Casper Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 They are just trying to protect us. Be glad there's thousands of tickets written to "slow us down"...p.s. And gun control keeps us safe from criminals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessecwalters Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 It doesnt matter. Its a ticket you will have to pay and will go on your record.Well yea it goes on your record, I assumed it would. I was just curious if it would put points on your insurance or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester851 Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 awesome. But what kind of ticket will they give you exactly? I know theres like certain degrees of speeding tickets. What kind will this be? will it put points on your license/insurance? or just a pay-up ticket?E) In every charge of violation of this section the affidavit and warrant shall specify the time, place, and speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven, and in charges made in reliance upon division © of this section also the speed which division (B)(1)(a), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7), or (8) of, or a limit declared or established pursuant to, this section declares is prima-facie lawful at the time and place of such alleged violation, except that in affidavits where a person is alleged to have driven at a greater speed than will permit the person to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead the affidavit and warrant need not specify the speed at which the defendant is alleged to have driven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flounder Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 but our nation will fight to the bitter end if they check to see if you're a citizen while checking your seatbelt, BAC, text message history, proof of insurance, registration, and having the drug dog sniff around without probable cause.Youre wrong. Only the people that have the money to fight and actually understand what is going on that is wrong will fight. I would say 85% of the population this happens to will not fight due to the effort involved or wont have the funds to fight it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester851 Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 Youre wrong. Only the people that have the money to fight and actually understand what is going on that is wrong will fight. I would say 85% of the population this happens to will not fight due to the effort involved or wont have the funds to fight it.Well Put- at the end of the day who can afford to take a day off work, pay for an attorney if you want any chance at winning, to wind up paying anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 I suppose now we'll be able to subpoena the officers' visits to the optometrists office... if they aren't going to need a calibrated radar or laser, the cop should at least have his eyes calibrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timotheus Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 can this go to the U.S. supreme court ? for a police officer to be able to say someone is going too fast and a citizen to not have any recourse is insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 can this go to the U.S. supreme court ? for a police officer to be able to say someone is going too fast and a citizen to not have any recourse is insane.No, they HAVE legal recourse... it's just not a very good process for people that have to work and do other shit for a living than spend it in the court system (ala what the flat fish said) -- so most people are better off economically, by just paying it.I bet this guy spent $1000+ (maybe closer to $2k-$3k) just going through the appeals processes to get it to the Ohio Supreme Court. This will be an expensive ticket for him and set a dangerous legal precedent for the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 I have a couple of problems with this:- Direct from the syllabus of the ruling: "...and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed."Seems to me that "experienced" is open to interpretation. Does "experience" entail watching 400 cars per shift, 200 shifts per year, and 2 years of doing nothing but traffic patrol? Or is it 5 years? Or 1 month?("Santimarino" is the policeman who wrote the original speeding citation)- Direct from the ruling: "...In order to be certified by OPOTA, Santimarino was required to show that he could visually estimate a vehicle’s speed to within three to four miles per hour of the vehicle’s actual speed..." "Santimarino testified that based on his training and experience, he had estimated that Jenney’s vehicle was traveling 70 miles per hour..." "...he observed that the radar unit indicated that Jenney’s vehicle was traveling at 82 miles per hour."So in order to pass the "I can visually guesstimate your speed" certification, you have to be within 3-4 mph of the actual speed. The officer guessed/estimated the appellant's speed to be 70, when in fact, if his radar is to be believed, the true speed was 82. For those that have trouble with math, the difference is 12, not 3-4 as required in order to be certified. Giving the officer the benefit of the doubt, he was 200% beyond the margin of error that one is allowed and still be certified.I will cede that <some> officers, perhaps a majority of those that regulary perform traffic patrol, perhaps a minority, are able to visually estimate a vehicle's speed within the 3-4 mph certification guideline. I will not, however, say that Santimarino, the officer in question, is able to. He proved his lack of ability to do so unequivocally in this case.I don't see how the Supremes were able to rule the way they did in this case. The facts certainly did NOT support the ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester851 Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 I have a couple of problems with this:- Direct from the syllabus of the ruling: "...and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed."Seems to me that "experienced" is open to interpretation. Does "experience" entail watching 400 cars per shift, 200 shifts per year, and 2 years of doing nothing but traffic patrol? Or is it 5 years? Or 1 month?