Ohio Speeding Ticket Ruling

Just got this from a buddy in Cleveland. Be careful driving through Ohio.

Feff

Officer Estimates Enough For Speeding Convictions​

By: Associated Press

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.

 

YIKES

Feff, you should post this in a general section as well as regional. I can't believe this.

 

yet another reason why Ohio is quickly becoming the second best way to get to Kentucky, or Pennsylvania.

 

I was hoping that this was some sort of thing that would show up on Snopes as a myth....but unfortunately it's true. Sucks.

This is ridiculous, and a slippery slope for other type of abuses of power - basically saying that a government official's word trumps a citizen's word. Scary.

 

But I bet they are not qualified to spot an illegal alien once stopped....

Gubment at work. Grab all the money, however & for whatever...

 

+1

Less work. More donuts.

 

I got my first no front license plate warning last Friday. He chatted with me for about 20 minutes, in fact I think he wanted to look at the California so he nabbed me. I told him that the dealer refused to put a license plate on the front. He agreed that there really was no way to put one on the front other than clamping to the grill. He gave me the notice anyway. At least no fine and no requirement to fix it.

 

There's really an easy solution to this.....don't speed.









aahahahahaha. Who am I kidding.

 

It is a problem that this ruling stands but a bigger problem that it was 5 to 1. That says to me there is only 1 person on the Ohio supreme court that is not retarded.

 

I've got to think eventually someone is going to challenge this all the way to the US Supreme Court under some type of "Innocent until proven guilty" issue. This is nothing more then a revenue generator for governments that simply can't live within thier revenue (taxes) means.

Think about this in a trial, the ticket recipients canny lawyer trots out 4 police officers, showing the cars traveling by and has them guess the speed. HMMM 4 different guesses, which one is accurate?

Our government is starting to look more and more like that in the movie "Brazil".

Feff

 

I've been pulled over4 times for no front plate too (all in Ohio) and only got warnings. The last one to do so wanted to know what that was under my back window! I will not put on a front plate, sometimes I have the plate in my dash.

 

Ohio can be quite strict. I've had a few encounters, and they aren't took quick to let you off with a warning. These experiences (especially a quick pass on the left, only to see a cop with a laser under a bridge catching me doing 91 in a 65 - he wasn't happy) only taught me to keep it nice and easy on the road and save it for the track. Another note, cops love stopping you for the front license plate.

 

Someone on the other forum mentioned that this could be a great way for them to tangent into the no texting while driving rule and basically if a cop says he saw you texting, then he saw you texting, whether you were or werent. Just food for thought....

 

I remember when Ohio police would ticket Michigan drivers for 1 or 2 mph over the speed limit out of spite. Talk about rivalries. I pity Michigan drivers on this one. Come to think of it I'm driving to Michigan for the 4th. I hope my Georgia plates don't attract too much attention!

 

Actually that was the solution prior to the new ruling. Now it doesn't matter how fast you're really going.

 

As a former Ohio resident, I'm not surprised. I remember the 55 mph ride along empty Interstates through cornfields when I was driving to college. I had at least one ticket for doing 62 in a 55, and a few others in the same league.

Then I graduated.

Then I moved.

I really don't envy you guys.

 

As Brock Yates famously said, ~"Not one state of the fifty has the death penalty for speeding . . . although I'm not so sure about Ohio!"


Seriously, Ohio is despicable when it comes to their Nazi-like attitude toward speeding. They use the excuse that their overbearing enforcement helps to catch more serious criminals, but that's a pretty thin veil over their obvious goal of revenue generation, and it creates more of a nuisance for good citizens than the supposed benefit of catching criminals. Ohio Highway Patrol tactics border on being intrusive into motorists' lives.

And you can't make a good faith argument in favor of the 65mph limit on the Ohio Turnpike in the name of safety while neighbor Indiana is humming along just fine at 70mph. You can't make a reasonable argument that the conditions are any different.

 

That'll conveniently help the ol' budget.

Got that covered - won't be stepping foot, or spending a dime there. Problem solved.

 

When I was pulled over near Dublin last Friday because of the missing front plate I saw the patrolman pull out right after I passed him, with two other cars near me. He darted right behind me, about 2 car lengths away. As he did that I pulled off to the side of the expressway, (he was parked in the middle when we went by) and hit the brakes semi lightly while watching him in my mirror. After we got friendly as he asked about acceleration numbers, I told him about braking (R&T says 106 feet from 60). He said when I slammed on the brakes he had to slam on his and all the crap on the seats flew to the floor. With a big smile I told him I had barely hit the brakes, easily out stopping him, and had to ease off the brakes to keep him from hittimg me. We both had a chuckle about that. I think he will not get so close to a Ferrari again.

