Ohio Radar Guns

[Happy Rider]

Checkswrecks is correct, at least in California. Go sit in court and listen to an officer testify on a speed cite. The officer must testify that he/she visually estimated the speed and then used the radar / lidar to verify the estimation. This is to eliminate any false readings that might be displayed on the radar / lidar unit. Officers trained in the use of radar / lidar must demonstrate within 5 mph their ability to correctly estimate speed to be certified. Officer must recertify annually in speed estimation to remain current. It’s always good to request a discovery motion prior to your case and check for the following:

1. Officer has been radar certified and request copy of the certificate.

2. Officer has completed annual recertification in speed estimation.

3. Radar unit has been certified within 36 months.

4. Officer’s log of tuning fork calibration and internal unit test for the day in question.

5. Radar speed survey for the road if it is a prima facia speed, not a maximum speed.

All of this information is available if you ask prior to your court date. I have heard several people found guilty of speeding based on visually estimated speed without the use of radar / lidar. Most of these incidents were speeds that were well above the limit, like 55 in a 25 zone. Its doesn’t take much training to figure that one out. Of course it’s all up to the judge.

Visually estimated speed has been around for a long time. Prior to radar / lidar visually estimated speed and pacing was how speed was determined. It is not legal in California to use a stop watch over a known distance to determine speed (clocking). This is considered a speed trap. I don’t understand why this is wrong because it is a very accurate way of measuring speed.

 

[puppychow]

It is not legal in California to use a stop watch over a known distance to determine speed (clocking). This is considered a speed trap. I don’t understand why this is wrong because it is a very accurate way of measuring speed.

How is aircraft enforcement of speed limits done, if not by using a stop watch over a known distance to determine speed? Just curious.

EDIT - Also, why bother with RADAR/LIDAR/Stop clocks when all it takes is a trained officer to testify that he visually estimated you as speeding. Why bother with all the RADAR/LIDAR certifications, tuning forks, calibrations, maintenance, logs etc.

 

[SacramentoMike]

One more opinion: to me, this is a dangerous break in long-established precedent. And yes, an LEO (or I, or you) can make a reasonable estimate of when someone is speeding, if it's well over the limit or what the rest of traffic is doing, but he still needs, or always has needed, more than that, whether it's radar, or pacing, or time over a measured distance, to cite you.

My dad was a m/c cop, and he had to get behind the car he was pacing, match speeds, and then hit a button that froze his speedo needle to prove the guy's speed. But of course they relied on their own judgment to determine who to focus on and follow in the first place.

On the other hand, I have received TWO tickets (and been fortunate enough to have avoided many more) from LEOs who were simply standing just out of sight around a curve or some other obstacle and scanning ALL oncoming traffic with a radar or lidar gun. No official trained professional's judgment, substantiated by the gun. It was the gun, period. I would love to see this decision reversed.

 

[Happy Rider]

It is not legal in California to use a stop watch over a known distance to determine speed (clocking). This is considered a speed trap. I don’t understand why this is wrong because it is a very accurate way of measuring speed.

How is aircraft enforcement of speed limits done, if not by using a stop watch over a known distance to determine speed? Just curious.

EDIT - Also, why bother with RADAR/LIDAR/Stop clocks when all it takes is a trained officer to testify that he visually estimated you as speeding. Why bother with all the RADAR/LIDAR certifications, tuning forks, calibrations, maintenance, logs etc.

The vehicle in question is paced by the aircraft. Usually this is accomplished using a wing strut positioned in relation to a vehicles position. A stop watch is used to determine the speed of the aircraft between known points on the highway, usually spaced every 1/2 mile. This is how they get around the whole speed trap issue. Is there a difference? I don't know. :blink:

Read California VC section 40802 and you can read all about speed traps.

40802©(D)(2) says in essence a "speed trap" is a particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel a known distance.

 

[Fred W]

Ummm, no. It has nothing to do with wing struts. Just timing between two fixed points of a known distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASCAR

 

[reecebike]

My son-in-law (cop) has told me they are "trained" to visually calculate speed,,,,,,,, ********!!!!!
They are also trained to shoot ,,, but the majority of them couldn't hit a bull in the *** with a bass fiddle..

