Ohio Court of Appeals rules that a police officer cannot issue a speeding ticket because A CAR SOUNDS FAST.

The Ohio Court of Appeals on Monday ruled that a motorist cannot be convicted of speeding based solely on how fast his car may have sounded. On October 18, 2007, Patrolman Ken Roth ticketed Daniel Freitag in the village of West Salem as Freitag was driving with his wife Jane on US Route 42. Roth claimed his radar unit clocked Freitag at 42 MPH in a 35 zone. Roth also claimed he could hear Freitag’s 2006 Lincoln Navigator speeding.

“As it approached I could hear the vehicle on the roadway which based on my training and experience it is consistent with a vehicle that was in excess of the posted speed limit,” Roth testified.

A trial court judge on November 16, 2007 accepted this testimony and found Freitag guilty. Freitag challenged this decision before the Ohio Court of Appeals on the grounds that the radar evidence was not admissible. The trial court claimed it had taken judicial notice of the “Genesis Radar” that Roth used, but the state failed to specify which particular radar model was used. Freitag won on the point that the radar evidence was improperly admitted, but he lost as the court sent the case back to the trial judge to rule whether the officer’s estimate of Freitag’s speed based on the Navigator’s sound was credible. The trial court once again supported the officer and ruled that Freitag was guilty.

Freitag, however, did not give up. He appealed a second time, insisting that the officer’s testimony that he could estimate a vehicle’s speed by its sound or by watching a car’s headlights through the patrol car’s rear-view mirror was absurd. This time, the appeals court agreed.

Read the rest of this entry »

Several new Texas laws went into effect on September 1, 2009. Among them was one prohibiting the use of cell phones (and pagers, texting devices, etc.) in a school zone.

House Bill 55 made it illegal to “use a wireless communication device (while driving) in a school zone unless the vehicle is stopped or a hands-free device is used”. However, it’s a defense to prosecution if the operator was making an emergency call.

However, there is one caveat — Cities or counties wanting to enforce this law must post a sign at the beginning of each school zone to inform drivers that using a wireless communications device is prohibited and the operator is subject to a fine.

I have yet to see an actual case of this law being enforced anywhere I’ve driven in Texas.  I DID come across one sign (left) that APPEARED to be an instance of this law being in effect, but, it’s not a school zone — it’s just a crosswalk. And it’s not even a school — it’s a church!

I’m thinking that the city (or highway department, or whoever) put this sign up thinking that they were exercising their right, as guaranteed by the new law — but, the law only applies to ’school zones’! Now, maybe, the city council made some decision not related to the new Texas law, and decided to allow these signs on just any ol’ crosswalk, but I doubt it. I think they are just placing a sign where it’s not applicable. Good idea? Yes! Enforcable? Probably not.

Anyhow… I DO think it’s an excellent idea to have such a law within school zones. Drivers can be really inattentive at times, only complicated by trying to talk on the phone or send a text. Surely, drivers can refrain from using their phones for the duration of driving through a school zone.

I hope I start to see more signs like this (in school zones). And, I say sock it to the drivers who ignore this law and pay more attention to their devices than to their driving. A hefty fine would be in order, just like any other infraction in a school zone.

Drive safely, especially in school zones, and be on the lookout for these new signs.