Text Size

No Holds Barred

Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby noles1 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:30 pm

Miffed and puzzled by this decision. Why the incessant need to allow officers more freedom to randomly stop people?

Guess I would be interested to hear the opposite side of this but I cannot see how this makes any sense whatsoever. Seems to presume guilt before innocence or at the very least takes any facts out of it and limits it completely to the subjectivity of the officer.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.a ... yid=137256

Just seems like further money scams by our local and state govt.'s. Others thoughts?
Playing here is the closest thing to heaven. Really, I mean it's amazing to be in a place where the fans truly cherish their football team and stick behind them win or lose. We players love them, too. I feel a sense of accomplishment playing here, we are a special breed of football players with a great opportunity." ~ tOSU LB Brian Rolle
User avatar
noles1
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Clarion, PA
Favorite Player: Jason Kipnis
Least Favorite Player: Mark May's Parents

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Ziner » Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:36 pm

I consider myself to be one of the biggest cop supporters and defenders on here, but this is bullshit. Do the majority of cops even want this type of power? In the court of law you need to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. How could a court uphold something that would clearly at least have significant doubt. Too much power as far as I am concerned.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7063
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Thu Jun 03, 2010 1:50 pm

I drive real fuckin fast, so this sucks for me.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Larvell Blanks » Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:51 pm

I'll get nailed for doing 70 in a 65, my luck. However, the asshole on 71N this morning, in his Lexus SUV who drove 50mph while consistently checking hiS laptop will continue to be allowed behind the wheel.
Galley Boys are slop on top of a so-so burger and a bun you coulde get from a Covneninet food mart generic pack. They the Antoine Joubert of burgers; soft, sloppy, oozing grease and cheap sauce and extremely overrated by a biased fan base. Proof that if you throw enough cheap sauce shit on a burger you still can't overcome the lame burger. -JB
User avatar
Larvell Blanks
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:15 am
Location: Medina, Ohio
Favorite Player: Foots Walker
Least Favorite Player: un named sources

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Love child of shawn kemp » Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:42 pm

I agree this ruling is BS. Hopefully cops will use it to nail people going 100 mph on the highway. There is NO WAY they should be able to visually confirm anything less than say 20 mph over the speed limit. The next step will be for you and I to be able to attest to some other vehicle's speed and have a cop write them a ticket.
User avatar
Love child of shawn kemp
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:37 am
Favorite Player: Corey KKKKKluber
Least Favorite Player: Domestic Violence

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Spin » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:00 pm

Another step toward socialism...
User avatar
Spin
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:16 am
Location: the burbs of Akron
Favorite Player: Jack N. Coke
Least Favorite Player: 72 hour work weeks

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby dem425 » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:16 pm

BAD DECISION BY THE OSC............
Police have:

Moving/Stationary Radar
VASCAR
LASER RADAR
Pacing (most police cars have "certified" odometers)

Enough is enough...........Eyeballing a car and using Kentucky Windage to guess a speed is a recipe for disaster......
dem425
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Now in Strongsville
Favorite Player: Dick Marcinko
Least Favorite Player: All Politicians

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:41 am

dem425 wrote:BAD DECISION BY THE OSC............
Police have:

Moving/Stationary Radar
VASCAR
LASER RADAR
Pacing (most police cars have "certified" odometers)

Enough is enough...........Eyeballing a car and using Kentucky Windage to guess a speed is a recipe for disaster......


The Gallowglass were pretty cool. But they were no Franks.

BTW I passed a local church the other day to see a cop watching for speeders. His car was running and he was sleeping. Should I have honked my horn and done circles around his car while firing my pistol into the air?
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby exiledbuckeye » Fri Jun 04, 2010 9:28 am

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:
dem425 wrote:BAD DECISION BY THE OSC............
Police have:

Moving/Stationary Radar
VASCAR
LASER RADAR
Pacing (most police cars have "certified" odometers)

Enough is enough...........Eyeballing a car and using Kentucky Windage to guess a speed is a recipe for disaster......