( I know a lot of cops and have seen them shoot.. Been to police firearm qualifications ,, Know several

police firearms instructors ,, shoot with Police officers ,, etc. etc. Some of them are excellent shots,,

but the majority of them aren't)

So, if they are as accurate visually calculating speed as they are hitting a target ,,, they could calculate

your speed at 100mph while you are at a stop light...

When they say speeding tickets are about safety ,, ********,,, most of the time it's about generating Money..

Of course cops Never speed when that are off duty ... :glare: <_<

YOU ARE SO RIGHT ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY !! THEY DONT GIVE TWO DEAD FLYS ABOUT SAFETY!!!!

 

[kolonial72]

So, if they are as accurate visually calculating speed as they are hitting a target ,,, they could calculateyour speed at 100mph while you are at a stop light...

If you're doing a hundred sitting at a stop light, you deserve a ticket. IMHO. (By the way, what's with all the commas?)

Excessive speed should be verified using more than one method. Not just visually, nor only with radar, etc. Using both ensures that the verification is not in error.

 

[old&slow]

So, if they are as accurate visually calculating speed as they are hitting a target ,,, they could calculateyour speed at 100mph while you are at a stop light...

If you're doing a hundred sitting at a stop light, you deserve a ticket. IMHO. (By the way, what's with all the commas?)

Excessive speed should be verified using more than one method. Not just visually, nor only with radar, etc. Using both ensures that the verification is not in error.

I was actually comparing accuracy to visually calculating speed.

You are sitting at a stop light and they visually calculate your speed at 100 mph ,,, and you deserve a ticket ? :blink:

re: the commas ,,,,, My finger has a speech impediment and stutters...

 

[Checkswrecks]

I grew up in Ohio, know plenty of LEOs (I'm Fed), and as far as I'm aware, all States (definitely Ohio & MD) require an officer using radar to be certified to do so. A significant part of the certification in every State's speed & radar program that I'm aware of is the demonstrated ability to estimate speed within a specified number of mph. Some States may use 3 mph; as I remember, it's 5 mph. The radar is actually a verification of the trained officer's estimate in most places, not the other way around.

So you are agreeing with the OP - that now in Ohio, they don't need radar guns anymore. Since a trained cop no longer needs to "verify" his visual speed estimation with a radar reading. His visual estimation alone is enough to convict you.

An "estimate" now proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. This estimate no longer needs to be followed by an actual measurement of speed.

Chow -

The fact is that the Ohio court was recognizing that the officer had been certified because he had demonstrated that he could repeatedly determine speed within a specific range. I should've used the words "demonstrated ability" rather than "estimate."

The most common 2 words that every officer uses over & over in any traffic court to introduce a traffic citation are "I observed..."

That's not done without a reason.

Any of the speed measurement devices are used to be more accurate beyond that.

Since you're in Cali, where there are additional regs about speed traps & such, go down to your local CHP station to ask your procedural questions of a traffic cop who is about to go out.

 

[drc32-0]

...and to think that this is the same state that had two off duty LEOs racing down I70 at over 155 mph last summer.I quess they were working on their speed estimation skills.

 

[CRMH Eagle]

An assistant district attorney for Jefferson County, CO, told me that a CO state patrol can cite a driver for speeding by simply following the driver AND not using radar AND without the need to match the speed. She said this method holds up in court even though it isn't used a lot by the officers.

 

[HotRodZilla]

That's weird. If I hadn't read it, I wouldn't believe it. When I went through the academy, during RADAR training, we were trained to estimate vehicles' speeds and had to do it to +/- 3mph. However, our estimation was verified by RADAR so we knew if we were off or not. It's pretty easy to do, but it does take some practice, and certian road characteristics can make it hard. Curves in the road always make a car seem faster than they are really going, and I would NEVER issue a citation on a speed estimation without radar verification. Maybe others would, but I don't think its fair. There's lots more to it than that, but I don't feel like typing that much.

