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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
That would make for an interesting show.
In court:
“In your estimation, officer, how fast was the defendant going?”
“Fast.”
“How fast?”
“Damn fast.”
Judge: “That’s enough for me. Guilty!”
“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…”
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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).