Ohio Supreme Court ruling only upholds law--it does NOT change a damn thing.

First off, 13 years as LEO and Training officer give me a little background on the subject.

This little bit is simply my retort to all the stupid people who think that they are getting "Screwed" by law enforcement with the Courts ruling. Fact is, you are not, nor has it changed ANYTHING about the way you are pulled over for speed.

Actually this is just confirming what the was already in place. An officer has never really needed radar and laser to cite for speed. Those, under the way the statute was written, were just confirmation of what the officer already knew; you were speeding. When I was an officer, I could get within an mile plus or minus of how fast a vehicle was going--the radar just confirmed what I already knew.

When an officer takes gets his certification for radar/laser by the end of the week he has to--and can--estimate the speed of 25 vehicles in a row with a variation of plus of minus five miles an hour. It's not as hard as people think.

How do you think people were pulled over for speed before radar? It was an estimation on the part of the officer. Most officers give people ten or more miles over the limit anyway, in spite of what the average Joe claims about their own estimated speed when they are pulled over.

I'm sorry, maybe it is my bias or my cynicism, but the vast majority of officers don't just randomly pull people over for the hell of it. Probable Cause is fairly easy to establish and reasonable doubt is the duty of the defense to establish; which they didn't do in this case. The reasonable doubt in most cases; every mother fucker speeds. A person who says that they don't speed is a liar. A person who denies speeding when pulled over, doubly so. Speeding is an easy thing to establish and prove, based on the traffic around you, the officers observation of you and the traffic conditions.

To paraphrase the Ohio Attorney General the court found that "a trained officer's visual estimate of a vehicle's speed to be credible based on the totality of the circumstances." I hope I don't have to go into a big explanation of what Totality of Circumstances means, but in short, it means that if traffic is traveling at a consistent speed, say 70 mph by the officers observation, and you pass that traffic at 80 mph by the officers estimation, you are speeding and exceeding the limit which is safe for travel by moving faster than those around you. Throw in adverse weather conditions and you've got an even better case against you for speed. You've got Troopers out there who have been pulling people over for years, they can estimate speed with one eye closed. How many of you do math in your head without the aid of a calculator? Or have tasks around the job that you're supposed to use a mechanical aid but through time and experience simply "know" how to do it.

It's the same thing.

Remember the next time you get pulled over for speed--admit to yourself you were speeding, you were, you know you were, the officer knows you were and so does every mothers-son who drives by and rubbernecks to laugh at you because you did.

All of this is the reason why I never argue when I get pulled over. I already know the officer is right. He's been doing it for a while and it's really not guess work.