honest speeding ticket question...

[HotCarl]

I'll sum this up the best i can. Friend got a ticket from an "pilot" state trooper (flying above in a small plane, tracking cars through a set distance and judging speed). Trooper in a car flagged us down and gave us the ticket.

 

I'm not doubting the accuracy of such a ticket however, the only description the pilot gave was a "black jeep", thus the trooper on the ground pulled over the first "black jeep" he saw and wrote the ticket. Other than this no other indication on what exact vehicle was speeding. IF my friend wanted the fight this ticket couldn't he simply show up on his court date and say "the state trooper can not confirm or deny that I was the only "black jeep" on the road that day or in the general vicinity"? Its not what you know, its what you can prove and unless the pilot has a license plate number how can they prove it was my friend who was speeding?

 

For comparison, our friend was driving behind us in a late model black accord and he got a similar ticket. How many honda accords are registered in the state of ohio at any given time?

 

My buddy didn't fight it, he just ended up eating the cost which i think was $140 or so. This is more of a hypothetical question.

[acklac7]

Judge is going to ask the ground trooper if he saw any other "black jeeps" in the area, Trooper is going to say "no". Case Closed.

 

Just my 2c.

 

Out of curiosity how fast was he going?

[HotCarl]

72mph on route 23, which i believe is 65? maybe 55mph? It was in a different county, not franklin.

 

It was a speed trap, they were doing it all day.

 

and in his defense he could always say, "if you were busy pulling my car over and talking to other motorist's how can you be sure there were no other vehicles similar to mine on the road?"

[zeitgeist57]

The State Highway Patrol plane "Hotel Papa" flies out of Don Scott (KOSU). I got nailed early last year. The only way Hotel Papa is effective is by radioing to troopers on the ground. It's a plane with officers sworn to uphold state law, relaying what they see to other sworn officers.

 

Technical? No. Effective? Unfortunately, yes.:fuuuu:

[87GT]

Oh so he was speeding? Pay the ticket and move on. Going to court when you are guilty of speeding is a waste of time and energy.

[TTQ B4U]

72mph on route 23, which i believe is 65? maybe 55mph? It was in a different county, not franklin.

 

It was a speed trap, they were doing it all day.

 

72 in a 55 I can see....still doesn't strike me as bad but it's the rule. Fuck it most of the time. 72 in a 65, pisses me off as it's just a money making BS Scam. Bust fuckers flying by at 80+ and or weaving. Let the guy just clipping along with traffic at 72mph go already...

 

My only insight is to just keep eyes wide open. Knock on wood I've not been bust in 8 years but I attribute that to luck and just paying attention. The great thing about the new Bright Blue LED's is you can see them miles down the road and spot a speed trap like this more easily as often they have several vehicles pulled over. Can't have all those cruisers just sitting around not working can we.

 

I find watching for brake lights very effective. Run Waze/trapster or both in the background on my phone most of the time too. There's always someone around that will post up a spotted trooper hiding. Improves the odds that's for sure. Lastly, try and find a fool that wants to prove he's faster. Easier to do than you think. In my MS3 I usually go for BMW's or Audi's. Those fools always want to prove they are faster than a little hatchback. Egg them on and let them set the pace and put about 1/8-1/4 mile on you and then just keep approaching them. They become your detector and cost you nothing except setting aside the urge to prove them wrong. Ditched my V1 years ago and haven't missed it.

[RyM3rC]

He should fight it as much as he can and tie up as many resources of the OSHP as possible.

[87GT]

He should fight it as much as he can and tie up as many resources of the OSHP as possible.

 

I lol'd

[acklac7]

He should fight it as much as he can and tie up as many resources of the OSHP as possible.

 

I heard OSHP has some sort of Representative present in court so the Officer doesn't have to show? Is this true?

[B3NN3TT]

I believe US 23 is now mostly a 60 MPH zone once you get out of Columbus proper. At least if you're heading south, anyway.

