WTF! Ohio Supreme Court Rules That Drivers Can Now Be Ticketed By Visual Guessing!

In the 21st Century, The Hoodlums who run the Ohio Supreme Court have decided to rule 5-1 to allow Cops to give tickets without the use of 21st Century Radar. Yes I repeat, tickets without Radar in the 21st Century. Pretty Draconian I know. This stems from a 2008 Copley, Ohio case where a Cop said a Man was driving too fast. When this cop did not produce evidence using radar, he estimated how fast the driver was going. Note: Police are trained to estimate a driver's speed within 3 to 4 miles an hour of accuracy.

Yeah I'm fired up, and you should be too!! If you were here you can hear all of the expletives coming out of my mouth. If they can do it in Ohio they can do it anywhere. This puts everybody's rights in Jeopardy. They can lie and abuse their power too without proof of radar, as this Alternative Automotive Journalist has first hand personal knowledge of. Just be careful while Speeding, as this is AutoSpies and I know everybody here does.


Read Article

HSCenterconsole - 6/3/2010 9:37:51 AM

+6 Boost

This is BS. They should have to use a device to measure speed (preferably radar since my V1 sniffs that out the best).

Agent009 - 6/3/2010 9:58:52 AM

+4 Boost

It is purely a revenue stream according my sources in Ohio.

ThierryHenry14 - 6/3/2010 10:16:44 AM

-4 Boost

The guy was speeding and got caught. So whats the big deal. If the court rules that speeding is an offense that does not need "evidence" from a device, then so be it. Don't speed in front of a police. Enough said!

Agent009 - 6/3/2010 10:21:12 AM

+6 Boost

It clears the way for you to be ticketed and found guilty without any proof.

If the officer is having a bad day he simply can tag on a speeding ticket, or if he is short on his quota, then just stop a few people and issue a ticket or two or three.

The bad thing is you can't defend against this sort of thing.

sstainba - 6/3/2010 10:36:25 AM

+6 Boost

How does this not go against the presumption of innocence? It requires proof. A single interested eye-witness does not constitute proof because of the obvious stake in the matter. This is bullshit.

Though, to be fair, using a radar gun isn't really much better since, unless it has a camera attached to it, there is nothing to indicate WHICH car was going XXX mph.

cdoke - 6/3/2010 10:38:33 AM

+5 Boost

This ruling presumes that the accusation itself constitutes proof. This is false.

monster - 6/3/2010 11:02:03 AM

+5 Boost

And you are ok with that? what if you are going 55mph on a 55mph and you get a speeding ticket. Are you going to deal with it?

monster - 6/3/2010 10:58:23 AM

+5 Boost

Guilty until proven innocent. And since there is no proof you are guilty. We no longer need a court or judge because the police is your court and judge. I am telling you that you are speeding... no ifs or buts.
Are we living in the 15th century?

uaw_lax - 6/3/2010 11:03:11 AM

+5 Boost

Ohio is a drivers nightmare state to many toll roads and cops at every turn looking to get his qota.

lexusrox123 - 6/3/2010 10:41:10 PM

+2 Boost

This is an outright joke. Enough said.