Rick

 

Ok, I know it's lame to quote myself on a forum....but I had to point out the irony that I posted this two days ago, and this morning on the way to the track:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That sucks! What were you driving and how did the track day go? I don't have a trackable car and the Ducati on the track with all those cages would be suicide.

 

As a lawyer, I don't feel the State will be able to prove it's case against defendants. There is still an evidentiary burden. There should ALWAYS be a presumption of innocence in proceedings, and officers should be held to a higher standard than the public in this regard. This shouldn't be devolving into an argument of one party's word against the other's. While that may happen, on occasion, and the court would likely side with the officer at the very least because the LEO has no incentive to lie. Or, do they? There are plenty of cases alleging LEOs don't adhere to the law and even make it up as they go along. Even enlisting other LEOs to support their bad acts. Anyway, in a world in which radar, lidar and VASCAR exist, WHY in god's name did the Ohio SC do this? This calls the entire agency's reputation (and the individual officer's, too) into question. AND, it's also (based on how judges side almost universally with LEOs) shifted the burden of proof, essentially, to the defendant BEFORE the prosecution has to present ANY evidence other than, "well, he looked like he was going fast."

Any good defense attorney ought to be able to take a LEO apart on that. Whether judges are even listening to that argument, is entirely another thing. And, there is always a right to a trial by jury in these matters. However, I don't think this will be necessary as this may well go to the SCOTUS for a ruling. And, frankly, I think it should. Ohio is out of control on this issue.

CW

 

Truly expensive... to prove a point...

 

Lemme guess--nobody actually read the opinion.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-2420.pdf

As I suspected, it wasn't a 57 in a 55 kind of case. The guy was doing 82 in a 60 in an SUV "in moderate to heavy traffic." So everybody here is a fervent supporter of SUV bozos weaving through interstate traffic at 20 over? The officer had 13 years experience and was certified in visual speed estimation, which means he had to prove "he could visually estimate a vehicle's speed to within 3-4mph of the vehicle's actual speed, which he did." He even marked it down to 79 in a 60 so the guy wouldn't have to go to court.

Also, the opinion did NOT say "every time the cop says you were speeding, you'll get convicted." It only said the finder of fact (jury or judge, depending on the level of offense) CAN, not MUST, credit the officer's testimony and reasonably find as fact that the driver in question was speeding. And even then, as the opinion says at least five times, the officer has to be certified in visual speed estimation. Since the standard is 3-4mph, then there go those 1-2mph spite tickets. There's also such a thing as jury nullification, if you can get a jury in a speeding ticket case in Ohio (you can, if your really want to, in North Carolina).

Why was there no radar evidence? Read the opinion to find out.

You no likey the result, and you live in Ohio, don't bust a gut--bust a move. Bug your state legislators to change the law to require radar, laser, VASCAR, pacing with the patrol car, or whatever you think is fair. Or require jury trials in all speeding ticket cases. Or elect different Supreme Court justices.

 

"Moderate to heavy traffic" is, at the end of the day, purely the officer's opinion. They put that down if any cars pass at all. It pretty much has to be 3 a.m. on a Monday morning with the highway literally deserted to get "light" traffic. They exaggerate the "facts" on the ticket against you -- always more traffic than there really is, and always worse weather/visibility than there really is, etc.

Regardless of what the opinion said or not, this case is setting a precedent, and that precedent can be used in the future to begin the slide down the slippery slope. "Can" vs. "must" makes no difference here; "Can" is entirely wrong in and of itself.

And writing it for 19 mph over is a standard practice the troopers do so they don't have to go to court, and to keep the courts from being over-filled; Ohio trooper's job is to collect revenue (write tickets) and call tow trucks when people hit deer. Court doesn't want to handle any more people than necessary as long as there is money flowing in, and if people don't have to go to court for their ticket, most will just pay it and forget about it. The government can make more money with the troopers out there writing tickets than sitting in court. By writing 19mph for every ticket, trooper gets his ticket writing credit, spends less time in court, county gets their revenue, courts are less crowded, and motorist doesn't have to take time off of work. County gets their money, motorist gets screwed, but it's ultimately cheaper (and less work) for the motorist to pay it than fight it.

Quite a system they have worked out there.