I do issue lots of citations without using radar. Because of the type of unit I have, I pace most of my stops, and every one of them is valid because: I have been trained, I know how to testify, and I have a calibrated speedometer. Our speedometers are not off by a couple of miles per hour like civilian cars, ours are dead on, so pacing cars (following them) is perfectably acceptable.

Continuing to whine that officers write tickets for revenue is pointless. That notion is absolutely untrue. We usually don't see any of that revenue and most of us don't care if the state, county, city, or whateve says it needs money. If I was ordered to write tickets, I'd issue all warnings, costing my agency more in paper and fuel than they would really want to admit. Most of us would do exactly that.

We write citations because we see lots of wrecks and people driving too fast are in a large number of wrecks. Sorry naysayers...That's just the way it is.

Anyway...I guess everyone better slow down in Ohio. Bummer I say.

 

[El Toro Joe]

There is already talk of changing the new law, to proof of speed by radar.

 

[old&slow]

That's weird. If I hadn't read it, I wouldn't believe it. When I went through the academy, during RADAR training, we were trained to estimate vehicles' speeds and had to do it to +/- 3mph. However, our estimation was verified by RADAR so we knew if we were off or not. It's pretty easy to do, but it does take some practice, and certian road characteristics can make it hard. Curves in the road always make a car seem faster than they are really going, and I would NEVER issue a citation on a speed estimation without radar verification. Maybe others would, but I don't think its fair. There's lots more to it than that, but I don't feel like typing that much.
I do issue lots of citations without using radar. Because of the type of unit I have, I pace most of my stops, and every one of them is valid because: I have been trained, I know how to testify, and I have a calibrated speedometer. Our speedometers are not off by a couple of miles per hour like civilian cars, ours are dead on, so pacing cars (following them) is perfectably acceptable.

Continuing to whine that officers write tickets for revenue is pointless. That notion is absolutely untrue. We usually don't see any of that revenue and most of us don't care if the state, county, city, or whateve says it needs money. If I was ordered to write tickets, I'd issue all warnings, costing my agency more in paper and fuel than they would really want to admit. Most of us would do exactly that.

We write citations because we see lots of wrecks and people driving too fast are in a large number of wrecks. Sorry naysayers...That's just the way it is.

Anyway...I guess everyone better slow down in Ohio. Bummer I say.

HotRod,

I love to travel out west. I can travel across an entire state and never see a police officer. Crossing NM on I-40 a few years ago,

I was running about 80 or so in the right lane and sometimes would have people pass me...

Last year i was out west in the car ,, see a police officer ,, glance at the speedo ,, running 72 MPH and remember the

speed limit was 75 ...

I traveled half way across the state of Ohio yesterday from Columbus to Wheeling W. Va. on I-70 a little over a 100 miles...

Counted 5 State Highway patrolmen, and 2 Sheriff Deputies to Wheeling ,,, and 7 Highway patrolmen on the way back..

Here in Ohio ,, we have small towns / villages that are maybe 2 tenths of a miles long but the village limits are extended out pass

the town..

There might be farm fields on both sides of the road ,,, road straight and as flat as can be,, and the speed limit is posted at 35 mph..

These villages may also have a police force of 3 or 4 officers..

I know lots of police officers.. And you are right,, lots of them Do Not write tickets just for the money (maybe),,

But there are Lots of Speed traps around here ....

Last year I was pulled over on I-70 by a Highway patrolman ,,, 72 in a 65 zones,, dry roads , Very Light traffic, daylight ,

( maybe one or two cars in sight ) No ticket just a warning...

The patrolman told me he he pulled me over because I went past him at 72 and Never Even Slowed Down ,,, and that the expensive

car I was driving should have cruise control on it... ( plus I figured he was probably just bored )

I didn't tell him I usually set my cruise control at 72.... figured that wouldn't have helped

 

[Blind Squirrel]

Continuing to whine that officers write tickets for revenue is pointless. That notion is absolutely untrue.

Just because you say that does not make it a true statement. What we can agree on is that YOU don't write tickets to generate revenue. It is an admitted fact that in Emporia Va. (a city west of here), city police officers can do all of the overtime they want patrolling hiway 58 and writing citations. They issue citations for 1 MPH over the limit. You will never convince me it is because Emporia has safety first and foremost in their minds.

