Harb67 Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 I'm shocked that such a ridiculous case made it so far. I figured people might like to hear about one where the 'little guy' won, especially after all the talk about HB191 and the other various ridiculous laws/cases involving speeding, driving, etc that pop up in our state. And who knows, maybe someone here could use this info to their advantage in a future case.http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2986.aspOhio Appeals Court: No Speeding Tickets for Fast Sounding CarsOhio Court of Appeals rules that a police officer cannot issue a speeding ticket because a car sounds fast.The Ohio Court of Appeals on Monday ruled that a motorist cannot be convicted of speeding based solely on how fast his car may have sounded. On October 18, 2007, Patrolman Ken Roth ticketed Daniel Freitag in the village of West Salem as Freitag was driving with his wife Jane on US Route 42. Roth claimed his radar unit clocked Freitag at 42 MPH in a 35 zone. Roth also claimed he could hear Freitag's 2006 Lincoln Navigator speeding."As it approached I could hear the vehicle on the roadway which based on my training and experience it is consistent with a vehicle that was in excess of the posted speed limit," Roth testified.A trial court judge on November 16, 2007 accepted this testimony and found Freitag guilty. Freitag challenged this decision before the Ohio Court of Appeals on the grounds that the radar evidence was not admissible. The trial court claimed it had taken judicial notice of the "Genesis Radar" that Roth used, but the state failed to specify which particular radar model was used. Freitag won on the point that the radar evidence was improperly admitted, but he lost as the court sent the case back to the trial judge to rule whether the officer's estimate of Freitag's speed based on the Navigator's sound was credible. The trial court once again supported the officer and ruled that Freitag was guilty.Freitag, however, did not give up. He appealed a second time, insisting that the officer's testimony that he could estimate a vehicle's speed by its sound or by watching a car's headlights through the patrol car's rear-view mirror was absurd. This time, the appeals court agreed."In weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences and considering the credibility of the witnesses, we conclude that this presents the exceptional case, where the evidence weighs heavily in favor of Freitag," Judge Donna J. Carr wrote for the court. "The weight of the evidence does not support the conclusion that Freitag was exceeding the posted speed limit, specifically because Patrolman Roth's testimony that he audibly and visibly determined that Freitag was speeding is not credible... It is simply incredible, in the absence of reliable scientific, technical, or other specialized information, to believe that one could hear an unidentified vehicle 'speeding' without being able to determine the actual speed of the vehicle." Calling the trial judge's ruling a "manifest miscarriage of justice," the court reversed Freitag's conviction.A copy of the final appeals court decision is available in a 50k PDF file at the source link below.Source: Ohio v. Freitag (Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, 12/7/2009) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverEnough Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 I fought the law and the the...I WON! I WON! I WON!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) Roth claimed his radar unit clocked Freitag at 42 MPH in a 35 zone.Am I missing something here? The cops clocked him, all the rest should be pretty irrelevant.Edit: Ok, found what I was missing. In a separate action the court threw out the radar readings. Edited December 14, 2009 by Tonik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedwolf02 Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 so if i were to accelerate to the posted speed limit (lets say 45mph) the officer could pull me over just cause i sounded fast.. so lets say i ripped into 1st and then 2nd with out breaking tires loose or anything. the cop could pull me over?? just cause i sounded to fast.. bs.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 THIS is what happens when you have the money and time to fight the law....How many people and cases never make it this far because they don't have the time and money? Too many... this court system supports the rich only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natedogg624 Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 so if i were to accelerate to the posted speed limit (lets say 45mph) the officer could pull me over just cause i sounded fast.. so lets say i ripped into 1st and then 2nd with out breaking tires loose or anything. the cop could pull me over?? just cause i sounded to fast.. bs..If this new street racing bill passes, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Wow, you mean after 2 appeals the judge finally agreed that the cop couldnt guess that this guy was doing 7 over the limit? Its a shame and an injustice that this man had to appeal this ridiculous conviction. I'm glad he was persistent in fighting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustinsn3485 Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 so if i were to accelerate to the posted speed limit (lets say 45mph) the officer could pull me over just cause i sounded fast.. so lets say i ripped into 1st and then 2nd with out breaking tires loose or anything. the cop could pull me over?? just cause i sounded to fast.. bs..I actually got pulled over, but not ticketed, for that once.Crossed over a set of RR tracks in first, throttled hard then shifted to second. I barely broke the 35mph speed limit. The officer was apparently the car coming at me and while he told me he didn't get a radar reading on me my headlight went up and down so quickly that I had to be speeding.He threatened to give me a ticket unless I admitted to speeding. I asked him what the ticket would be for and his response was something about not cooperating with an officer. However if I admitted to speeding he was just going to give me a verbal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverEnough Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 uhhhhhmmmm innocent til proven guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 He threatened to give me a ticket unless I admitted to speeding. I asked him what the ticket would be for and his response was something about not cooperating with an officer. However if I admitted to speeding he was just going to give me a verbal.Wow.. tell me you just stood there with your mouth shut. I was gonna say the same thing IP. Don't admit to anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yotaman88210 Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 I hate our court system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 so if i were to accelerate to the posted speed limit (lets say 45mph) the officer could pull me over just cause i sounded fast.. so lets say i ripped into 1st and then 2nd with out breaking tires loose or anything. the cop could pull me over?? just cause i sounded to fast.. bs..They refer to that as "gross display of speed," and it's a tenuous ticket at best. if you don't lift the front wheel or spin the tires, I agree that it's a non-crime.the new bill inserts the same scenario into the definition of 'racing,' but essentially it's to prevent 'legal' racing.my brother and I used to do this all the time on Route 8. There's that stretch where the speed limit is 50mph, but there are still stop lights every few miles. 0-50 was technically legal. "gross display of speed" prevents us from 'competing' up to a legal speed.with enough money, you can fight a lot of tickets. Cops are rarely infallible, and a good lawyer can get a LOT of evidence suppressed. that's how DUI attorneys make a living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaysonL Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 God I hate our court system!I had something along these lines.... (some may say I'm at fault, I think I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time):It was about 9am, and I was passing Kent Rosevelt High School going to work up north. The school zone sign wasn't flashing and school had already been in session for over an hour. There wasn't any other cars around to gauge my speed on so I was going about 39 in a 35. Cop just outside of the zone pulls me over for speeding in a school zone. I explained the situation to him, but, still got the ticket because I just "should have known better." Repeated this story to the Judge who was a little more forgiving admitting he understood my situation, but, since I'm a minor he couldn't do anything about it and had to penalize me....Ohio Driving Laws are bullshit. Our state fucks us over every way possible and shit needs to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that dude Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Ftp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 That's the problem with a lot of "our" traffic laws, they are intended to protect people but they end up being just another form of taxation.Going 40 in a 35 is not a danger to the general public, and to the same extent, a blue hair driving 15 in a 35 IS a danger, but who do you think they are pulling over first? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeefZah Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Congratulations on beating a $75 ticket with only a $5000 outlay in legal fees.Guess he showed that stupid cop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V4junkie Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 Ummm how many years has it been since you got a speeding ticket? It'll be almost double that. (not saying it's near what he paid the lawyer though) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serpentracer Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) THIS is what happens when you have the money and time to fight the law....How many people and cases never make it this far because they don't have the time and money? Too many... this court system supports the rich only.it's also who you know...CINCINNATI (AP) -- A criminal count has been dismissed against a Cincinnati city councilman's daughter charged after an incident in which she was tased by police.A judge said Wednesday that Celeste Thomas should not have been charged with possessing an open container because officers had no right to search the vehicle she was riding in. Police said she had a bottle of vodka during an Aug. 23 traffic stop.you and I would have been slapped with the max penalty. loss of our driving privileges, max $$ fine, and probably the most jail time you can get.if your daddy works for the city council..you can do anything you want and get away with it. Edited December 17, 2009 by serpentracer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serpentracer Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) Congratulations on beating a $75 ticket with only a $5000 outlay in legal fees.Guess he showed that stupid cop.lol...there's no such thing as a $75 speeding ticket any longer. well, not in cincinnati.my brother got one like 5 years ago and the starting price was $130 or something like that.plus 2 pts. that was for 5 over.see the part about this law is it allows a cop with a personal vendeta against someone they know or have arrested before (don't act like this doesn't happen because they do it on the tv show cops all the damn time) the power to be judge, juror, and executioner right there on the spot.spin your tires in the rain or snow...you'll get pulled over and car is searched. this law will allow the cop to call that racing and thus the cops are never wrong..so at the min it will be towed/impounded and you pay a fee to retrieve it, loose a day of work to go to court only to have the ticket dropped but you are stuck with court fee's....it's a win win for the system once again.it's only about the $$ to them. and it always will be about the $$. Edited December 17, 2009 by serpentracer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted December 17, 2009 Report Share Posted December 17, 2009 you can counter-sue for attorney fees to prevent just such cases of injustice.that happened when i was on jury duty actually. The Plaintiff realized he did shitty on the witness stand, and wanted to settle. The defendant resisted the settlement because he was pretty sure he would win on the counter-suit.It ended up that the plaintiff paid the DEFENDANT to let the suit drop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.