Ohio says, if you look guilty then you are.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Shivetya, Jun 3, 2010.

  1. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #1
    http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...-for-speeding-tickets-court-rules-741192.html


    Got to love that case, Ohio's top court states, if an officer thinks your driving too fast then you are. No verification by equipment or others needed. As in, the officer is trained and certified to make these types of choices.

    WOW. I guess you can look intoxicated too, or perhaps you can look like you want to cross the border without papers or attack women... or even have bad thoughts
     
  2. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #2
    Yikes, but there has to be more to this than what we see. Isn't the Constitution still around? :confused:
     
  3. ethical macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    #3
    They forgot to mention all cops are being replaced with cyborgs, that have built in speed-guns.
     
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
  5. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #5
    There is a lot to this case we are not hearing.

    What if the guy was driving a lot faster than traffic was going? Remeber the speed limit is the max speed some one is allowed to go in good conditions.
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Cops have been giving speeding tickets since before the days of radar guns. How do you think that used to happen?
     
  7. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #7
    One can look up the ruling here...

    http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/docs/

    It's Barberton v. Jenney, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2420.

    Some tidbits...

    I added some points of emphasis.... Sorry for the rough copy & paste -- because it's a PDF...
     
  8. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #8

    Based on that little bit it looks like more proof of the press being less than truthful and just trying to stir up a mess. They left out very critical thing to the story.

    The radar showed 82 mph which I am guessing that the defense got radar part thrown out so it could not be used in court. This left just the cops training which shows is has training for it. He also wrote the ticket to 79mph which is only 9 over the limit instead of the 12 over the limit. Being over 10 mph over the limit is much worse fine and counts much harder against your insurance.
     
  9. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #9
    I agree. It seems, from the opinion, that the officer acted reasonably, and in a way that was generally consistent with procedure (I don't know why this radar certification was unavailable, and they should clear that up, but it really doesn't seem terribly relevant to the case). In the opinion, it's also stated that the Court felt that the litigant was seeking a "bright line," stipulating that visual identification is never acceptable, and the Court was making the argument that this bright line does not exist, rather than making a stronger argument that police can disregard opportunities to collect objective evidence and just "eyeball" things....
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Wait, the cops visual estimate was 70 mph, the radar gun said 84 mph, and he's supposed to be able to estimate speed to within 3-4 mph to be certified for visual ticketing? Something doesn't add up.
     
  11. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #11
    Well it could be he was only going for rough estimates to see who to target for the radar gun. Now he could of got it closer to the speed and I bet he would of been better but if he was really only looking for people going 10+ over the limit before hitting them with the gun then looking for some one going over 70 mph is pretty easy.

    The reason cops tend to choose people spending 10mph or more over the limit is they do not get taken to court as often because most people are not going to try to argue it. At 20+ (or 19mph as this person was going) it is really hard to argue that you were not speeding.

    The woman was screwed on multiple accounts. You had unsafe driving from the weaving, you had her going quite a bit faster than the flow of traffic (unsafe driving) and then you have the speeding part. She was just trying to get out of paying a fine for something she knew she was doing wrong.
     
  12. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    Wow... taking a speeding ticket all the way to the state supreme court... I wonder how much that ticket ended up costing her.
     
  13. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #13
    It would be nice if our system reimbursed the winner for costs every time.
     
  14. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #14
    Well, she did get the ticket written down from the 79MPH "niceness discount" off the radar gun, to the 70MPH visual estimate. So you have to factor that into your calculation. I mean, what, the difference in ticket fee must account for, you know, at least five or six minutes of her lawyer's time? :eek:
     
  15. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #15
    In Rhode Island, even if your ticket is dismissed, you have to $25 or so in court costs.
     
  16. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #16
    I got stopped by a Cop that was standing on the side of the road because he said It sounded like I was driving too fast. He had no equipment at all. He didn't write me a ticket but I was still astonished on his reasoning for pulling me over.
     
  17. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #17
    That might of been what he told you but really they were running a warrant check on you. they might of had reports of some one they were looking for in your area and so they were going to pull over a lot of people really just to check warrants
     
  18. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #18
    Accuracy of estimates don't account for lying and corruption - neither of which police have proven themselves to be above.
     
  19. bobertoq macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    #19
    Just because something happened in the past doesn't make it okay. If the rule of law has gotten to the point where a mere accusation is enough for a conviction, then there is no due process. In other words, the Constitution just got ****ed.

    What's next? Getting arrested because you look like an illegal immigrant? Oh wait...
     
  20. iVeBeenDrinkin' macrumors 65816

    iVeBeenDrinkin'

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #20
    Ohio is the armpit of the country. What more needs to be said?
     

Share This Page