Speeding Ticket From Only a Visual Estimation, in Arizona

[cyr0n_k0r]

What is the name of your state?
Arizona

Summary:

Traveling at night (midnight - 1am)
Black car (2 door scion tc)
Officer outside of car talking with another officer on opposite side of road
(our roads here are 3 lanes each way, with a 20-30 foot medium filled with rocks, grass, small shrubs, etc)
I was in the very far right hand lane, while the officer was in the very far left hand lane parked on the side of the road.
I was in front of traffic (traffic only 2 seconds behind me) Clear roads ahead.
NO Radar, NO Lidar, NO Pace. ONLY visual estimation.

Officer pulls me over a mile down the road saying he visually estimated my speed at 60+ in a posted 45. I disagree.

Obviously I'll be fighting it as I was only going 45 ish. maybe a little faster because I was in front of traffic, but certainly not 60+.

Any advice?

 

[Zigner]

So your rebuttal to the State's expert testimony is: I'm not sure exactly how fast I was going, but it couldn't have been 60.

 

[cyr0n_k0r]

So your rebuttal to the State's expert testimony is: I'm not sure exactly how fast I was going, but it couldn't have been 60.

No, my rebuttal is to prove that the officer being across 6 lanes of traffic, at night, and stationary, with only 3 or 4 seconds to acquire speed is no an "expert" by any stretch.

I just spoke with the officer who does the training for speed detection in my town and he said officers are only required to get an 80% accuracy across 20 consecutive cars. Pass or Fail on each car can be within 5 Mph of actual speed.

Our roads are 45mph. If he can be off by 5mph that is an 11% error rate per car, times an allowable 20% error rate across the board. Does that sound like an expert?

I was going 45ish which means 45 but speed is not constant unless your on curise control. Even then there is a margin of error. I was right around 45 and nowhere near 60.

 

[Zigner]

No, my rebuttal is to prove that the officer being across 6 lanes of traffic, at night, and stationary, with only 3 or 4 seconds to acquire speed is no an "expert" by any stretch.

I just spoke with the officer who does the training for speed detection in my town and he said officers are only required to get an 80% accuracy across 20 consecutive cars. Pass or Fail on each car can be within 5 Mph of actual speed.

Our roads are 45mph. If he can be off by 5mph that is an 11% error rate per car, times an allowable 20% error rate across the board. Does that sound like an expert?

I was going 45ish which means 45 but speed is not constant unless your on curise control. Even then there is a margin of error. I was right around 45 and nowhere near 60.

Ok, go to court and say what you just said. However, your math is getting fuzzy. What you meant to say is that there was an 80% chance you were actually driving between 55 and 65 miles per hour.

 

[The Occultist]

OP, please allow me to point out the fatal flaw in your plan: when an officer is trained on RADAR, he is actually being trained to visually estimate speeds. As long as he has been properly trained for RADAR, he does not have to actually use RADAR for a court to accept his expert testimony. I live in AZ and have not yet seen a judge not accept such a testimony, except when it was shown the officer did not actually have any training.

 

[seven53]

Here in Ohio, if I wrote a ticket for a visual estimation of speed, the judge would probably take me back to his chambers and hit me in the gut for wasting his time. Fight it.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

thats great, except, OP is not in Ohio, he is in AZ

 

[The Occultist]

Here in Ohio, if I wrote a ticket for a visual estimation of speed, the judge would probably take me back to his chambers and hit me in the gut for wasting his time. Fight it.

As Veronica pointed out, what happens in Ohio doesn't mean a lick as to what happens in AZ. FACT: judges in AZ will accept visual estimation from officers with the proper RADAR training. A highly experienced traffic attorney MIGHT be able to get it thrown out I suppose, but I haven't seen it happen yet.

 

[cyr0n_k0r]

Visual Estimation is worthless. If it is so reliable, why are officers TRAINED to use a radar device as a check and balance against their visual estimation?
Because visual estimation is not reproduceable. And it varies between officers. The same exact conditions can never be recreated for a visual estimation. Right there is a fundemental flaw.

Besides that, I am reviewing for my court date tomorrow morning and I noticed the officer wrote the wrong color of my car on the ticket. He swore on the affidavit of charge that I was driving (he pulled over) a silver car. I in fact drive a black car and can prove through dealership records that I had a black car both before and after I got the ticket. (just in case they try and say I painted it)

Plus, I just apply the math as seen here
http://www.jesbeard.com/s12.htm
and I will be dropping a baseball and basketball in court and asking the officer to "visually estimate" the speed of them. I will then apply his answer to the mathmatically proven number and figure his error rate. Then apply that error rate to the ratios obtained by dividing the numbers in the table by my accused speed (60Mph) and I show the court the officer is off by x number of MPH. The higher the better.

Now then, what have I just proved?

I have cast doubt on the fact the officer even pulled over the correct car. I have also shown his visual estimation skills to be shotty at best.

The judge MUST rule on the FACTS of the case. Not whether or not he is pissed off I am accusing a police officer of lying on a ticket and questioning his ability to preform his job.

 

[Zigner]

Plus, I just apply the math as seen here
http://www.jesbeard.com/s12.htm
and I will be dropping a baseball and basketball in court and asking the officer to "visually estimate" the speed of them.

Absolutely irrelevant. Now, if you wanted to do that to test the accuracy of a pitching scout...

EDIT:
I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you actually made me laugh out loud on this one!

 

[cyr0n_k0r]

It's not irrelevant at all Zigner. If you can cast doubt on the accuracy of an officers ability to visually estimate speed then it will only help your case.

Add to that the fact he wrote the wrong vehicle color on the ticket. Silver is no where close to black.

And finally, the entire point is moot because I went to court this morning and the officer didn't even show up. The judge even gave him an extra 15 minutes.

 

[Zigner]

It's not irrelevant at all Zigner. If you can cast doubt on the accuracy of an officers ability to visually estimate speed then it will only help your case.

Add to that the fact he wrote the wrong vehicle color on the ticket. Silver is no where close to black.

And finally, the entire point is moot because I went to court this morning and the officer didn't even show up. The judge even gave him an extra 15 minutes.

It IS irrelevant - estimating the speed of a baseball over a 5 foot fall is no where near the same as estimating the speed of a car on a road. And, for all you know, maybe the officer already read up on your little "trick", so he'd know the answer

But, congrats on your luck

 

[The Occultist]

You did get lucky, good for you.

BUT, I wish to point out something that's flawed in your logic about visual estimation being worthless. Your reason was that it's not reproduceable? Tell me, how is RADAR reproduceable? You do know RADAR doesn't print anything out that the officer brings to court, right? If you think about it, an officer can put down RADAR as his method without actually using it, and who's going to know what he did? THAT is why visual estimation is indeed accepted in Arizona, regardless of what your lack of knowledge leads you to believe.