The Gallowglass were pretty cool. But they were no Franks.

BTW I passed a local church the other day to see a cop watching for speeders. His car was running and he was sleeping. Should I have honked my horn and done circles around his car while firing my pistol into the air?


New Rome?
:lmfao:
User avatar
exiledbuckeye
 
Posts: 1561
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:12 pm
Location: Michigan
Favorite Player: OSU
Least Favorite Player: scUM

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby hermanfontenot » Fri Jun 04, 2010 12:04 pm

noles1 wrote:Miffed and puzzled by this decision. Why the incessant need to allow officers more freedom to randomly stop people?


One word: revenue. Cities are addicted to the money they extract from speeders. Some of those shithole bergs out there wouldn't exist if not for their traffic courts.

On that note, the sound of celebrating you hear is coming from Boston Heights...
User avatar
hermanfontenot
History Buff
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:52 am
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Big Z
Least Favorite Player: Jose Mesa

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:21 pm

exiledbuckeye wrote:
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:
dem425 wrote:BAD DECISION BY THE OSC............
Police have:

Moving/Stationary Radar
VASCAR
LASER RADAR
Pacing (most police cars have "certified" odometers)

Enough is enough...........Eyeballing a car and using Kentucky Windage to guess a speed is a recipe for disaster......


The Gallowglass were pretty cool. But they were no Franks.

BTW I passed a local church the other day to see a cop watching for speeders. His car was running and he was sleeping. Should I have honked my horn and done circles around his car while firing my pistol into the air?


New Rome?
:lmfao:


New Rome no longer exists. The Visigoths showed up.

The courts brought the hammer down on that glorified speed trap in 2004. The only place I ever got a speeding ticket for doing 37mph in a 35mph zone btw. (seriously)
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby peeker643 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:51 pm

hermanfontenot wrote:
noles1 wrote:Miffed and puzzled by this decision. Why the incessant need to allow officers more freedom to randomly stop people?


One word: revenue. Cities are addicted to the money they extract from speeders. Some of those shithole bergs out there wouldn't exist if not for their traffic courts.

On that note, the sound of celebrating you hear is coming from Boston Heights...


And Linndale
"Great minds think alike. The opposite is also true."

"None of us is as dumb as all of us."


I'm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/peeker643
User avatar
peeker643
Duly Noted
 
Posts: 22795
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 1:33 pm
Favorite Player: Smokey Rowe
Least Favorite Player: Dingle Stetson

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby CP » Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:47 pm

After reading the actual opinion, I'm not troubled by this at all. Officer also had a radar gun that registered the guy as going 83 in a 60, but could not produce his radar-training certification on cross examination, which potentially could knock out the radar gun reading.

If this was a more serious crime with more serious consequences upon a conviction, I'd be inclined to lean toward the other side of the debate.
User avatar
CP
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Stow, Ohio
Favorite Player: Bernie Kosar
Least Favorite Player: Colt McCoy

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby smalls1129 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:09 pm

CP wrote:After reading the actual opinion, I'm not troubled by this at all. Officer also had a radar gun that registered the guy as going 83 in a 60, but could not produce his radar-training certification on cross examination, which potentially could knock out the radar gun reading.

If this was a more serious crime with more serious consequences upon a conviction, I'd be inclined to lean toward the other side of the debate.



That's part of the problem IMO. When they are just bleeding us from our money in small intervals it isn't a big deal? As mentioned this decision certainly opens it up for small communities who already survive merely on "fines" to go full bore ahead to increase their funding.
"Strangers passing in the street, by chances two separate glances meet and I am you and what I see his me."
User avatar
smalls1129
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:02 pm
Favorite Player: A-Cab
Least Favorite Player: Squire James

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby CP » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:44 pm

smalls1129 wrote:That's part of the problem IMO. When they are just bleeding us from our money in small intervals it isn't a big deal? As mentioned this decision certainly opens it up for small communities who already survive merely on "fines" to go full bore ahead to increase their funding.


