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.

Drivers can get tickets or even go to jail for going too fast on the roads, but one local sheriff in Rogers, Arkansas was able to get off without being ticketed even after being pulled over for speeding.

Benton County Sheriff Keith Ferguson was pulled over for going too fast on May 1 at North Second and Easy streets in Rogers. He was going 60mph in a 35mph zone at around 1a.m. That was enough for Rogers police Officer Aaron Dildy to make a traffic stop.

Police dashcam video showed Ferguson producing his ID and registration just like anybody else. But Dildy only issued the sheriff a warning citation, which Ferguson actually refused to accept.

Ferguson told us he never identified himself as a police officer, so that couldn’t have influenced the traffic stop. Ferguson said, “If he would have wrote me a ticket I would have paid the ticket but I wasn’t going to ask him to write me a ticket.

Rogers Chief of Police Steve Hamilton told us the situation played out exactly like it should have. Hamilton said, “Receiving a warning is pretty much a standard practice. I think what an officer is looking for is compliance.”

This isn’t the first time this has happened. In 2006 Ferguson was pulled over by Bentonville police. That time Ferguson drove away from the officer before he was even told he could leave. Hamilton also said there’s a possibility Dildy didn’t know who Ferguson was at the time of the stop.

Hmmm… Driving 60 mph in a 35 mph zone at night warrants a warning?! Yea… Right!

If you drive through Hopkinton, RI, keep this in mind: The officers you see are each required to write 20 traffic tickets per month, “more or less,” under a new Police Department policy.

Excuses, like being busy doing something else, or having taken vacation days, “are not acceptable,” Lt. Daniel C. Baruti said in a March 3 internal e-mail that spells out the policy.

Drivers who think they have been ticketed unfairly often suspect that they were cited because of a police quota rather than their driving. The police almost universally deny that quotas exist.

The e-mail says, in bold, italic type, “Do not forward this e-mail.”

Baruti, Police Chief John S. Scuncio and Town Manager William A. DiLibero acknowledged Hopkinton’s policy after The Journal obtained a copy of the e-mail.

However, they denied that it amounts to a ticket quota. Instead, the lieutenant described the numerical goal as a “target.” He said he was surprised that the term “quota” has popped up. “I didn’t even think of the word ‘quota’ ” until a sergeant brought it up, he said.

Baruti and the other local officials said that the policy is a management tool intended to make the police more productive. Although it has drawn some criticism, Baruti said, the policy is legal and that they have no intention of abandoning it.

The practical effect, Baruti said, “is that somebody who offended and might have gotten off, won’t get off and will get a ticket after all.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The following is an article I came across on an Associated Press feed:

The mayor of Warren, Michigan says a warning wasn’t enough after he was stopped for speeding. So he asked for a ticket instead — and got it. Warren Mayor Jim Fouts was pulled over Monday on the way to City Hall for going 45 mph in a 40 mph zone. The officer told him to watch it next time.

Fouts says he was uncomfortable the entire day with just a warning, thinking it might be construed as favoritism. So he called the deputy police commissioner and demanded the ticket.

Police delivered it to Fouts’ office and Fouts paid the $100 fine.

Fouts told The Detroit News that he “had to set an example.”

He had to “set an example”?! An example of what? How to be a numb nut? He was doing 5 mph over the limit. A warning is what was appropriate; and, he demanded a ticket. The cop probably didn’t even know he was the mayor.