[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Barberton v. Jenney -- Read it over, digest it, and when you're ready then we'll expose you to the Socratic method of teaching law.
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod...-ohio-2420.pdf

Interesting case facts:

"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"

"Santimarino testified on direct examination that after he visually estimated the speed of Jenney’s vehicle, he observed that the radar unit indicated that Jenney’s vehicle was traveling at 82 miles per hour."

So clearly he can't actually get anywhere close to within 3-4mph accuracy in estimating a vehicle's speed. He was off by 200-300%. This by itself does not seem to meet the reasonable doubt standard. But the fact that he had radar would be enough in my opinion to convict for this specific case.

The idea that the court excuses officers "trained in vehicle speed estimation" from proving beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was speeding still seems crazy to me. Even the facts in this case support that there would have very likely been reasonable doubt if there had not been radar.