 

Rule of thumb, I've heard, is 10% of the speed limit plus 2 mph. Any more than that and you're definitely gonna get a ticket. Less, and it's officer's discretion.

 

So in a 60 zone, you're THEORETICALLY safe up to 68 mph. 72 is definitely too far.

[El Karacho1647545492]

I believe US 23 is now mostly a 60 MPH zone once you get out of Columbus proper. At least if you're heading south, anyway.

 

Rule of thumb, I've heard, is 10% of the speed limit plus 2 mph. Any more than that and you're definitely gonna get a ticket. Less, and it's officer's discretion.

 

So in a 60 zone, you're THEORETICALLY safe up to 68 mph. 72 is definitely too far.

 

I always heard 9 you're fine, 10 you're mine.

 

Jalopnik put together an infographic that seems to support this, and the "mph over the limit" data was collected over 2million tickets issued in...OHIO!

 

For the lazy:

9mph over = 8703 tickets

10mph over = 77,000 tickets

14mph over = 150,000 tickets

 

There's more data in there (like how fucking Ohio issues more tickets than any other state) but that's the particularly relevant stuff.

[Spidey2721]

what is everyones big deal if someone wants to fight a ticket? they have every right to. what the hell do you care? tie up resources?? really? thats a joke.

[LJ]

I always heard 9 you're fine, 10 you're mine.

 

Jalopnik put together an infographic that seems to support this, and the "mph over the limit" data was collected over 2million tickets issued in...OHIO!

 

For the lazy:

9mph over = 8703 tickets

10mph over = 77,000 tickets

14mph over = 150,000 tickets

 

There's more data in there (like how fucking Ohio issues more tickets than any other state) but that's the particularly relevant stuff.

 

Those 8700 9 over tickets were probably in school zones or dense residential areas. In that case i say, write on policeman

[KillJoy]

5 you're fine, 10 you're mine.... That's what I've always heard.

 

Unless you have a Marauder.

 

:ninja:

 

KillJoy

[Stretch]

72 in a 65, pisses me off as it's just a money making BS Scam.

 

That's still speeding. Not sure how it's a scam when you're breaking the law.

[TTQ B4U]

That's still speeding. Not sure how it's a scam when you're breaking the law.

 

The relative danger to those around me is greater when I fart in public than driving 72 in a 65. Give me a break. It's a scam to collect revenue that's all that kind of ticket is. Bust a yahoo on a bike going 80 and weaving through traffic...different story.

 

Thankfully getting busted for 72/65 seems to be a rarity. I go 72-74 all day long every day so any cops on here can feel free to look for me on 270. I'll be the guy getting past by 75% of those around me.

[El Karacho1647545492]

The relative danger to those around me is greater when I fart in public than driving 72 in a 65. Give me a break. It's a scam to collect revenue that's all that kind of ticket is. Bust a yahoo on a bike going 80 and weaving through traffic...different story.

 

Thankfully getting busted for 72/65 seems to be a rarity. I go 72-74 all day long every day so any cops on here can feel free to look for me on 270. I'll be the guy getting past by 75% of those around me.

 

Truth

 

There's a reason most states are raising speed limits. It's because the only reason speed limits are so low in the first place is fucking Nixon's idiotic idea to lower speed limits to save gas. It didn't work, but it interrupted the natural progression of speed limits increasing with advancing car technology. Why, with probably 90% of cars on the road capable of cruising safely at 80mph, should speed limits ANYWHERE be 55? Hell, the 45mph corridor on 70 downtown is a joke. It's more dangerous to interrupt the flow of traffic in such a way.

 

Speed enforcement is like NBA reffing. The fouls happen all the time but they're only called in the 4th quarter/holidays to keep the game interesting/keep revenue flowing.

[POS VETT]

Just hire a traffic lawyer. Shop around if you need to.

[Stretch]

The relative danger to those around me is greater when I fart in public than driving 72 in a 65. Give me a break. It's a scam to collect revenue that's all that kind of ticket is. Bust a yahoo on a bike going 80 and weaving through traffic...different story.