("Santimarino" is the policeman who wrote the original speeding citation)- Direct from the ruling: "...In order to be certified by OPOTA, Santimarino was required to show that he could visually estimate a vehicle’s speed to within three to four miles per hour of the vehicle’s actual speed..." "Santimarino testified that based on his training and experience, he had estimated that Jenney’s vehicle was traveling 70 miles per hour..." "...he observed that the radar unit indicated that Jenney’s vehicle was traveling at 82 miles per hour."So in order to pass the "I can visually guesstimate your speed" certification, you have to be within 3-4 mph of the actual speed. The officer guessed/estimated the appellant's speed to be 70, when in fact, if his radar is to be believed, the true speed was 82. For those that have trouble with math, the difference is 12, not 3-4 as required in order to be certified. Giving the officer the benefit of the doubt, he was 200% beyond the margin of error that one is allowed and still be certified.I will cede that <some> officers, perhaps a majority of those that regulary perform traffic patrol, perhaps a minority, are able to visually estimate a vehicle's speed within the 3-4 mph certification guideline. I will not, however, say that Santimarino, the officer in question, is able to. He proved his lack of ability to do so unequivocally in this case.I don't see how the Supremes were able to rule the way they did in this case. The facts certainly did NOT support the ruling.^^^^^^^Agreed! I think if you ask around, a majority of traffic enforcement officers are going to tell you that it's much easier to get a ticket upheld in court if some type of speed measuring tool was used. Most officers don't do this type of guesstimating, they have a radar, and a laser in every car in most cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 ^^^^^^^Agreed! I think if you ask around, a majority of traffic enforcement officers are going to tell you that it's much easier to get a ticket upheld in court if some type of speed measuring tool was used. Most officers don't do this type of guesstimating, they have a radar, and a laser in every car in most cases.But now they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jessecwalters Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 this is ghey, ghey, ghey. Im just going to start frucking walking. But they'd prolly give me a ticket for jay-walking or something. cant win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 why would the visual estimation even be mentioned in this case if they had a radar clock on him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZIXXER9R Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 this is ghey so if traffic is moving along 5 mph under the speed limit and U pass them going the speed limit you are gonna get a ticket... how many times have all of you been on the freeway and traffic is crawling so you go around but dont speed yeah prolly happened to all of us............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 this is ghey so if traffic is moving along 5 mph under the speed limit and U pass them going the speed limit you are gonna get a ticket... how many times have all of you been on the freeway and traffic is crawling so you go around but dont speed yeah prolly happened to all of us.............NO NO NO! The officers are trained, experienced, and certified, as evidenced in this case. They could not possibly make an error of 5 mph from the actual speed. 12, maybe, but not 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester851 Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 But now they can.They could before- the supreme court is up holding a previous decision. We are just now finding out about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSVDon Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 Time to start running? Might as well have some fun, you're going to get shafted with $3000 in fees anyways. Let's see if they can guesstimate the speed of a car traveling at 160+ mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 I've been going to the dragstrip for the last 20 years... I'm qualified to judge speeds from near triple digits up to 330mph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhaoticRebel Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 So whether or not I get a ticket is based on somebody's opinion? LOL, what happens if we were to extend this same thinking to other crimes? You have a dent in your fender, hmm, you look like you were involved in a hit and run. GUILTY. You look like a pedophile. GUILTY! (If you've watched Dateline: To Catch a Predator more than once you're qualified to arrest on the spot.) You look like a serial killer. GUILTY! (Dexter fanatics can be qualified to spot these baddies.) Dumb, dumb, dumb ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 so ...... either need a jetski....or learn to fly.........ohh f***....my last name starts with Q and I am brown......so I am on terrorist watch list......or I need a job in Montana...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodyman Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 I think that every officer that tickets under this rule, should have to under-go a drug test after every estimated speeder. This is just like a calibration type situation. Who is to say that these officers are not impaired, and unable to make that correct assessment. This is an unfair law, and should be abolished!!! Too many potential unknown circumstances that can come into play here!!! Seems unconstitutional as far as I am concerned!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollywood3586 Posted June 2, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 ^ Agreed!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 They could before- the supreme court is up holding a previous decision. We are just now finding out about it.If I'm not mistaken, an estimated speed was only okay when there was an accident. The only thing the supreme court upheld was the lower court's ruling that estimated speed was okay for a speeding ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 Food for thoughthttp://www.lawfirms.com/resources/criminal-defense/traffic-tickets/cross-examine-officer-speeding-ticket.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad324 Posted June 2, 2010 Report Share Posted June 2, 2010 so ...... either need a jetski....or learn to fly.........ohh f***....my last name starts with Q and I am brown......so I am on terrorist watch list......or I need a job in Montana......trust me the water nazi's are just as bad if not worse than cops 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.