Despite ruling, police keeping radar guns

June 4, 2010 at 12:00a.m.

Associated Press

COLUMBUS

Police agencies won’t be retiring their radar guns just because the Ohio Supreme Court says an officer’s guesstimate of how fast a motorist is driving can be enough to justify a speeding conviction, law-enforcement officials said.

In a 5-1 ruling, the state’s highest court said independent verification of a driver’s speed is not necessary if the officer is trained, certified by a training academy and experienced in watching for speeders.

“I would not expect law enforcement to change their techniques as a result of this ruling,” said Ted Hart, a spokesman for the Ohio attorney general’s office. Officers rarely issue speeding tickets based solely on an observation but typically rely on speed readings from radar or laser devices, Hart said Thursday.

State patrol troopers are trained to estimate speed from what they see but use technology to back up their judgments, and that will continue while the Supreme Court’s decision is reviewed, said Sgt. Max Norris II, a patrol spokesman.

“If the visual estimation does not match the radar, then no enforcement action is taken,” Norris said.

Wednesday’s decision upheld the speeding conviction of Akron-area motorist Mark Jenney, who was ticketed in July 2008 for driving 70 mph in a 60-mph zone. A police officer’s personal estimate of Jenney’s speed had been relied upon because a court threw out radar evidence that may have picked up on a passing truck rather than Jenney’s car.

“I think this ruling stinks,” said Jenney’s attorney, John Kim. The Supreme Court was essentially telling cities to throw out their radar guns and write more tickets, he said.

But Michelle Banbury, the Barberton assistant city prosecutor who tried the case, said it’s unlikely police officers will do anything differently.

“The court is still going to require officers to give credible testimony and to be trained properly,” Banbury said. “[The ruling] affirms practices that have gone on for years.”

Hart, with the attorney general’s office, noted that the ruling still gives the final word on speeding convictions to a judge, jury or other neutral party.