 

Thankfully getting busted for 72/65 seems to be a rarity. I go 72-74 all day long every day so any cops on here can feel free to look for me on 270. I'll be the guy getting past by 75% of those around me.

 

I agree it seems like a BS ticket, which is why I never write them, but at the end of the day it's still breaking the law.

 

To the OP. It's your word vs his in all reality. As somebody said before, all the trooper has to really say is that you were the only vehicle matching that description.

 

The pilots are "supposed" to keep their eye on the targeted vehicle until it gets stopped by ground units to prevent any mix up like you're saying. Do they actually do that? Probably not... But be prepared that they could say that.

[Ben]

Oh so he was speeding? Pay the ticket and move on. Going to court when you are guilty of speeding is a waste of time and energy.

 

Incorrect. Going to court, even when guilty, pleading, "not guilty," even when guilty, and thereby forcing the State to prove its case is the constitutionally guaranteed right of all Americans. It's also a damn smart thing to do if you don't want points on your license.

 

Unless you were doing something demonstrably stupid or you acted like an asshole to the officer, most jurisdictions will let you out the door with no points. Sure, you'll probably still pay a fine and you will pay court costs (ticket-writing is a money-maker) but you won't inch closer to that 12-point license suspension. Also, if you have a decent traffic attorney and a relatively clean record, some courts will allow you to plead to an equipment violation (which means no insurance hike and still a clean driving record).

 

In short, pleading, "guilty" when you are, "guilty," does save time and energy - the prosecution's time and energy. That's why you should never give up a right without getting something in return. If you don't plead guilty, the prosecution has to prove the case. By pleading guilty, even if they've got you dead-to-rights, you save them time and money and that ought to be worth something.

 

It probably goes without saying, but the principal of pleading "not guilty" as a first step applies with even more force in any case where there is even the slightest chance that you are not guilty or the prosecution will find itself with a legitimate challenge to prove your guilt. In this case, I'd have to say that the prosecutor probably could have obtained a conviction against your friend in the black Jeep. But, depending on his record, a decent attorney very likely could have gotten him a better deal than simply pleading guilty to the moving violation and paying his fine.

[Ben]

I agree it seems like a BS ticket, which is why I never write them, but at the end of the day it's still breaking the law.

 

Kudos to you for that, sir. We need more officers with common sense.

 

A lot of legislation (traffic crimes, jaywalking, etc.) is designed to provide a way for officers stop suspicious persons without needing to know exactly what about them is suspicious. In a way, the modern nanny state is largely a reaction to the repeal of the old vagrancy/loitering regimes. But somewhere along the line, municipalities began to realize this was a cash cow and some officers, under pressure from those municipalities, don't seem to realize that it's not really a productive thing for society to fine and prosecute citizenry for crimes that, at any given time, 95% of us are committing.

 

I mean, for heaven's sake, between jaywalking, assured clear distance, speeding, and turn signal within 100 feet of the turn/lane change, I probably committed a dozen minor crimes today and so did everyone else who is reading this - not to mention the technical copyright violations that you all are committing as your computer cashes a copy of this very text.

~ Authored and copyrighted by Ben.

[acklac7]

Incorrect. Going to court, even when guilty, pleading, "not guilty," even when guilty, and thereby forcing the State to prove its case is the constitutionally guaranteed right of all Americans. It's also a damn smart thing to do if you don't want points on your license.

 

Unless you were doing something demonstrably stupid or you acted like an asshole to the officer, most jurisdictions will let you out the door with no points. Sure, you'll probably still pay a fine and you will pay court costs (ticket-writing is a money-maker) but you won't inch closer to that 12-point license suspension. Also, if you have a decent traffic attorney and a relatively clean record, some courts will allow you to plead to an equipment violation (which means no insurance hike and still a clean driving record).

