VaporTrail Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 http://www.local12.com/news/state/story/Of...LCw.cspx?rss=31 COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — 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. What the flying feck. Is there anything we can do to change this? /edit... Here's a little more info As for an officer's radar gun, the court found the device is ''not necessary to support a conviction for speeding.'' The speeding ticket at issue came in July 2008, when Jenney was driving on state Route 21. Copley Patrolman Christopher Santimarino said he clocked the vehicle on radar going at least 82 mph in a 60-mph zone. As a gesture to save Jenney, 27, additional costs, a court appearance and points to his driver's license, Santimarino testified that he wrote the ticket for 70 mph. Jenney maintains he was doing the speed limit and that the officer's radar caught a speeding tractor-trailer that was passing his SUV. At trial, Barberton Municipal Judge David Fish tossed out the officer's radar reading after Santimarino failed to provide proof of his certification training on the device. Instead, Fish relied on Santimarino's police training to visually mark a driver's speed and found Jenney guilty of traveling 70 mph. So, it seems that the guy that appealed is kind of an asshole, but I still don't agree with the ruling. Slippery slope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Very dangerous ... Way too much subjectivity in the officers "opinion" that people were going a certain speed. That's a stupid decision. We have a lot of those in Ohio.... @@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 You better watch out for those J.O.P.'s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Just another Profiling attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 This is a BS ruling. Basically that means if you are going 20 in a school zone, and a cop wants a ticket, he tickets you and you lose because its his word against yours. I'm pro law enforcement, but I think this ruling sucks. There are a lot of good cops, and some bad ones. The bad ones will take advantage of this ruling. I hope that this can be appealed to the Supreme Court. Or, maybe get the Justices to reverse the decision or vote them out at the next election. So it means basically if a cop writes you a ticket for speeding you lose automatically. Based on his supposed expertise. I went through this very training and believe me it is subject to many factors, eyesight, sunlight, etc. I like the Ohio Highway Patrols method. They can observe you and believe you are speeding must MUST confirm it by laser/Radar before issuing a citation. I guess they can throw away the radar/Laser guns now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Actually I think the law has always hinged somewhat on conditions and an officers judgement. If a guy is going 50 in a 50 zone in a blizzard it may be deemed illegal. I have a friend who got a DUI though he had an attorney AND blew under the limit! WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 I have a friend who got a DUI though he had an attorney AND blew under the limit!WSS[/b] His lawyer wasn't 'The Gipper', I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 Actually I think the law has always hinged somewhat on conditions and an officers judgement. If a guy is going 50 in a 50 zone in a blizzard it may be deemed illegal. I have a friend who got a DUI though he had an attorney AND blew under the limit! WSS Driving 50 in a blizzard could be driving to fast for conditions. So I would agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted June 3, 2010 Report Share Posted June 3, 2010 His lawyer wasn't 'The Gipper', I hope. I can see it know, Gip brings in his laptop to the court house. Hold on Judge, I mean hold your horses!! I have to reply to this idiots post on the board. But in reality politicians have taken up the MADD folks and turned it into a Billion dollar business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.