I think it's a much different case if it's a more reasonable speed. If the cop was trying to eyeball 40 in a 35 and his radar gun gets thrown out, that case doesn't have the same result. Doing 83 in a 60 like in this case? Sorry, he got busted and should just pay the fine.
User avatar
CP
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Stow, Ohio
Favorite Player: Bernie Kosar
Least Favorite Player: Colt McCoy

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby smalls1129 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:51 pm

CP wrote:
smalls1129 wrote:That's part of the problem IMO. When they are just bleeding us from our money in small intervals it isn't a big deal? As mentioned this decision certainly opens it up for small communities who already survive merely on "fines" to go full bore ahead to increase their funding.


I think it's a much different case if it's a more reasonable speed. If the cop was trying to eyeball 40 in a 35 and his radar gun gets thrown out, that case doesn't have the same result. Doing 83 in a 60 like in this case? Sorry, he got busted and should just pay the fine.



The speed doesn't matter. The judge ruled that with experience that a cop can eyeball whether a person is speeding or not. Like it or not this is precedent now, meaning a cop will get a conviction whether he "sees" it as 5 over or 10 over is insignificant.
"Strangers passing in the street, by chances two separate glances meet and I am you and what I see his me."
User avatar
smalls1129
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 1:02 pm
Favorite Player: A-Cab
Least Favorite Player: Squire James

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby CP » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:55 pm

smalls1129 wrote:The speed doesn't matter. The judge ruled that with experience that a cop can eyeball whether a person is speeding or not. Like it or not this is precedent now, meaning a cop will get a conviction whether he "sees" it as 5 over or 10 over is insignificant.


Not at all true. All the Supreme Court ruled was that the cop's estimation of the speed can be considered evidence at trial on the speed conviction. How that evidence decides the case is still a question for the trier of fact.

Cops have always been free to issue citations based on their experience; the fact that it was his eyeball estimation doesn't preclude it from being evidence. It is, and its effectiveness has to be dealt with by the trier of fact.
User avatar
CP
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Stow, Ohio
Favorite Player: Bernie Kosar
Least Favorite Player: Colt McCoy

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:01 pm

You people don't know dick about improper speed traps.

A challenger appears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome,_Ohio

New Rome police had systematically taken advantage of the village's sudden drop (from 45 mph to 35 mph) in posted speed along the busy thoroughfare of West Broad Street to pull over thousands of motorists, raising nearly $400,000 gross annually from speeding tickets but primarily vehicle citations including trivial offenses such as dusty taillights and improperly tinted windows. Nearly all of this money was funneled back into the police force, which almost exclusively dealt with traffic violations and so essentially existed to fund itself. The 60-resident village had as many as 14 policemen (all part-time), with the Village Council wanting more.[3]

Many local business owners complained that customers were being driven away by the village's reputation, and there were many reports of arbitrary and even abusive conduct at the hands of the New Rome police, who even ventured into surrounding jurisdictions to arrest people over unpaid traffic tickets.

The Ohio Department of Transportation eventually decided that New Rome's lower speed limit was inconsistent with state law guidelines. The New Rome police force itself was suspended by the village in 2003 when its chief resigned, shortly after the village's mayor's court was abolished by the state, and so the speed trap came to an end.


They suspended the whole fucking police force for being corrupt cock gobblers.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby CP » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:07 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:You people don't know dick about improper speed traps.

A challenger appears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Rome,_Ohio


Apples and oranges. Municipalities creating speed traps by artificially changing the speed limits is an entirely different ballgame than what occurred in the case that is the subject of this thread (IE whether a defendant can avoid a conviction when one of the forms of evidence can't be admitted for whatever reason).