 

In short, pleading, "guilty" when you are, "guilty," does save time and energy - the prosecution's time and energy. That's why you should never give up a right without getting something in return. If you don't plead guilty, the prosecution has to prove the case. By pleading guilty, even if they've got you dead-to-rights, you save them time and money and that ought to be worth something.

 

It probably goes without saying, but the principal of pleading "not guilty" as a first step applies with even more force in any case where there is even the slightest chance that you are not guilty or the prosecution will find itself with a legitimate challenge to prove your guilt. In this case, I'd have to say that the prosecutor probably could have obtained a conviction against your friend in the black Jeep. But, depending on his record, a decent attorney very likely could have gotten him a better deal than simply pleading guilty to the moving violation and paying his fine.

 

 

Kudos to you for that, sir. We need more officers with common sense.

 

A lot of legislation (traffic crimes, jaywalking, etc.) is designed to provide a way for officers stop suspicious persons without needing to know exactly what about them is suspicious. In a way, the modern nanny state is largely a reaction to the repeal of the old vagrancy/loitering regimes. But somewhere along the line, municipalities began to realize this was a cash cow and some officers, under pressure from those municipalities, don't seem to realize that it's not really a productive thing for society to fine and prosecute citizenry for crimes that, at any given time, 95% of us are committing.

 

I mean, for heaven's sake, between jaywalking, assured clear distance, speeding, and turn signal within 100 feet of the turn/lane change, I probably committed a dozen minor crimes today and so did everyone else who is reading this - not to mention the technical copyright violations that you all are committing as your computer cashes a copy of this very text.

~ Authored and copyrighted by Ben.

 

Well Said ~ +rep

Edited July 16, 2014 by acklac7

[smokinHawk1647545499]

both the pilot and the officer issuing the ticket has to show up in court.

the ticket issuing officer cannot speak for the pilot or it is here say.

 

did the pilot get the license plate to the officer. If no there is reasonable doubt that there could be a similar looking vehicle.

[bicranium]

here say..

 

HEARSAY. I MISSED THAT WORD IN A 5TH GRADE SPELLING BEE AT MY SCHOOL AND I WILL NEVER FORGET.

[87GT]

Incorrect. Going to court, even when guilty, pleading, "not guilty," even when guilty, and thereby forcing the State to prove its case is the constitutionally guaranteed right of all Americans. It's also a damn smart thing to do if you don't want points on your license.

 

Unless you were doing something demonstrably stupid or you acted like an asshole to the officer, most jurisdictions will let you out the door with no points. Sure, you'll probably still pay a fine and you will pay court costs (ticket-writing is a money-maker) but you won't inch closer to that 12-point license suspension. Also, if you have a decent traffic attorney and a relatively clean record, some courts will allow you to plead to an equipment violation (which means no insurance hike and still a clean driving record).

 

In short, pleading, "guilty" when you are, "guilty," does save time and energy - the prosecution's time and energy. That's why you should never give up a right without getting something in return. If you don't plead guilty, the prosecution has to prove the case. By pleading guilty, even if they've got you dead-to-rights, you save them time and money and that ought to be worth something.

 

It probably goes without saying, but the principal of pleading "not guilty" as a first step applies with even more force in any case where there is even the slightest chance that you are not guilty or the prosecution will find itself with a legitimate challenge to prove your guilt. In this case, I'd have to say that the prosecutor probably could have obtained a conviction against your friend in the black Jeep. But, depending on his record, a decent attorney very likely could have gotten him a better deal than simply pleading guilty to the moving violation and paying his fine.

 

Yes it is in your American rights to a fair trial. I hate the speed limits myself and they should be raised IMO. If you feel your total time traveling to the court office, paying court or lawyer fees, and waiting on the verdict are worth it go for it. Don't let me stop you. Paying ~$150 for something I did against the law when I knew it was against the law sounds like a better use of my time. After I make my payment online by electronic transaction I have all this extra time to do other things. I think I will speed again on my way to work because I am sorry I thought this was America.