We don’t need no stinkin’ radar

We don’t need no stinkin’ radar

We’ve all heard about gotcha journalism; now Ohio has gotcha jurisprudence.

Mark Jenney was arrested for speeding in Copley, near Akron, by police officer Christopher R. Santimarion, who said he clocked Jenney on radar traveling 83 mph in a 60 mph zone.

Santimarion ticketed Jenney for going 79 in a 60 zone, which he later said was a break for the motorist, because if the speed is 20 mph over the limit, the driver has to appear in court.

At that point, most of us would pay the ticket and resolve to be more careful. But Jenny argued that he wasn’t speeding, and he went to court to challenge it.

Oops, no certificate

When the arresting officer couldn’t produce his certification for operating the radar equipment with which Jenney was clocked, he probably thought he had won. Indeed, the judge threw out the radar evidence, but said that because Santimarion was a trained, experienced police officer who was also certified in visually estimating a vehicle’s speed, he was finding Jenney guilty of going 70 mph in a 60 mph zone. The fine was $50 and costs. Gotcha.

Jenney appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and last week, in a 5-1 decision, the court ruled in favor of the cop’s well-trained eye. Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Only Justice Terrence O’Donnell seemed to think that when an officer goes to court citing radar evidence and then can’t back it up, he shouldn’t be able to fall back on, “I could see he was speeding.”

The law ought to be more precise than: Radar said you were going 83, but the traffic cop wrote you up for 79 and the judge decided you must have been going 70 anyway.

Otherwise, court is just a game of gotcha.