Speeding: We Don’t Need No Stinking Radar
Supreme Court of Ohio: City of Barberton v. Jenny
Maybe he wasn’t traveling faster than a speeding bullet, but defendant Mark Jenny was driving fast enough to catch the eye of Officer Santimarino. The question the court had to resolve: Was catching a speeder with your eyes enough to convict?
Officer Santimarino was with the Copley Police Department for 13 years. He was certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy, where he was trained to visually estimate vehicle speeds. In fact, to become certified, he had to show that he could estimate a vehicle’s speed “to within three to four miles per hour of the actual speed.”
PO Santimarino eyeballed Jenny at 70 mph in a 60.
He was also operating a radar gun at the time. He clocked Jenny at 82.
So much for estimating “within three to four miles per hour.”
He issued Jenny a citation for doing 79.
So much for modern math.
(In fairness to the cop, he testified he was doing Jenny a favor by reducing the speed on the citation so he wouldn’t have to make a personal appearance in court.)
At trial, Officer Santimarino could not produce a copy of his radar training certificate. That meant the radar results were precluded and that the only evidence in support of the speeding ticket was the visual observation of Jenny’s speed.
Jenny moved to dismiss arguing that the city failed to meet its burden of proof—or more accurately, that it had no proof of speeding at all. The lower court dismissed Jenny’s motion and found him guilty based only on the cop’s estimate of speed (which the court reduced to 70 mph on the citation since the speeding was now "clocked" at 70 mph by the only admissible evidence). That the court was aware of the radar result gave it confidence to convict, but it had no influence on its decision (wink, wink!). Punishment: a $50 fine plus costs.
Jenny appealed.
The court of appeals held that the state could not use the radar as proof of speed because there was no certification produced but that hearing about the radar reading was harmless error. There was still “sufficient” proof if a trained law man knew Jenny was speeding by seeing him do so. Conviction upheld.
Jenny appealed again.
Ohio's highest court resolved conflicting state court decisions without batting an eye:
We hold that a police officer’s unaided visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, by itself, is sufficient to support a conviction for violation of R.C. 4511.21 (D) without independent verification of the vehicles speed if the officer is trained, is certified by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy or a similar organization…and is experienced in visually estimating vehicle speed.
For Jenny, not the blind justice he was hoping for.
This gives new meaning to the phrase “I’ll see you in court.”
Keep an eye on this trend. It may put a lid on your ability to ever meaningfully challenge a speeding ticket.
