Summary
This Ohio appellate court opinion affirms a defendant's conviction for speeding after he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellant argued that his conviction improperly relied on an officer's unaided visual estimation of speed, which is prohibited by statute. The court found that the officer also used radar and a pacing method to verify the vehicle's speed, meaning the statutory prohibition did not apply. Consequently, the court overruled the appellant's single assignment of error and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by upholding a conviction based on a peace officer's unaided visual estimation of speed in violation of R.C. 4511.091(C)(1).
- Whether the use of radar and a speedometer falls within the statutory exception to R.C. 4511.091(C)(1).
Holdings
- The conviction is affirmed because R.C. 4511.091(C)(1) does not preclude the use of a radar, laser, stopwatch, or other electronic device, and the officer’s use of radar and speedometer satisfies the statutory exception.
Key quotations
“I visually estimated the speed and verified with – a track speed‑measuring device.” (¶ 5)
Factual background
Sergeant Brandon L. McCroskey observed Thompson traveling 93 mph in a 55‑mph zone on State Route 4 and determined the speed using both his visual estimate and a radar/speedometer pacing method. Thompson was convicted of a minor misdemeanor speeding violation and fined $50 plus costs.
Procedural history
The trial court convicted Thompson of speeding under R.C. 4511.21(D)(1) based on the officer's visual estimate supplemented by radar and speedometer readings. Thompson appealed, raising one assignment of error that the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence because it relied on an unaided visual estimate.