 

[SkooterG]

Wow, lots of BS rhetoric around here by peeps making some pretty big assumptions about stuff they don't know a damned thing about. Some good stuff here too. old&slow - no offense man, but do you have *anything* of value to add to this thread?

 

[Happy Rider]

That's weird. If I hadn't read it, I wouldn't believe it. When I went through the academy, during RADAR training, we were trained to estimate vehicles' speeds and had to do it to +/- 3mph. However, our estimation was verified by RADAR so we knew if we were off or not. It's pretty easy to do, but it does take some practice, and certian road characteristics can make it hard. Curves in the road always make a car seem faster than they are really going, and I would NEVER issue a citation on a speed estimation without radar verification. Maybe others would, but I don't think its fair. There's lots more to it than that, but I don't feel like typing that much.
I do issue lots of citations without using radar. Because of the type of unit I have, I pace most of my stops, and every one of them is valid because: I have been trained, I know how to testify, and I have a calibrated speedometer. Our speedometers are not off by a couple of miles per hour like civilian cars, ours are dead on, so pacing cars (following them) is perfectably acceptable.

Continuing to whine that officers write tickets for revenue is pointless. That notion is absolutely untrue. We usually don't see any of that revenue and most of us don't care if the state, county, city, or whateve says it needs money. If I was ordered to write tickets, I'd issue all warnings, costing my agency more in paper and fuel than they would really want to admit. Most of us would do exactly that.

We write citations because we see lots of wrecks and people driving too fast are in a large number of wrecks. Sorry naysayers...That's just the way it is.

Anyway...I guess everyone better slow down in Ohio. Bummer I say.

Hotrod well said. I think most people need to go on a ride along with the local police or highway man and see what we do on a daily or nightly basis. I am always amazed and amused at all of the rumors and misinformation people have about law enforcement. If they could see for themselves how few people go the speed limit and come to complete stops at stop signs, and of those, how few get tickets, then maybe they would change their mind and understand that most cops are not out to get them. Sometimes I get frustrated by the lack of common sense people exhibit when they drive past the patrol vehicle at 15 or 20 over the limit and don’t even bother to slow down. They usually say that they didn’t see the unit or they didn’t want to slow down because it would make them look guilty. Most of the ticket writing is done for people engaging in an activity that stands out compared to the average motorist. My average day can be very busy handling a variety of calls and during my shift I may not even find time to write any tickets. Most cops like off road vehicles, motorcycles, and fast cars. I make it a point to stop and talk to groups of motorcyclist parked on the side of the road or at gas stations. I get positive feedback from these contacts and it gives them a chance to see that we are just like them with many of the same interests.

As far as the whole revenue generation thing goes I don’t buy it. The majority of cops that I have worked with are conservatives and don’t like the idea of using traffic enforcement as another way of taxing the good people of this great country. I like my job and I love the positive interaction I have most of the time with the public. I have never met any cops that wouldn’t risk their own necks to rush to the scene of an emergency to help people they don’t even know.

Just my $0.02

 

[RavFJR]

I found this quite disturbing.
https://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/20...al_estimat.html

Police officer's visual estimate of speed is enough for a conviction, Ohio Supreme Court rules

By Reginald Fields, The Plain Dealer

June 02, 2010, 11:03AM

Updated at 6:30 p.m.

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A simple educated guess that a motorist is speeding is all the evidence a police officer needs to write an ironclad speeding ticket, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

In a 5-to-1 ruling, the court said an officer's "unaided visual estimation of a vehicle's speed" is strong enough to support a ticket and conviction. A radar speed detector, commonly used by patrolmen, is not needed, the court concluded.

"Independent verification of the vehicle's speed is not necessary to support a conviction for speeding," assuming the officer has been trained and certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or similar organization, Justice Maureen O'Connor wrote for the court's majority.

The court's ruling, in a Summit County traffic case, leaves little chance for drivers to argue their way out of tickets when it is their word against the officers' and nothing more.

