# Why don't we just rely on police testimony all the time? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801 "2010-06-03T17:29:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/21 "2010-06-03T22:32:29Z")
Good post, **steronz**. You make good points. And maybe part of the difference between the weight an officer’s word would have in this and a murder case, as **Happy** mentioned above, is that murder is a capital offense while most driving infractions prolly actually harm no one and are more in place as a revenue stream and a check on the citizenry. A $150 fine because an officer said you did it is not that big a deal, I guess, but doing 20-to-life would be. It still kinda rankles, tho. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/22 "2010-06-03T22:54:47Z")
If the OP wants to get into a theoretical discussion, that’s fine, however all this talk about boycotting Ohio sounds very childish. First of all, a fucking child can probably use a radar gun or at least figure it out in five minutes. What do you do? Point at whatever you want to measure and read the number? It’s not an AEGIS fire control system on a destroyer. In the interest of reasonableness, I will concede that the officer can probably use a radar gun. Certificate or no certificate. Also, I have no experience, but I can pretty much tell if a person is going way too freaking fast (ie 80 mph). So really the argument the defense is trying to make is that the officer in question a) does not know how to use his equipment, b) can’t tell when a car is going 20 mph over the speed limit, c) picked the defendants car out at random and/or d) is possibly lying. This does not seem like a very strong argument to me. Also, remember that this is not a criminal trial where guilt or innocence is based on reasonable doubt. I believe traffic infractions are based on preponderance of evidence. The cop has his experience and equipment on his side and the driver just has his word. So in order to win the argument, the driver would need to provide some sort of physical evidence that he was not (or was incapable of) going above the speed limit. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/23 "2010-06-03T23:04:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Almost certainly more accurate. > > But I’m not a trained officer, and I can easily tell if a car passes me on the street doing 20 mph or 40 mph. > > And if the speed limit on the street is 25, I may not be able to say he’s doing 43… but I certainly testify he’s doing OVER 35. How much over isn’t relevant to sustain a charge of 10-19 miles over. I can believe an officer can determine if someone is speeding when they are going a fair percentage faster than the posted limit. My worry however is how the ticket is priced. By that I mean, in Illinois anyway, there is (or was…been awhile since I was pulled over for speeding) a fine for up to 20mph over then after that things got progressively worse. So, in the OP there would be a big difference for me (were it Illinois) if the officer said 79 or 82. The penalties jump a good deal in that 3mph difference and I do not believe an officer can distinguish 79 from 82 by eyeballing it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/24 "2010-06-03T23:19:37Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > … I do not believe an officer can distinguish 79 from 82 by eyeballing it. But: > [@](#): > > At trial, Santimarino testified that he had been employed as a patrolman with the Copley Police Department for 13 years. He testified that he was certified by OPOTA and had been working in traffic enforcement since 1995. Santimarino testified that as part of his OPOTA training, he was trained to visually estimate the speed of a vehicle. **In order to be certified by OPOTA, Santimarino was required to show that he could visually estimate a vehicle’s speed to within three to four miles per hour of the vehicle’s actual speed, which he did**. Further, Santimarino testified that since becoming a police officer in 1995, he had performed hundreds of visual estimations. (emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/25 "2010-06-03T23:30:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But: > > (emphasis added) I do not know what the training entails. Three over 20mph is a bigger percentage difference than three-over at 80mph. Besides, 79 or 82 is within his margin of error yet the penalty difference can be notable. I used to speed just below 20-over for precisely this reason. Yet here, based on a best guess and perhaps motivated by quotas, the cop can nudge me over the threshold. I am surprised you are ok with that. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/26 "2010-06-04T00:29:56Z")
I have heard of two officers in a car with a radar gun taking turns guessing the speed of passing vehicles and checking their guesses against the gun. Supposedly, with practice, they got quite good at it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/27 "2010-06-04T02:07:13Z")
> [@](#): > > So as long as the officer has a photocopied “certificate of completion”, his word cannot be doubted. I don’t see it being a situation where his word cannot be doubted. I see it as a situation where the court found that the officer’s testimony was credible - a trained and experience person can visually tell the difference between a car driving 60 mph and a car driving 80 mph. Now if the defendant’s lawyer wants to discredit his testimony, he would be free to try to do so. Bring him out to a test track and do a Mythbusters episode on him. Drive cars by him at various speeds and see if he’s accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/28 "2010-06-04T03:04:07Z")
Despite the fact that I’m a card carrying liberal, I actually agree with the court’s decision. I believe the OP might have fallen victim to CSI syndrome. On TV, the police have access to laser DNA eyeball hyper scanners that have access to an ultimate truth. In the real world, it doesn’t happen that way. In this specific case, the office had a radar gun that he wasn’t certified for that measured 82, and 15 years of experience that told him 79+. That really ought to be enough. And as for a defense lawyer using it as a sort of gotcha tactic against a police officer at a hearing of a State Supreme Court, it’s really not going to work. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/29 "2010-06-04T04:07:12Z")
> [@Happy\_Poster](#): > > The far greater injustice, of course, is that you will note this person somehow avoided killing widows, orphans, and kittens by his breakneck speed of 80mph. > > Speed limits are a tyrannical injustice and should be abolished forthwith. Of course. Traffic violations have almost nothing to do with public safety anymore and everything do with government revenue. Is there a person left in the United States who doesn’t know this? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/30 "2010-06-04T04:31:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t see it being a situation where his word cannot be doubted. I see it as a situation where the court found that the officer’s testimony was credible - a trained and experience person can visually tell the difference between a car driving 60 mph and a car driving 80 mph. > > Now if the defendant’s lawyer wants to discredit his testimony, he would be free to try to do so. Bring him out to a test track and do a Mythbusters episode on him. Drive cars by him at various speeds and see if he’s accurate. That would make for an interesting show. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/31 "2010-06-04T04:40:24Z")
In court: “In your estimation, officer, how fast was the defendant going?” “Fast.” “How fast?” “_Damn_ fast.” Judge: “That’s enough for me. Guilty!” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/32 "2010-06-04T06:59:09Z")
“Officer, can your quantity that in BOH units?” “Yes, I witnessed the defendant’s vehicle moving at a minimum of four on the official bat-out-of-hell scale…” ---
**Author:** ![audit1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@audit1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audit1)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/33 "2010-06-04T07:19:32Z")
Would the original poster argue that unless the officer presented video tape showing the suspect running the stop sign or red traffic light clearly showing in the same frame , the sign, the license plate and the face of the driver the court should consider the word of the officer? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/34 "2010-06-04T10:54:34Z")
I think this opens up another problem. With this the police can now pull you over at a whim regardless if you were speeding or not. All they have to tell the court is that in their opinion you were speeding…now they have cause to pull you over and need no other evidence to backup their claim. I am not saying they would all do this but it is foolish to think some wouldn’t. Missing their quota for the month? Well, just arbitrarily pull over some people and issue a ticket since the officer’s word is all the evidence the court needs. Want to pull over that kid who looks like a punk even if he is doing nothing wrong? Claim he was speeding. Guilty of driving while black (racial profiling) but need an “excuse”? Claim the person was speeding. There is nothing to gainsay the officer. As long as they say you were speeding then the court considers you speeding. End of story. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/35 "2010-06-04T10:55:46Z")
> [@ChickenLegs](#): > > Of course. Traffic violations have almost nothing to do with public safety anymore and everything do with government revenue. Is there a person left in the United States who doesn’t know this? No, I do not believe that they are about government revenue, at least not in my country. I believe they are generally well intentioned ideas implemented by caring people. But that doesn’t stop them from being wrong both in principle and in fact. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/36 "2010-06-04T13:05:23Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > In court: > > “In your estimation, officer, how fast was the defendant going?” > > “Fast.” > > “How fast?” > > “_Damn_ fast.” "Officer, would you go so far as to say that he was ‘Haulin’ Ass’? “I wouldn’t characterize it as that, no. I would say he was travelling at a speed above ‘truckin’’ and lower than ‘Haulin’ Ass”. “Would ‘flying’ be an accurate characterization?” “YES! That’s it. The sumbitch was ‘flying’!” Judge: Great! Anything else you would like to add? Officer: With my specialized training, I also noticed that the defendant hates his mother and doesn’t kiss his kids goodnight. Of course, I didn’t observe that, but my training leads me to believe that beyond a doubt. Judge: I sentence the defendant to death. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/37 "2010-06-04T13:09:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I do not know what the training entails. Three over 20mph is a bigger percentage difference than three-over at 80mph. > > Besides, 79 or 82 is within his margin of error yet the penalty difference can be notable. I used to speed just below 20-over for precisely this reason. Yet here, based on a best guess and perhaps motivated by quotas, the cop can nudge me over the threshold. > > I am surprised you are ok with that. Sure. But if we accept that training, and then the court finds that the established speed was at the lowest possible point, we’re fine. In other words, if the officer testifies that his estimation was 80, and his training required a margin of three miles per hour accuracy at that speed, then I have no problem with the court finding the accused was traveling 77 miles per hour. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/38 "2010-06-04T14:30:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. But if we accept that training, and then the court finds that the established speed was at the lowest possible point, we’re fine. > > In other words, if the officer testifies that his estimation was 80, and his training required a margin of three miles per hour accuracy at that speed, then I have no problem with the court finding the accused was traveling 77 miles per hour. How do we know that this Human Radar Detector wasn’t off by a little bit because of environmental factors? Maybe it was snowing or raining and the glare caused the tuning forks in his eyeballs to be off slightly. Or maybe his wife yelled at him for not taking out the trash the night before and his internal clock is off by a few miles per hour. Seriously, though, I can’t believe that anyone with an interest in due process would agree with this. As another poster pointed out, all any authority figure has to do is “estimate” according to his “training” that you were breaking the law, and any cop has a reason to pull any vehicle over. So much for the 4th amendment, huh? How, pray tell, can you cross examine his estimation? This + or - 3 mph is bullshit anyways. This cop estimated 79mph? How did he arrive at that? Why didn’t he arrive at, say 78mph, or 80mph? That might seem petty, but as was pointed out, that 1 mph is a big deal when it comes to enhanced penalties. Or are you really suggesting that a human being can discern between 79 and 84 mph with the unaided eye? Are there statistics on this training that show its accuracy? Just because a couple of cops did it once is only confirmation bias. My grandmother used to be able to tell you when it would rain; didn’t make her a weatherman. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/39 "2010-06-04T14:41:13Z")
If I recall correctly, the radar gun doesn’t produce a paper record of your speed. The officer just looks at it and writes down that it says you were going 75 mph. If an officer wants to make up an excuse to stop you and is willing to lie, he or she can say he clocked you on the radar gun at 75. You have no protection from truly dishonest cops either way. They can say they “smelled the odor of alcohol on your breath,” they can say they “noticed red and bloodshot eyes,” or that you failed to perform the field sobriety tests property. Hell, they can say you confessed to murder if they want. People are convicted every day based just on the unverified word of a police officer. [Let me add, as a former Public Defender, I was often amazed by the honesty of our law enforcement personnel. Even when they could have easily stretched the truth without consequences, I often heard very honest and helpful testimony at trial. Goes without saying, there were some major exceptions] Of course a cop can be honest and also wrong, or use unreliable methods that he thinks are reliable. I’m not sure how accurate eyeballing a speeding car is, but I would think with training and experience it could be fairly good. As others have said, easy enough to test. If it can’t done accurately, the defendant can hire an epxert witness to challenge the basis for the officer’s opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801/40 "2010-06-04T14:45:18Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > This cop estimated 79mph? How did he arrive at that? Why didn’t he arrive at, say 78mph, or 80mph? That might seem petty, but as was pointed out, that 1 mph is a big deal when it comes to enhanced penalties. Or are you really suggesting that a human being can discern between 79 and 84 mph with the unaided eye?. Since the cop testified to 79mph, that placed the defendent in to the regular speeding ticket category, rather something more serious. He was trying to do the defendant a favour (and probably lessening his own paperwork). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-we-just-rely-on-police-testimony-all-the-time/541801.md?page=3)