http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/06/02/ohio-supreme-court-speed-estimate-valid.html?sid=101

You only have to "look like you were speeding" to receive a ticket justifiably in Ohio now.

I assume this would fire some people up, so I put it in Politics instead of Serious Business.

I think I'd rather deal with a traffic camera than this. At least when a traffic camera fucks up someone can go back and review the footage or check the camera calibration. How does one fight a complete judgement call with most likely nothing supporting it? At most there may be a dash camera video, but I assume by the time the officer would flip his lights on (activatng a dash cam, in most cases) and be after the car it would be near impossible to prove anything in terms of speed.

Seems like a really bad precedent... even if the officer is "trained" to do it.

I heard about this on the radio today.

This is an absolute complete crock of bullshit.

Looks like the state and every city/county is going to be LOADED soon if cops can just say, "you looked like you were speeding...here's your ticket."

Fuck that noise!

This is bullshit.

Wow. I can't believe the Ohio Supreme Court ruled this way.
Man, when I drive to Ohio later this month, I'll be extra careful.
This gives all the power to asshole Highway Patrolmen on I-70 and I-71.

Honestly, the way they voted surprised me in terms of the party makeup.

It was 5-1, with the 6 Republican justices being involved in the vote (The Democratic Chief Justice was not involved with this case, did not vote)

The Republican lawmakers in this state have been the ones fighting government intrusion, especially in the transportation realm. They are the ones that have kept seatbelt violations as a secondary offense (the last transportation budget would have changed it but they negotiated it out), and they fight the traffic cameras hard. I would have expected this vote to go 5-1 in the exact opposite way.

Total bullshit. I'm expecting/hoping someone challenges this to the U.S. SC. Can't believe 5 judges think "looking" is a valid reason for a ticket. And people are surprised that Cops are one of the most distrusted professions. This stuff is why. If someone gets pulled over and gets a ticket for "looking" like they were speeding, they are going to hate cops for the rest of their lives probably and tell everyone they know.

i will say that a well trained cop can judge your speed within 3mph. i have seen a few even consistently do it with about a 1-2mph difference. the normal practice is for the officer to visually judge your speed before he even turns on radar/laser. in the end though, a cop was never required to show you his radar/laser anyway, so how did you ever know?

ts1227;377362 wrote:Honestly, the way they voted surprised me in terms of the party makeup.

It was 5-1, with the 6 Republican justices being involved in the vote (The Democratic Chief Justice was not involved with this case, did not vote)

The Republican lawmakers in this state have been the ones fighting government intrusion, especially in the transportation realm. They are the ones that have kept seatbelt violations as a secondary offense (the last transportation budget would have changed it but they negotiated it out), and they fight the traffic cameras hard. I would have expected this vote to go 5-1 in the exact opposite way.

Never be surprised when those empowered by the state vote in favor of the state. Especially when the state is in desperate need of cash.

majorspark;377627 wrote:Never be surprised when those empowered by the state vote in favor of the state. Especially when the state is in desperate need of cash.

Yes indeed.

that's bullshit

Glory Days;377531 wrote:i will say that a well trained cop can judge your speed within 3mph. i have seen a few even consistently do it with about a 1-2mph difference. the normal practice is for the officer to visually judge your speed before he even turns on radar/laser. in the end though, a cop was never required to show you his radar/laser anyway, so how did you ever know?

A cop was previously required to prove in court that he did in fact laser/radar you.

Now any douche bag cop can say "he looked like he was speeding" and have it accepted by a court. Also, I highly doubt your claim of their accuracy and consistency.

Has anybody read the opinion? It's really not as awful as it sounds....all it means is that a Jury or a District Court Judge (who are normally the triers of fact in a traffic case) May find that an officer based on her word alone can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that you were speeding.

I mean, it's really no different than a Cop saying you didn't have your seat belt on, that you rolled through a stop sign, that you were driving your car without paying proper attention, that you were driving recklessly, that you didn't signal properly.

I mean, most of the people on here hate street cameras, but now u don't want cops to be able to prove you're guilty without having cameras/other invasions of your privacy like a laser determining how fast you drive your private vehicle.

And no, Cops weren't previously required to prove they used a laser. Only one appellate district, Cleveland's, had this rule. Hence, for everyone except Clevelander's, the law is the same. Sadly though, it probably will affect cuyahoga county because of the God awful drop from 65 mph to 60 mph through the county.

I'm disconnecting my Speedometer ...my defence is I assumed I was going the speed limit ...so with that being said I should not get a ticket.



In court:

Defense in the court room: Per my estimated rate of speed, the feel of the road, the wind resistance, the sound of the engine.. I believed I was traveling at the correct speed Your Honor.
The Office did have a different view of my rate of speed but because I had the advantage of sound and feel over a visual perspective I would have to state that my estimated speed is better qualified via the over all evidences.

Can I go now Your Honor

I Wear Pants;377767 wrote:A cop was previously required to prove in court that he did in fact laser/radar you.

Now any douche bag cop can say "he looked like he was speeding" and have it accepted by a court. Also, I highly doubt your claim of their accuracy and consistency.

haha you can doubt it all you want. and i dont think i said its all cops, but the ones who have been doing it a while and the ones who went through the training sure can. i mean, i have only seen it personally with my own eyes.

and no, a cop was never required to prove in court he got you on radar or whatever. because you cant prove that. the radar/laser does not keep a record of speeds nor is there anything else but the cop recording the speed.

Belly35;377823 wrote:I'm disconnecting my Speedometer ...my defence is I assumed I was going the speed limit ...so with that being said I should not get a ticket.



In court:

Defense in the court room: Per my estimated rate of speed, the feel of the road, the wind resistance, the sound of the engine.. I believed I was traveling at the correct speed Your Honor.
The Office did have a different view of my rate of speed but because I had the advantage of sound and feel over a visual perspective I would have to state that my estimated speed is better qualified via the over all evidences.

Can I go now Your Honor

haha might want to check the laws on what is needed to be a safe vehicle. lacking a speedometer might make it not able to be driving on a public road etc.

Belly35;377823 wrote:I'm disconnecting my Speedometer ...my defence is I assumed I was going the speed limit ...so with that being said I should not get a ticket.



In court:

Defense in the court room: Per my estimated rate of speed, the feel of the road, the wind resistance, the sound of the engine.. I believed I was traveling at the correct speed Your Honor.
The Office did have a different view of my rate of speed but because I had the advantage of sound and feel over a visual perspective I would have to state that my estimated speed is better qualified via the over all evidences.

Can I go now Your Honor

haha might want to check the laws on what is needed to be a safe vehicle. lacking a speedometer might make it not able to be driving on a public road etc.

but just for my two cents, i dont think this law will change the way police operate, although i know some of you will disagree and think they will go all gestapo or whatever.

Police should have to prove their claims with evidence. Not hearsay. This is absurd.

Best not complain about government power in other threads when you're willing to give away rights like this.

How is "It looked like he was speeding" or "I saw him without a seat belt" enough evidence to come to a judgment against a person? A citizens word is and should be every bit as respected as a cops.

Edit: And no, this isn't going to turn most cops into tyrants or cause Orwell's 1984 to come to fruition but I don't like the direction it takes us in. Cops aren't first class citizens whose word should mean more than us mere proletariats.

I Wear Pants;378040 wrote:Police should have to prove their claims with evidence. Not hearsay. This is absurd.

Best not complain about government power in other threads when you're willing to give away rights like this.

How is "It looked like he was speeding" or "I saw him without a seat belt" enough evidence to come to a judgment against a person? A citizens word is and should be every bit as respected as a cops.

so the cop saying "i saw the man enter the convienent store after hours" isnt good enough either? how can you prove the guy was breaking into the store if there was no camera and only the cop saw him in there? fingerprints wont do any good, he could just say he was there earlier in the day legally.

Yeah but there isn't a judgment call there. The dude was entering the building or he wasn't.

No one can gauge all that accurately the speed of a vehicular. There is an opinion there. "I think he was going 55 in the 35" shouldn't cut it. It's a bit different then "I watched him break into the building after hours".

Now if the officer says "I think he broke into the building after hours" I'd have a problem with it.