This guy was exceeding the speed limit by a ton, the radar gun evidence wasn't admissible because the cop couldn't properly establish himself as an expert while on the stand, and the court decided there was still enough evidence to convict.
User avatar
CP
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Stow, Ohio
Favorite Player: Bernie Kosar
Least Favorite Player: Colt McCoy

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:14 pm

lol. I didn't even read the case you two are discussing. I was talking about Herm's point of cities using speed traps as a steady stream of income.

Carry on with your court case!
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby dem425 » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:17 pm

To "fine" someone based on a guess is improper. If the cop failed to follow a procedure or was negligent in that regard (insuring his certificate was valid)then the case should have been thrown out...........Believe me, there are plenty more legitimate stops to be made with very little room (or need) for "lawyerin"........
dem425
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Now in Strongsville
Favorite Player: Dick Marcinko
Least Favorite Player: All Politicians

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby CP » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:19 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:lol. I didn't even read the case you two are discussing. I was talking about Herm's point of cities using speed traps as a steady stream of income.

Carry on with your court case!


Sorry I see that now, gets hard when you have two semi-related conversations going in the same thread.
User avatar
CP
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Stow, Ohio
Favorite Player: Bernie Kosar
Least Favorite Player: Colt McCoy

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:20 pm

CP wrote:
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:lol. I didn't even read the case you two are discussing. I was talking about Herm's point of cities using speed traps as a steady stream of income.

Carry on with your court case!


Sorry I see that now, gets hard when you have two semi-related conversations going in the same thread.


No worries, man. I should've quoted.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Spin » Sun Jun 06, 2010 10:20 pm

Is anyone else worried that today it is "You looked like you were speeding, here's your ticket" to tomorrow "You 'looked' like you were up to something so you're under arrest"?

Maybe I'm thinking too much into this, but to me this is a slippery slope.
User avatar
Spin
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:16 am
Location: the burbs of Akron
Favorite Player: Jack N. Coke
Least Favorite Player: 72 hour work weeks

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:13 am

Spin wrote:Is anyone else worried that today it is "You looked like you were speeding, here's your ticket" to tomorrow "You 'looked' like you were up to something so you're under arrest"?



No.

They can do that now. Or 30 years ago.

Your half baked plan to try to turn this into a "ARGHHHH Socialist!" thread is duly noted.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Fire Marshall Bill » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:43 am

dem425 wrote:To "fine" someone based on a guess is improper. If the cop failed to follow a procedure or was negligent in that regard (insuring his certificate was valid)then the case should have been thrown out...........Believe me, there are plenty more legitimate stops to be made with very little room (or need) for "lawyerin"........


Yeah, seems this could be covered under "reckless driving" or "too fast for conditions". Both arbitrary, judgement calls

...but it is Ohio, eh?
Hope is a moment now long past
The Shadow of Death is the one I cast
Koo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus
User avatar
Fire Marshall Bill
 
Posts: 2691
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:00 pm
Favorite Player: Killer Bean
Least Favorite Player: Charcoal&Piss

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby jb » Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:50 pm

When will they be lenient on Speeding 8 Ballers?
jb
 
Posts: 17730
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Defend Youngstown
Favorite Player: Daddy Rich / Carwa$h
Least Favorite Player: Hines Ward

Re: Ohio Supreme Court rules on "eye-balling" speeders

Unread postby Spin » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:59 am

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:
Spin wrote:Is anyone else worried that today it is "You looked like you were speeding, here's your ticket" to tomorrow "You 'looked' like you were up to something so you're under arrest"?



No.

They can do that now. Or 30 years ago.


I know that. Just looking for all the conspiracy theorists, figured they would be all over this thread. I think they all moved to the NASCAR forums.

Cops have always been able to write tickets based on their perception. Go 65 down the OTP in a blizzard and find out. The thing is they rarely write them up, because they're easier to fight in court, which costs the city money, including PD OT. The main reason for radar and laser is to gather evidence and get people to pay the waiver.
User avatar
Spin
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:16 am
Location: the burbs of Akron
Favorite Player: Jack N. Coke
Least Favorite Player: 72 hour work weeks


Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest