Police officer's estimate good enough for speeding ticket

[bonaparte]

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


OHIO SUPREME COURT
Police officer's estimate good enough for speeding ticket
Justices uphold citation against Akron-area driver
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 11:23 AM
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH


Attention lead foots: Police don't need radar to cite you for speeding.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this morning that an officer trained to estimate speed by sight doesn't need an electronic gauge to catch speeders.

The 5-1 ruling was a defeat for 27-year-old Akron-area motorist Mark W. Jenney and speeders across the state. Jenney had challenged a visual speed estimate by a Copley police officer, but a trial court and the 9th District Court of Appeals upheld his conviction.

The 8th District Court of Appeals, based in Cleveland, has ruled that police need more than sight alone to meet the standard needed to convict someone of speeding.

"The Eighth District stands alone in holding that an officer's visual estimation of the speed of a vehicle is insufficient to support a finding of guilt, and we agree with the courts that have found the opposite," Supreme Court Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote for the majority. "Rational triers of fact could find a police officer's testimony regarding his unaided visual estimation of a vehicle's speed, when supported by evidence that the officer is trained, certified by (the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy) or a similar organization, and experienced in making such estimations, sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's speed. Independent verification of the vehicle's speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding."

Justice Terrence O'Donnell dissented, saying that courts should have more discretion to determine the credibility of an officer's visual speed estimate. Chief Justice Eric Brown, who joined the court after the case was heard, did not participate in the ruling.

During arguments in the case, lawyers for the state and for Barberton -- the venue where Jenney's case was heard -- argued that police can cite drivers for other infractions such as following too closely based on their visual judgments alone.

Jenney's lawyer responded that there should be more than just a visual impression, but he could not say whether a radar or laser speed measurement would be necessary.

_____________________________________

I think I will ask for a jury trial if this every happens to me.

Now read the article below and tell me there isn't a double standard! Same newspaper, same day.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/06/02/cleveland-leg.html

Traffic case dismissed against Ohio cop in crash that cost motorist's leg
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 09:16 AM

CLEVELAND (AP) - A judge has dismissed a traffic case against an Ohio police officer whose patrol car slammed into a disabled auto, leading the motorist to lose a leg.

Cleveland Patrolman John Cotner had been charged with speeding and failing to keep a safe distance.

The case was dismissed last month. The city felt it was too expensive to hire an expert to prove a patrol car device accurately recorded the officer's speed at 73 mph.

The 21-year police veteran says the Nov. 22 accident occurred because his view was blocked by a speeding sport utility vehicle until it was too late.

The officer could face internal disciplinary action.

The driver of the car struck by Cotner's cruiser had to have the lower half of his right leg amputated.

[Glass]

Heresay has long been acceptable in a court. No law so it's admissable.

[BrewTech]

The 5-1 ruling was a defeat for 27-year-old Akron-area motorist Mark W. Jenney and speeders across the state.

No, asshole, it was not a defeat for speeders. It was a defeat for the guy doing 49 in a 50 mph zone, but the cop "estimated" he was doing 55.

THAT'S who is defeated. That's who PAYS.

[bonaparte]

Heresay has long been acceptable in a court. No law so it's admissable.


Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

Not meant to be a slam, just for educational purposes. Hearsay is when I tell you something and then you tell somebody (like a jury) what I said. It IS generally not admissible except under strict circumstances (like the last will and testament of a person just before they die).

Generally you can only testify to what you directly experience through your five senses.

[Quantum]

Heresay has long been acceptable in a court. No law so it's admissable.


Hearsay from cops and other government goons is acceptable.

Hearsay from you or me is thrown out.

[Quantum]

The 5-1 ruling was a defeat for 27-year-old Akron-area motorist Mark W. Jenney and speeders across the state.

No, asshole, it was not a defeat for speeders. It was a defeat for the guy doing 49 in a 50 mph zone, but the cop "estimated" he was doing 55.

THAT'S who is defeated. That's who PAYS.


The pig "estimated" that the motorist didn't pay enough taxes this year, so he has been assessed the speeding tax.

[willie pete]

Man, I'm scratching my head over this one, estimate the speed of a car? :lol , it'd be OK to estimate the speed AS long as you weren't testifying in court to it, how the hell can someone estimate the speed within the parameters of a traffic infraction?