Unless it is absolutely unquestionable what is going on I don't think anyone should be able to be arrested or charged without evidence of wrongdoing.

I Wear Pants;378384 wrote:Yeah but there isn't a judgment call there. The dude was entering the building or he wasn't.

No one can gauge all that accurately the speed of a vehicular. There is an opinion there. "I think he was going 55 in the 35" shouldn't cut it. It's a bit different then "I watched him break into the building after hours".

Now if the officer says "I think he broke into the building after hours" I'd have a problem with it.

Unless it is absolutely unquestionable what is going on I don't think anyone should be able to be arrested or charged without evidence of wrongdoing.

well considering they are trained to visually judge speed, they arent just anyone.

Two things: Why did I say vehicular instead of vehical?

And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't like cops being able to make up things or get a person arrested/ticketed/fined/whatever based on opinion. Numbers for the station looking bleak? Just say that some people were speeding and you know that they were speeding because you looked at them with your super speed reading eyes! It's indisputable!

The good news is that it sounds like most cops aren't willing to trade in the radars for visual judgment just yet.
What about when a cop's judgment is the difference between levels of severity. For instance, if I'm driving down my road, which is 55mph but I'm going 80, then that SHOULD be a fine but also two-points on my license. However, if the cop thought I was going 85, then that turns into a 30mph speeding, which turns into four-points on my license.
Obviously I can play it safe by NOT driving 20-30mph over the speed limit, but that's a possible dilemma with this system.

To be honest, I always thought it's bullshit that cops can ticket people based on their own discretion. In my near-seven years of driving, I've been pulled over for speeding three times (the most recent one back in 2007 at least) But all three times, I was going 14mph over the speed limit (twice in a 35, once in a 55)....Ironically the two times in the 35mph zone, I wasn't ticketed. The one time I was ticketed, I was going to a dentist appointment, and I must have been playing with my radio or something, but next thing I know my lead foot got me up to 69 in a 55, and lucky for me, a sheriff just so happened to be coming from the other direction, and he got me and ticketed me. Not more than four days later, a good friend of mine was pulled over in the EXACT same spot for going 66 in the 55. He was let go, no ticket. How in the hell did my extra three miles warrant that $100 fine?

I Wear Pants;378469 wrote:Two things: Why did I say vehicular instead of vehical?

And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't like cops being able to make up things or get a person arrested/ticketed/fined/whatever based on opinion. Numbers for the station looking bleak? Just say that some people were speeding and you know that they were speeding because you looked at them with your super speed reading eyes! It's indisputable!

Well, the thing is, next time you are out driving, pay close attention to the driver infront of you and around you. it wouldnt take long to find a traffic violation. my point is, cops dont need to make up stuff, people do a good enough job making traffic violations themselves. if they stopped everyone for every violation, they would never make it down the street before their shift was over.

friendfromlowry;378473 wrote: To be honest, I always thought it's bullshit that cops can ticket people based on their own discretion. In my near-seven years of driving, I've been pulled over for speeding three times (the most recent one back in 2007 at least) But all three times, I was going 14mph over the speed limit (twice in a 35, once in a 55)....

i was only 3 days from having been driving exactly 11 years when i was pulled over for the first time in my life. i was driving 69mph(70mph zone, 55 because it was technically construction) on I-80 in Iowa in the middle of nowhere at 4am through a construction zone where there were no workers. he wrote me for it, but gave me a break for the construction and left that part out. my buddy who was with me, has been pulled over probably 15 or so times, only ticketed once. even got a warning for going 65 in a 35...but yet there is me who has a perfect record and is 1/1 on tickets haha. i just laughed about it though.

Glory Days;378494 wrote:Well, the thing is, next time you are out driving, pay close attention to the driver infront of you and around you. it wouldnt take long to find a traffic violation. my point is, cops dont need to make up stuff, people do a good enough job making traffic violations themselves. if they stopped everyone for every violation, they would never make it down the street before their shift was over.

Take a look at the cops driving down the road and I guarantee you'll find as many if not more traffic violations.

you should sign up to go for a ride-a-long with your local PD.