"In light of this ruling I guess we don't need radar guns anymore, we don't need laser. We might as well throw all that technology out the window," said attorney John Kim, who argued the case on behalf of motorist Mark Jenney.

"And now a police officer based on his own human biases can stand on the side of the road and write all the tickets he wants," Kim said. "So, we have taken Draconian steps backwards."

Justice Terrence O'Donnell, who wrote a dissenting opinion, was also troubled by the majority's assertion that a trained police officer cannot possibly be wrong. O'Donnell said just because an officer says someone was speeding should not alone be good enough for a conviction.

"I would assert that a broad standard as postulated by the majority. . . eclipses the role" of a judge or jury to reject an officer's testimony, O'Donnell said, especially if the testimony is "found not to be credible (or) could in some instances be insufficient to support a conviction."

It is rare for officers to issue a ticket on observation alone, said Ted Hart, a spokesman for the Ohio Attorney General's office, which operates the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy.

"Typically an officer would observe someone that appears to be speeding and then use radar or laser to confirm it," Hart said.

That is the policy of the Ohio Highway Patrol, whose primary duty is traffic enforcement. Troopers are not allowed to stop motorists for speeding based on a visual estimate.

"It works in conjunction with radar," said patrol spokeswoman Lindsay Komlanc. "And only after confirmation of radar clocked speed would they then pull a motorist over to issue a ticket."

Justices Paul Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert Cupp joined O'Connor for the majority. O'Donnell disagreed. And Chief Justice Eric Brown, who joined the court in May, did not participate on this case.

The ruling resulted from Jenney challenging a speeding ticket he was given in 2008 by Copley police officer Christopher R. Santimarino.

Jenney appealed the ticket to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, which upheld the conviction. Jenney then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The circumstances of this case were not clear cut.

Santimarino said he observed Jenney speeding in a black SUV on Ohio 21 and later estimated he was driving at 73 mph. The speed limit on the highway was 60.

After making his visual estimate, the officer said he then checked his radar gun for confirmation. But the radar read 82 or 83 mph, Santimarino testified.

Santimarino said he decided to write Jenney a ticket for 79 mph -- closer to what the radar calculated instead of his own estimate.

But Kim, Jenney's attorney, argued that Santimarino was not qualified to operate the radar gun because the officer could not produce a certificate proving he was trained to use it or explain the two different readings.

The radar evidence was thrown out. Jenney's speeding conviction then hinged solely on the officer's estimate of 73 mph. The Barberton Municipal court ultimately decided to issue Jenney a ticket for driving 70 mph.

That was not good enough for Jenney, who insisted he was not exceeding the speed limit. Jenney also said he was driving in the right lane of the highway, not left lane as Santimarino indicated, and suggested the officer flagged the wrong vehicle.

Kim questioned the officer's ability to visually calculate speed. Santimarino, a Copley patrolman since 1995, said he was trained at the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy where officers have to be able to visually calculate speed within a few miles per hour of the posted speed limit to be certified.

"I think this ruling stinks," Kim said. "The court agreed he was incompetent to use radar but said he is competent to stand on the highway and visually estimate speed. This is ridiculous."

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray praised the ruling. His office argued the case on behalf of the Barberton court. In a court brief, Cordray said the case should never have risen above the lower court.

"If a trial court finds a trained officer's visual estimate of a vehicle's speed to be credible based on the totality of the circumstances," Cordray argued, then "this court should defer to those fact-bound determinations."

Jenney paid a $50 fine plus court costs.

OMG, next they'll be burning witches... :wizard:

 

[FjrVfr]

Seems to me like it's a pretty well documented fact that traffic citations go up based on local fiscal conditions. At least according to this study.

Plus I heard it from an ex-cop who's also an LD rider.

 

[old&slow]

Wow, lots of BS rhetoric around here by peeps making some pretty big assumptions about stuff they don't know a damned thing about. Some good stuff here too. old&slow - no offense man, but do you have *anything* of value to add to this thread?

Probably not... :blink: Did sort of get side tracked in about a half dozen different directions .. Sorry ,,, :blink: