'm with you this time John.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by JJIII

Doesn't happen often but I'm with you this time John.

I must be learning.

John

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I'm not touching that one.



Probably not. True, I could probably tell he was exceeding the 35 MPH limit but I doubt I could tell you he was going 60 MPH. I doubt a cop could either.

So, if I get a ticket for going 60 in a 35 when I was actually going 45 in a 35 should I be pissed off? The laws are written with an escalating scale of penalties, in terms of both money and DMV points. Should a cop be able to guess under those circumstances?



Eliminate the guesswork? Use the freakin' radar gun we bought for him? Do what they used to do before radar and clock him?

John

Yep, in PA they even publish the scale beside the road, or at least they used to do so.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Yep, in PA they even publish the scale beside the road, or at least they used to do so.

They used to do that in Oklahoma, too.

Seriously, I don't understand the issue with allowing trained professionals to determine whether someone was speeding. "Over 35 mph," would seem to be reasonable enough to equate to some statute: even if it is reckless driving or something.

We ALL know we could be adequately trained to make such judgment calls, so what's the rub?